Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX vs EPYC 9275F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9275F
2024
24 cores / 48 threads, 320 Watt
47.95
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX
2025
24 cores / 48 threads, 350 Watt
54.54
+13.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX outperforms EPYC 9275F by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking4735
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation13.3018.80
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency6.306.55
DesignerAMDAMD
ManufacturerTSMCTSMC
Architecture codenameTurin (2024)Shimada Peak (2025)
Release date10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)23 July 2025 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,439$2,899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX has 41% better value for money than EPYC 9275F.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads4848
Base clock speed4.1 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.8 GHz5.4 GHz
L1 cache80 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography4 nm4 nm
Die size8x 70.6 mm24x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors66,520 million33,260 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration21
SocketSP5sTR5
Power consumption (TDP)320 Watt350 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes128136

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating.

EPYC 9275F 47.95
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX 54.54
+13.7%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

EPYC 9275F 83835
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX 95346
+13.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 47.95 54.54
Recency 10 October 2024 23 July 2025
Power consumption (TDP) 320 Watt 350 Watt

EPYC 9275F has 9.4% lower power consumption.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX, on the other hand, has a 13.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 9275F in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 9275F
EPYC 9275F
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


5 1 vote

Rate EPYC 9275F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.