AMD EPYC 9965 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9965 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX represent two distinct approaches to massive x86 compute. The EPYC 9965 is a server-focused behemoth with 192 cores, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX is a workstation-oriented chip with 96 cores. Benchmark data reveals a clear split: the Threadripper wins most Cinebench tests, while the EPYC dominates several Passmark workloads. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 9965 is 620,487, putting it 50.6% ahead of the Threadripper PRO 9995WX, which averages 412,068. Both processors achieve a perfect 100th percentile score against all CPUs in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results consistently favor the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX, with a uniform 8% margin across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Threadripper scores 14,978 against the EPYC’s 13,775; the single-core test shows 2,114 versus 1,944. This pattern repeats in R20, where the Threadripper posts 62,412 multicore and 8,811 single-core, compared to the EPYC’s 57,397 and 8,103. In R23, the Threadripper reaches 148,601 multicore and 20,979 single-core, while the EPYC manages 136,661 and 19,293. The consistency of the 8% delta across these rendering workloads suggests a fundamental per-core advantage for the Threadripper, not a scaling effect.

The Passmark results tell a different story. The EPYC 9965 wins seven of the eleven Passmark tests, often by substantial margins. The largest victory comes in integer math, where the EPYC scores 1,926,069 against the Threadripper’s 1,203,634, a 60% advantage. Floating point math shows a similar gap: 1,153,453 versus 725,066, a 59.1% lead. Data compression favors the EPYC at 5,679,990 versus 3,723,652, a 52.5% margin. Data encryption shows the EPYC ahead by 68.6% (348,449 vs. 206,662). Extended instructions and random string sorting also go to the EPYC, with 41.6% and 51.1% leads respectively.

The Threadripper’s Passmark wins are concentrated in specific areas. The single-thread score of 4,542 is 30.1% higher than the EPYC’s 3,176. The multithread score of 171,200 edges out the EPYC’s 160,542 by 6.2%. The find prime numbers test goes to the Threadripper at 1,476 versus 1,208, an 18.2% lead. The physics test is the only Passmark test where the EPYC wins narrowly, scoring 18,707 against 16,860, an 11% margin. Overall, the Threadripper wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the EPYC wins 7.

Architecture Differences

The core count disparity is stark: the EPYC 9965 packs 192 cores and 384 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX offers 96 cores and 192 threads. Both use the Zen 5 architecture, but the EPYC is built on TSMC’s 3 nm process with the codename Turin, while the Threadripper uses TSMC’s 4 nm process with the codename Shimada Peak. The EPYC has no listed transistor count or die size, whereas the Threadripper lists 99,780 million transistors spread across 12 dies, each 70.6 mm².

Cache configurations differ in the L1 and L3. The EPYC has 80 KB of L1 per core, while the Threadripper has 64 KB per core. Both share 1 MB of L2 per core and 384 MB of L3. Memory architecture diverges significantly: the EPYC uses a twelve-channel DDR5 bus with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the Threadripper uses eight channels at 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe lanes are identical at Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU.

The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC’s TDP is 500 watts, compared to the Threadripper’s 350 watts. Clock speeds favor the Threadripper, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost of 5.40 GHz, versus the EPYC’s 2.25 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC does not. The EPYC was released on 2024-10-09, with the Threadripper following on 2025-07-22.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX wins in all rendering and single-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multicore and single-core, go to the Threadripper by a consistent 8%. The Passmark single-thread test shows a larger 30.1% advantage, and the multithread test gives the Threadripper a 6.2% win. The find prime numbers test also favors the Threadripper by 18.2%. This pattern indicates that the Threadripper is the better choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that relies heavily on single-thread performance or moderate thread scaling.

The AMD EPYC 9965 wins in compute-heavy and data-intensive tasks. Integer math, floating point math, data compression, and data encryption all show the EPYC with leads between 52.5% and 68.6%. Extended instructions and random string sorting also favor the EPYC by 41.6% and 51.1%. The physics test gives the EPYC an 11% win. These results point to the EPYC’s strength in scientific computing, financial modeling, database operations, and any workload that can effectively use its 192 cores.

The benchmark split is clear: the Threadripper leads in tests that reward high clock speeds and efficient per-core execution, while the EPYC leads in tests that scale with raw core count and memory bandwidth. The EPYC’s 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Threadripper’s 409.6 GB/s likely contributes to its wins in memory-sensitive tests like data compression and encryption.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has 192 cores and 384 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has 96 cores and 192 threads.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 multicore scores compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 148,601, which is 8% higher than the EPYC 9965’s 136,661.

Q: Which processor wins in data encryption?

A: The EPYC 9965 wins by 68.6%, scoring 348,449 versus the Threadripper’s 206,662.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 4,542 in the Passmark single-thread test, which is 30.1% higher than the EPYC 9965’s 3,176.

Q: Do both processors have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The EPYC 9965 has twelve-channel memory at 576.0 GB/s, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX has eight-channel memory at 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC 9965 boosts to 3.70 GHz.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear division of labor. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the better choice for users who prioritize raw clock speed and per-core performance. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 30.1% single-thread advantage make it superior for interactive workstation tasks, 3D rendering, and any software that does not scale perfectly across many cores. The consistent 8% lead across all Cinebench tests reinforces this. The Threadripper also benefits from a lower 350-watt TDP and an unlocked multiplier.

The AMD EPYC 9965 is the choice for massive parallel workloads. Its 192 cores deliver a 50.6% higher average benchmark score than the Threadripper, driven by 60% leads in integer math and 59.1% in floating point math. Data compression, encryption, and extended instructions all show 41.6% to 68.6% advantages. The EPYC’s twelve-channel memory at 576.0 GB/s provides substantial bandwidth. Server deployments, large-scale virtualization, and data-intensive scientific computing will favor the EPYC despite its higher 500-watt TDP.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9965 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 192 | 96 |

| Threads | 384 | 192 |

| Base Clock | 2.25 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 500 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Codename | Turin | Shimada Peak |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 99,780 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 12x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 384 MB (shared) | 384 MB |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2025-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | $14813 | $11700 |