AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes, both are built on Zen 5 architecture with the Shimada Peak codename and use a 4 nm process node from TSMC. Both have the same transistor count of 33,260 million and the same die size of 4x 70.6 mm².

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The 9975WX has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The 9965WX has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and the same 5.40 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which chip has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 9975WX has an average benchmark score of 182700, while the 9965WX scores 147009. The 9975WX is 24.3% higher by that metric.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor wins in the head-to-head benchmark comparison?

A: The 9975WX wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the 9965WX wins 4.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the same Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9000 series family, share the Zen 5 architecture, and carry the Shimada Peak codename. They are fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process node with identical transistor counts of 33,260 million and identical die sizes of 4x 70.6 mm². The socket is the same AMD Socket sTR5 for both, and both are unlocked for multiplier adjustment.

The fundamental architectural difference is the core configuration. The 9975WX deploys 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9965WX uses 24 cores and 48 threads. That means the 9975WX has 33.3% more cores and threads than its sibling. Both chips share the same per-core cache layout: 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The total L3 cache is identical at 128 MB, so the extra cores in the 9975WX do not come with additional shared cache.

Clock behavior differs in a notable way. The 9965WX starts with a higher base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz on the 9975WX. Boost clocks are identical at 5.40 GHz. This means the 9965WX has a frequency advantage at the base level, which can matter in lightly threaded workloads that do not scale with core count. The 9975WX compensates with raw core count in heavily parallel workloads.

Both chips support the same platform features: DDR5 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics, and both target the server and workstation market segment. The production status for both is listed as active, and both were released on the same date. The launch MSRP for the 9975WX is $4099, and for the 9965WX it is $2899.

The part numbers differ: the 9975WX is 100-000000723, and the 9965WX is 100-000000724. Beyond core count, base clock, and price, the two processors are architecturally very close, making the core count and base frequency the primary differentiators in the database's recorded specifications.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in workload suitability. The 9975WX is the stronger choice for multithreaded, throughput-oriented tasks. Its 32 cores and 64 threads produce a 15.5% lead over the 9965WX across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore and singlecore test in the head-to-head comparison. It also wins PassMark floating point math by 32.7%, integer math by 32.2%, data compression by 22.3%, data encryption by 28.5%, extended instructions by 26.6%, random string sorting by 25.7%, and multithread by 13.3%. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 182700 versus 147009, a 24.3% gap in favor of the 9975WX.

The 9965WX is not without its own strengths. It wins the PassMark find prime numbers test by 17.6%, the physics test by 3.2%, and the single-thread test by 3.1%. Its higher base clock of 4.20 GHz compared to 4.00 GHz explains part of this advantage in tests that do not scale with core count. For users running workloads that are latency-sensitive or rely on a few threads, the 9965WX offers a measurable, if modest, edge.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning. The 9975WX sits within 1.3% of the AMD EPYC 8534P, 1.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7763, 2.7% behind the Intel Xeon 6740E, and 3.7% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6740P. The 9965WX is effectively tied with the AMD EPYC 8434P at 0.1% ahead, 0.9% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965, 1.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7643P, and 1.9% ahead of the Intel Xeon w9-3575X. Both chips land in the 98th percentile against all CPUs in the database.

The recommendation from the recorded data is straightforward. Choose the 9975WX for rendering, simulation, compilation, scientific computing, or any workload that can consume 32 cores. Choose the 9965WX for prime number finding, physics simulations, or single-threaded tasks where its 3.1% single-thread advantage and higher base clock provide a tangible benefit. The 9975WX delivers more performance for parallel work; the 9965WX offers a lower core count but a frequency edge in scalar workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a handful of specification fields, since they share the same architecture, process node, cache hierarchy, memory support, and platform features.

• Cores: The 9975WX has 32 cores, the 9965WX has 24 cores.
• Threads: The 9975WX has 64 threads, the 9965WX has 48 threads.
• Base Clock: The 9975WX runs at 4.00 GHz, the 9965WX runs at 4.20 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Both are 5.40 GHz.
• Launch MSRP: The 9975WX is $4099, the 9965WX is $2899.
• Part Number: The 9975WX is 100-000000723, the 9965WX is 100-000000724.
• Average Benchmark Score: The 9975WX scores 182700, the 9965WX scores 147009.
• Nearest Rivals: The 9975WX compares against the AMD EPYC 8534P, AMD EPYC 7763, Intel Xeon 6740E, and Intel Xeon 6740P. The 9965WX compares against the AMD EPYC 8434P, AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965, AMD EPYC 7643P, and Intel Xeon w9-3575X.

All other recorded specifications are identical: 4 nm TSMC process, 33,260 million transistors, 4x 70.6 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 128 MB L3, DDR5 memory support, eight-channel memory bus, 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, ECC memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, active production status, same release date, and unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database records 17 comparisons between the two processors. The 9975WX wins 13 of them, and the 9965WX wins 4.

The largest win for the 9975WX comes in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 304833 against 229685, a 32.7% advantage. Integer math is nearly as lopsided: 461724 versus 349195, a 32.2% lead. Data encryption shows a 28.5% gap (85035 versus 66155), and extended instructions comes in at 26.6% (137733 versus 108753). Random string sorting favors the 9975WX by 25.7% (188014 versus 149617), and data compression by 22.3% (1644573 versus 1345230).

The Cinebench suite is consistent across the board. The 9975WX leads by exactly 15.5% in all six tests: R15 multicore (9430 versus 8162), R15 singlecore (1331 versus 1152), R20 multicore (39292 versus 34009), R20 singlecore (5546 versus 4801), R23 multicore (93553 versus 80976), and R23 singlecore (13207 versus 11431). The uniformity of that delta suggests the core count difference drives the multicore gains, while the singlecore advantage is a reflection of the 9975WX's overall per-thread performance in the database's measurements. PassMark multithread also goes to the 9975WX by 13.3% (104902 versus 92604).

The 9965WX takes the remaining four tests. Its biggest win is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 752 against 620, a 17.6% margin. That is a notable reversal, since the 9975WX leads in most other PassMark workloads. The physics test goes to the 9965WX by 3.2% (7529 versus 7288), and the single-thread test by 3.1% (4551 versus 4408). The duplicate single-thread entry in the database records the same result: 4551 versus 4408, a 3.1% win for the 9965WX.

The pattern in the data is clear. The 9975WX dominates in throughput-oriented workloads, with its largest margins in floating point and integer math, and its smallest multithread margin at 13.3%. The 9965WX is competitive in scalar or latency-sensitive tests, especially prime number finding where its 17.6% win is the largest margin recorded for either processor in any test. The single-thread and physics wins are narrower, at 3.1% and 3.2% respectively, indicating that the 9965WX's higher base clock provides a real but limited benefit. The average benchmark score difference of 24.3% (182700 versus 147009) captures the overall performance gap, and the 98th percentile ranking for both chips places them firmly at the top of the database's CPU population.