AMD EPYC 9455P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark records show a clear split between the two processors. The AMD EPYC 9455P wins the majority of the head-to-head comparisons, taking 8 of the 11 recorded tests, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X secures 3 wins. The most dramatic margin belongs to the EPYC 9455P in the physics test, where it scores 17,315 against the Threadripper's 6,835, a difference of 60.5%. This is a massive gap that indicates the EPYC's advantage in heavily parallel, compute-intensive workloads.

The EPYC 9455P also demonstrates strong leads in several other multi-threaded tasks. In the find prime numbers test, it scores 1,107 compared to 615 for the Threadripper, a 44.4% advantage. Integer math shows the EPYC ahead by 23.2%, with scores of 606,239 versus 465,378. Data encryption is another clear EPYC win, scoring 115,403 against 86,765, a 24.8% margin. The floating point math test also favors the EPYC, with 357,783 versus 309,719, a 13.4% difference. Random string sorting goes to the EPYC by 21.1% (242,701 vs. 191,445), and even the multithread score, which represents overall parallel performance, favors the EPYC at 116,927 versus 107,399, an 8.1% edge. Data compression is closer, but the EPYC still wins by 8.9% with 1,928,897 versus 1,757,998.

The Threadripper 9970X, however, is not without its own victories. Its most significant win comes in single-thread performance, where it scores 4,530 versus the EPYC's 3,745, a commanding 21% lead. This is a substantial difference that highlights the Threadripper's higher boost clock and desktop-oriented design. The Threadripper also wins the extended instructions test, scoring 142,342 versus 137,485, a modest 3.5% advantage. These wins show that while the EPYC dominates in raw throughput, the Threadripper retains an edge in latency-sensitive and single-core workloads.

The average benchmark score in the database further contextualizes these results. The Threadripper 9970X has an average score of 279,778, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6780E at 280,438 (a 0.2% difference) and the AMD EPYC 9565 at 285,471 (a 2% difference). The EPYC 9455P, on the other hand, has an average score of 217,854, also in the 99th percentile, with rivals like the Intel Xeon w9-3595X at 209,881 (3.8% behind) and the Intel Xeon 6747P at 238,263 (8.6% ahead). These figures show that both processors are elite performers, but the Threadripper's nearest rivals are higher-scoring parts, while the EPYC's rivals are lower-scoring, reflecting their different market positions.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture, but they diverge significantly in their implementation. The Ryzen Threadripper 9970X uses the Shimada Peak codename and is part of the 9000 series, while the EPYC 9455P uses the Turin codename and belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process node, but the similarities end there in terms of die composition. The Threadripper uses 4x 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 33,260 million transistors, while the EPYC uses 8x 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 66,520 million transistors. This doubling of compute dies explains the EPYC's higher core count and thread count: 48 cores and 96 threads versus the Threadripper's 32 cores and 64 threads.

Cache configurations also differ notably. The Threadripper has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC has a larger L1 at 80 KB per core, the same 1 MB per core L2, and a much larger 256 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger L3 cache, combined with the extra cores, contributes to the EPYC's advantages in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

Memory support is another major architectural differentiator. The Threadripper supports DDR5 memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC, in contrast, supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for server workloads that access large datasets. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for these market segments.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Threadripper offers Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's additional lanes make it more suitable for systems with many GPUs, NVMe drives, or network cards. The sockets are different as well: the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the EPYC's multiplier is locked. The Threadripper also draws a higher TDP at 350 watts versus the EPYC's 300 watts, though the EPYC delivers more cores and threads within that power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9455P has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Threadripper 9970X scores 4,530 in the passmark single-thread test, which is 21% higher than the EPYC 9455P's score of 3,745.

Q: Which processor offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P offers 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a twelve-channel bus, while the Threadripper 9970X offers 204.8 GB/s over a quad-channel bus.

Q: What are the launch dates for these processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X was released on 2025-07-29, while the AMD EPYC 9455P was released on 2024-10-09.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P supports Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper 9970X supports Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Threadripper 9970X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Threadripper at 4.00 GHz and the EPYC at 3.15 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the Threadripper at 5.40 GHz and the EPYC at 4.40 GHz. The TDP is 350 watts for the Threadripper and 300 watts for the EPYC.

The sockets are different: sTR5 for the Threadripper and SP5 for the EPYC. The codenames are Shimada Peak for the Threadripper and Turin for the EPYC. The transistor counts are 33,260 million for the Threadripper and 66,520 million for the EPYC. The die sizes are 4x 70.6 mm² for the Threadripper and 8x 70.6 mm² for the EPYC.

L1 cache per core is 64 KB for the Threadripper and 80 KB for the EPYC. L3 cache is 128 MB for the Threadripper and 256 MB (shared) for the EPYC. Memory bus width is quad-channel for the Threadripper and twelve-channel for the EPYC. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for the Threadripper and 576.0 GB/s for the EPYC. PCIe lanes are 80 for the Threadripper and 128 for the EPYC. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC does not. The launch MSRP is $2499 for the Threadripper and $4819 for the EPYC. The market segments are Desktop for the Threadripper and Server/Workstation for the EPYC.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of purpose. The AMD EPYC 9455P is the superior choice for any workload that scales with core count, memory bandwidth, or PCIe lane availability. Its 48 cores and 96 threads, combined with 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe lanes, make it the dominant performer in the majority of benchmark tests. The EPYC wins 8 of the 11 head-to-head tests, with particularly large margins in physics (60.5%), prime number finding (44.4%), and integer math (23.2%). For server-side computing, virtualization, database workloads, and any task that can utilize its massive parallel throughput, the EPYC 9455P is the clear winner.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, however, is the better choice for single-threaded performance and latency-sensitive tasks. Its 21% lead in the single-thread test and its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz make it more responsive in lightly threaded applications. The Threadripper also has an unlocked multiplier, which allows for overclocking, something the EPYC does not offer. For a workstation user who needs high single-core speed for applications like legacy software, certain simulation tools, or tasks that are not well-parallelized, the Threadripper is the more appropriate pick. Its average benchmark score of 279,778 is also higher than the EPYC's 217,854, indicating that its overall performance in mixed workloads is competitive despite losing the head-to-head count.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9455P wins in all heavy multi-threaded scenarios. Data compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, physics simulation, and random string sorting all favor the EPYC by margins ranging from 8.1% to 60.5%. Its twelve-channel memory bus and 256 MB of L3 cache give it a distinct advantage in workloads that are bandwidth-limited or require large working sets in cache. The EPYC is also the choice for systems that need maximum PCIe expansion, with 128 lanes available.

The Threadripper 9970X wins in single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks. Its 21% lead in single-thread performance is a definitive advantage for applications that rely on one or a few cores. The extended instructions test, which shows a 3.5% lead for the Threadripper, suggests it may have an edge in certain instruction-heavy workloads. The Threadripper's unlocked multiplier also makes it the better option for enthusiasts who want to push clock speeds beyond stock settings. For a desktop workstation where responsiveness and single-core speed are paramount, the Threadripper 9970X is the winner; for a server or workstation that prioritizes raw throughput and scalability, the EPYC 9455P is the winner.