AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a remarkably one-sided picture. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX claims 16 wins, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X manages a single victory. The margin in most Cinebench tests is striking and consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 5996 against Intel's 4463, a 34.3% advantage. That exact delta repeats almost identically in R15 single-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, with the gap hovering between 34.3% and 34.4% across all six tests. It is rare to see such uniform dominance across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The single-core story is particularly telling. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD posts 8399 versus Intel's 6250, again a 34.4% lead. PassMark single-thread confirms the pattern: 4530 versus 3300, a 37.3% gap. This is not a case where one chip wins on thread count while the other wins on per-core speed; AMD appears to hold both advantages in these measured tests.

The largest single delta appears in PassMark physics, where AMD scores 4156 against Intel's 2222, an 87% advantage. That is an enormous margin and suggests the AMD part's per-core efficiency translates directly into simulation and physics workloads. Prime number finding also favors AMD heavily: 337 versus 218, a 54.6% lead. Data compression shows a 16.6% edge (920954 versus 789817), and extended instructions land at 22.2% ahead (76363 versus 62498). Random string sorting favors AMD by 28% (99813 versus 77986), and multithread performance shows a 28.7% gap (67035 versus 52091). Integer math is closer but still AMD-favored: 236120 versus 219924, a 7.4% margin. Data encryption shows a 13% lead (44389 versus 39295).

The Intel win comes in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 171427 against AMD's 156215, an 8.9% advantage. That is the sole bright spot for the Xeon in this matchup, and it is a meaningful one for workloads dominated by floating-point arithmetic. Still, the overall pattern is unambiguous: the AMD part dominates in rendering, compression, encryption, physics, and single-threaded tasks, while Intel holds a narrow but real edge in one specific math category.

Architecture Differences

The underlying designs diverge sharply. AMD's Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the codename Shimada Peak. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads. Intel's Xeon w7-2575X uses Sapphire Rapids silicon on Intel's 10 nm process, with 22 cores and 44 threads. Notably, the Intel part has more cores and threads, yet it loses the multi-core benchmarks decisively, which points to a substantial per-core performance gap between the two designs.

Cache hierarchies also differ. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 45 MB of L3. The larger L3 pool on the AMD side likely contributes to its compression and sorting wins, where working sets benefit from larger on-die storage.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. AMD uses eight-channel DDR5 with a rated bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. Intel uses quad-channel DDR5 with 153.6 GB/s. That is a 2.67x bandwidth advantage for AMD, which helps explain its strong showing in data compression and multithreaded workloads. Both support ECC memory, and both lack integrated graphics.

PCIe connectivity also favors AMD: 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 64 Gen 5 lanes. For workstation expansion, that difference is substantial. The AMD part is listed as a desktop market segment product, while Intel's is classified as server/workstation. Both have unlocked multipliers. The process node difference (4 nm versus 10 nm) is likely a major factor in the per-core performance gap, as is the newer Zen 5 microarchitecture compared to Sapphire Rapids.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X has 22 cores and 44 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Does the AMD chip win in every Cinebench test?

A: Yes. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in single-core and multi-core), the AMD part wins with deltas between 34.3% and 34.4%.

Q: Is there any test where Intel wins?

A: Intel wins PassMark floating point math, scoring 171427 versus AMD's 156215, an 8.9% edge.

Q: How much faster is AMD in single-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread, AMD scores 4530 versus Intel's 3300, a 37.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD leads 8399 to 6250, a 34.4% gap.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: AMD provides 409.6 GB/s via eight-channel DDR5, while Intel provides 153.6 GB/s via quad-channel DDR5.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: AMD offers 128 Gen 5 lanes, while Intel offers 64 Gen 5 lanes.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. AMD uses 16 cores and 32 threads; Intel uses 22 cores and 44 threads. AMD's base clock is 4.50 GHz and boost clock is 5.40 GHz; Intel's base clock is 3.00 GHz and boost clock is 4.80 GHz. AMD's TDP is 350 watts; Intel's is 250 watts. AMD uses Socket sTR5; Intel uses Socket 4677. AMD's architecture is Zen 5 with codename Shimada Peak; Intel's architecture is not listed, but its codename is Sapphire Rapids. AMD's process node is 4 nm from TSMC; Intel's is 10 nm from Intel.

AMD's L1 cache is 64 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core, and L3 is 64 MB; Intel's L1 is 80 KB per core, L2 is 2 MB per core, and L3 is 45 MB. AMD uses eight-channel memory; Intel uses quad-channel. AMD's memory bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s; Intel's is 153.6 GB/s. AMD has 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes; Intel has 64. AMD's release date is 2025-07-22; Intel's is 2024-08-23. AMD's part number is 100-000000725; Intel's is SRN4D. AMD's launch MSRP is $1649; Intel's is $1689.

The Verdict

The data strongly favors the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX for most workloads. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all rendering benchmarks, all single-threaded tests, and the majority of PassMark workloads. Its average benchmark score stands at 101041, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, while Intel's average is 88172, in the 96th percentile. The AMD part sits between its nearest rivals, the AMD EPYC 7513 (102244, 1.2% higher) and the AMD EPYC 4585PX (99324, 1.7% lower). Intel's Xeon w7-2575X sits between the Intel Xeon 6736P (87864, 0.4% lower) and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 (90541, 2.6% higher).

The core-count inversion is notable: Intel has more cores and threads, yet loses multi-core tests by roughly 34%. This indicates that the AMD architecture delivers substantially more performance per core, likely due to the 4 nm process and Zen 5 design. The AMD part also offers far more memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes, which matters for data-heavy workstation tasks.

However, the Intel part is not without merit. Its 250 watt TDP is 100 watts lower than AMD's 350 watt figure, which could simplify cooling requirements in dense systems. Its floating point math win suggests that certain scientific or simulation workloads may prefer the Intel design. The Intel part also launched earlier, in August 2024 versus July 2025.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins in rendering, compression, encryption, physics, prime number finding, integer math, multithreaded throughput, random string sorting, and all single-threaded tests. Its 34.4% lead across Cinebench makes it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that relies heavily on CPU compute. The 87% physics advantage and 54.6% prime number lead suggest particular strength in scientific simulation and computational mathematics. The memory bandwidth advantage (409.6 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s) and larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 45 MB) likely drive its wins in data compression and sorting.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins in floating point math, where its 8.9% edge could matter for specific engineering, financial, or scientific applications that are heavily floating-point bound. Its lower TDP (250 watts versus 350 watts) may be an operational consideration for multi-socket or power-constrained environments. Its earlier release date could matter for procurement cycles that require an established platform.

For a workstation user prioritizing raw throughput across a broad mix of tasks, the AMD part wins decisively. For a user with a specific floating-point-heavy workload and a preference for lower power draw, the Intel part offers a narrower but real advantage. The data does not support a general recommendation for Intel in this matchup, but it does show that the Xeon remains competitive in at least one measurable dimension.