AMD EPYC 9845 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Comparison

# AMD EPYC 9845 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

The data presents a fascinating contrast between two flagship AMD processors aimed at different corners of the high-performance market. The EPYC 9845, a 160-core Turin-based server monster, and the Threadripper PRO 9995WX, a 96-core Shimada Peak workstation champion, split their benchmark wins nearly down the middle, with the Threadripper taking 10 wins to the EPYC's 7. The average benchmark scores tell the broader story: the EPYC 9845 posts a 523,613 average against the Threadripper's 412,068, a 27.1% gap that reflects the raw throughput advantage of 64 additional cores, yet the Threadripper's superior single-thread performance and clock speeds make it the more versatile processor in many real-world scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the Threadripper PRO 9995WX's clean sweep of every Cinebench test. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Threadripper wins both multi-core and single-core by a consistent 12.5% margin. The R23 multi-core score of 148,601 versus the EPYC's 130,037 is particularly notable, as it demonstrates that the Threadripper's 96 cores at a 2.50 GHz base clock can outpace the EPYC's 160 cores at a 2.10 GHz base in rendering workloads. The single-core R23 result of 20,979 versus 18,358 reinforces this, with the Threadripper's 5.40 GHz boost clock providing a decisive edge that the EPYC's 3.70 GHz boost cannot match.

The EPYC 9845 fights back decisively in compute-heavy PassMark workloads. The data encryption test shows the EPYC at 296,808 versus the Threadripper's 206,662, a massive 43.6% advantage. Integer math tells a similar story, with the EPYC scoring 1,687,531 against 1,203,634, a 40.2% lead. Floating-point math follows suit at 978,377 versus 725,066, a 34.9% margin. These results indicate that the EPYC's 320 threads provide overwhelming parallel throughput for encryption, cryptographic workloads, and numerical computation that scales with thread count.

Data compression and random string sorting are also EPYC victories, with the EPYC scoring 4,680,013 versus 3,723,652 in compression (a 25.7% lead) and 538,060 versus 418,973 in string sorting (a 28.4% lead). The physics test shows a 16.4% EPYC advantage at 19,631 versus 16,860. The extended instructions test rounds out the EPYC's wins at 314,798 versus 270,647, a 16.3% margin.

The Threadripper takes the remaining benchmarks beyond Cinebench. The PassMark single-thread test shows a massive 30.8% Threadripper advantage at 4,542 versus 3,144, reflecting its much higher boost clock and larger per-core L1 cache. The find prime numbers test gives the Threadripper a 15% win at 1,476 versus 1,255. The PassMark multi-thread test goes to the Threadripper at 171,200 versus 152,985, a 10.6% margin that is surprising given the EPYC's 320 threads, but which aligns with the Cinebench results showing the Threadripper's overall multi-core efficiency advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The EPYC 9845 is built on the Zen 5c architecture with the codename Turin, fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process node. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX uses full Zen 5 architecture with the codename Shimada Peak, on TSMC's 4 nm node. The 3 nm process gives the EPYC a density advantage, allowing 160 cores and 320 threads in the same power envelope context, while the 4 nm Threadripper uses a more conventional design with larger per-core resources.

Core counts differ dramatically: the EPYC has 160 cores versus the Threadripper's 96, and 320 threads versus 192 threads. Base clocks favor the Threadripper at 2.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks show an even larger gap at 5.40 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. The Threadripper carries a 350 W TDP, while the EPYC has a 390 W TDP, meaning the EPYC packs 64 additional cores into just 40 additional watts of thermal headroom.

Cache configurations reveal distinct design philosophies. The EPYC uses a per-core L1 of 80 KB, while the Threadripper uses 64 KB per core. Both share 1 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache is where the Threadripper gains a notable advantage: 384 MB shared versus the EPYC's 320 MB shared. This larger L3, combined with the higher clocks, helps explain the Threadripper's single-thread and Cinebench dominance. The Threadripper also lists its transistor count at 99,780 million across 12 dies of 70.6 mm² each, while the EPYC does not disclose transistor or die size data.

Memory subsystems differ substantially. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the Threadripper uses eight-channel DDR5 at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is identical at Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, and neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC does not.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9845 is the clear winner for server-side, throughput-oriented workloads that scale linearly with core count. Data encryption shows its largest margin at 43.6% over the Threadripper, making it the obvious choice for cryptographic operations, secure communications infrastructure, and database encryption workloads. Integer math at 40.2% ahead and floating-point math at 34.9% ahead position the EPYC as the superior processor for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload that can saturate 320 threads. Data compression at 25.7% and random string sorting at 28.4% also favor the EPYC, suggesting advantages in data warehousing, log processing, and large-scale data transformation tasks. The physics test at 16.4% and extended instructions at 16.3% round out the EPYC's strengths in simulation and specialized instruction sets.

The Threadripper PRO 9995WX wins where clock speed and per-core performance matter most. The 30.8% single-thread advantage makes it the better choice for legacy applications, interactive workloads, and software that cannot utilize more than a few cores. The Cinebench sweep across all three versions, with a consistent 12.5% margin, indicates that rendering engines and creative applications like video editing and 3D animation benefit from the Threadripper's higher clocks and larger L3 cache. The PassMark multi-thread score at 10.6% ahead is significant because it suggests that even in heavily threaded scenarios, the Threadripper's architecture delivers better real-world performance per thread, likely due to its full Zen 5 cores versus the Zen 5c dense cores in the EPYC. The find prime numbers result at 15% ahead further confirms the Threadripper's advantage in latency-sensitive, memory-bound integer workloads.

The memory bandwidth difference is worth noting: the EPYC's 576.0 GB/s versus the Threadripper's 409.6 GB/s gives the EPYC a theoretical advantage in memory-intensive server workloads, yet the Threadripper still wins in most latency-sensitive tests. This suggests that the Threadripper's larger L3 cache and higher clocks compensate for its narrower memory bus in many scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, compared to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX's 96 cores and 192 threads.

Q: Why does the Threadripper PRO 9995WX win all Cinebench tests despite having fewer cores?

A: The Threadripper has a 2.50 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 2.10 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. It also has a larger L3 cache of 384 MB versus 320 MB, which helps in rendering workloads that benefit from higher per-core performance.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Threadripper PRO 9995WX leads by 30.8% with a score of 4,542 versus the EPYC's 3,144. The largest EPYC advantage is in data encryption, where it leads by 43.6% at 296,808 versus 206,662.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The EPYC 9845 uses twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher typical power draw?

A: The EPYC 9845 has a TDP of 390 watts, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX has a TDP of 350 watts, despite the EPYC having 64 more cores.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: Both use Zen 5 architecture, but the EPYC 9845 uses the Zen 5c variant with the codename Turin on a 3 nm process, while the Threadripper uses full Zen 5 with the codename Shimada Peak on a 4 nm process.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD EPYC 9845 is the pick for server deployments and high-throughput computing where core count and memory bandwidth are paramount. Its 43.6% lead in data encryption, 40.2% lead in integer math, and 34.9% lead in floating-point math make it the superior choice for cloud infrastructure, database servers, scientific computing clusters, and any workload that can effectively utilize 320 threads. The twelve-channel memory system with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth provides the memory throughput needed to feed those cores in data-intensive applications.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the better workstation processor. Its 12.5% Cinebench advantage across every version, 30.8% single-thread lead, and 10.6% PassMark multi-thread win demonstrate that it offers better performance for creative professionals, engineers, and researchers running rendering, simulation, and development workloads. The higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz and larger L3 cache of 384 MB translate directly into snappier interactive performance and faster completion times for software that relies on fewer, faster cores. The unlocked multiplier also offers overclocking potential that the EPYC lacks.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload characteristics. If the software scales perfectly with thread count and the environment is a server room, the EPYC 9845's 27.1% higher average benchmark score makes it the data-driven choice. If the workloads include a mix of single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks in a workstation setting, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX's balanced performance profile, capped by its dominant single-thread showing, makes it the more practical daily driver. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $13,564, while the Threadripper's launch MSRP is $11,700, a difference that aligns with their respective market positions.