AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P land in the same performance neighborhood, with average benchmark scores of 76513 and 76492 respectively, a near-perfect tie. Yet that overall parity hides a stark split: the Threadripper dominates single-thread and Cinebench workloads, while the EPYC wins several PassMark throughput tests. Both sit in the 97th percentile among all CPUs, making this a contest between two very different philosophies of core density versus per-core speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 9945WX wins 12 of the 17 recorded benchmarks, and its margins in single-threaded work are enormous. In passmark_single_thread, it scores 4573 against the EPYC’s 2357 — a 94% advantage. That same gap appears in Cinebench single-core tests: the Threadripper leads by 16.4% in R15 (687 vs 590), by 16.4% in R20 (2865 vs 2462), and by 16.3% in R23 (6822 vs 5864). No other benchmark in the entire comparison comes close to that 94% spread, which signals a fundamental difference in how each chip is designed.

Multi-threaded Cinebench results follow the same pattern, though with smaller margins. The Threadripper posts 4871 in R15 multicore versus 4187 for the EPYC, a 16.3% win. In R20, the gap is again 16.3% (20296 vs 17447), and R23 shows 48325 against 41542, also 16.3%. The consistency of that 16.3% across all three Cinebench versions suggests a steady per-core advantage rather than any workload-specific quirk. PassMark multithread confirms the trend: the Threadripper scores 56854, which is 16.3% ahead of the EPYC’s 48873.

The Threadripper’s lead extends into other CPU-heavy tasks. PassMark physics shows a 48.9% margin (6118 vs 4110), the second-largest win in the dataset. Extended instructions favor the Threadripper by 18% (54406 vs 46091), and find_prime_numbers gives it a 17.1% edge (335 vs 286). These are not marginal victories; they represent a consistent pattern of the Threadripper being decisively faster whenever per-thread performance matters.

The EPYC Embedded 8224P, however, takes five benchmarks, and its wins are concentrated in data-heavy PassMark tests. Data encryption is its biggest victory: 43619 against 36540, a 16.2% margin. Floating point math goes to the EPYC at 120066 versus 111566, a 7.1% lead. Integer math follows with 193256 vs 185421, a 4.1% edge. Data compression shows a slim 1.4% win (681754 vs 671963), and random string sorting is nearly tied at 85505 vs 84498, a 1.2% advantage for the EPYC. These wins are real but smaller than the Threadripper’s single-thread dominance, and they cluster around workloads that scale with core count and memory throughput.

The overall average scores tell the story of a dead heat: 76513 for the Threadripper and 76492 for the EPYC, a delta of 0%. The nearest rivals — the AMD EPYC 4545P at 76433 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX at 76024 (0.6% behind) — are essentially in the same class. This is a matchup where the aggregate hides the split personality of the two chips.

Architecture Differences

The Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the codename Shimada Peak. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The EPYC Embedded 8224P, by contrast, uses Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, codenamed Siena, and offers 24 cores and 48 threads, but with much lower clocks: 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. That clock difference — 5.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz at maximum — explains the Threadripper’s 94% single-thread advantage.

Cache configurations are identical in structure: both have 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Neither has 3D V-Cache. Transistor counts are close, with the Threadripper at 16,630 million and the EPYC at 17,750 million, and die sizes are similar at 2x 70.6 mm² versus 2x 73 mm². The manufacturing process difference (4 nm vs 5 nm) helps the Threadripper achieve higher clocks on a smaller node.

Memory and I/O diverge significantly. The Threadripper supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the EPYC uses six-channel DDR5 at 230.4 GB/s. That bandwidth gap — 409.6 versus 230.4 GB/s — matters for the EPYC’s wins in data compression and encryption, where memory throughput helps. PCIe also differs: the Threadripper offers 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides 96 Gen 5 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, the EPYC uses Socket SP6, and they are not interchangeable. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not. The EPYC launched on 2023-09-17, while the Threadripper has no listed release date.

The Verdict

Choose the Threadripper PRO 9945WX if your workloads depend on per-core speed. The 94% single-thread lead over the EPYC is the single most decisive metric in this comparison, and it carries over to Cinebench, physics, and extended instruction workloads. The 16.3% edge across all Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core, shows that even in parallel tasks the Threadripper’s higher clocks win out despite having half the cores. Its eight-channel memory at 409.6 GB/s also provides more headroom than the EPYC’s six-channel 230.4 GB/s setup. For workstation tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or single-threaded application responsiveness, the data points squarely at the Threadripper.

Choose the EPYC Embedded 8224P if your workloads scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 24 cores and 48 threads double the Threadripper’s thread count, and that density drives its wins in data encryption (16.2% ahead), floating point math (7.1% ahead), and integer math (4.1% ahead). The EPYC also draws less power: its TDP is 160 W versus the Threadripper’s 350 W, which matters for embedded deployments where thermal and power constraints are tighter. The EPYC’s 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are fewer than the Threadripper’s 128, but still substantial for embedded I/O. If your primary tasks are encryption, math-heavy parallel loads, or data compression, the EPYC’s extra cores deliver where the Threadripper’s clock speed cannot compensate.

The average benchmark scores are effectively identical, so the decision rests entirely on workload profile. Neither chip is a clear aggregate winner; they are two solutions tuned for different priorities.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX scores 4573 in passmark_single_thread, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P scores 2357, giving the Threadripper a 94% advantage.

Q: Does the EPYC Embedded 8224P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 5 of 17 benchmarks: data compression (681754 vs 671963), data encryption (43619 vs 36540), floating point math (120066 vs 111566), integer math (193256 vs 185421), and random string sorting (85505 vs 84498).

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, double the thread count.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX averages 76513, and the EPYC Embedded 8224P averages 76492, a delta of 0%.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit in the 97th percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9945WX wins in every Cinebench test, all three versions (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multicore, with consistent 16.3% or 16.4% margins. It also wins passmark_multithread (56854 vs 48873), passmark_physics (6118 vs 4110, a 48.9% lead), passmark_extended_instructions (54406 vs 46091), passmark_find_prime_numbers (335 vs 286), and both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread (4573 vs 2357). These wins cover rendering, physics, instruction-heavy code, and any single-threaded task.

The EPYC Embedded 8224P wins in data compression, data encryption, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting. Its encryption win is the largest at 16.2%, followed by floating point at 7.1% and integer at 4.1%. The compression and sorting wins are narrow, under 1.5%, but they are consistent across data-processing workloads. For embedded deployments handling encrypted data, numerical computation, or bulk data transformation, the EPYC’s extra cores make the difference.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every headline specification. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads. Base clocks are 4.70 GHz versus 2.55 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. TDP is 350 W for the Threadripper and 160 W for the EPYC. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, the EPYC uses Socket SP6. Architecture differs: Zen 5 (Shimada Peak) versus Zen 4c (Siena). Process nodes are 4 nm versus 5 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 16,630 million versus 17,750 million, and die sizes are 2x 70.6 mm² versus 2x 73 mm². Memory bus width differs: eight-channel versus six-channel, with bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s versus 230.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 128 Gen 5 versus 96 Gen 5. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not. The EPYC has a release date of 2023-09-17, while the Threadripper has none listed. Cache is identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and neither has integrated graphics.