Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX vs EPYC 9275F
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX outperforms EPYC 9275F by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 47 | 35 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.30 | 18.80 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 6.30 | 6.55 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| Release date | 10 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 cores | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 4x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | 33,260 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 configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | sTR5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 350 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 types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 136 |
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.
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.
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.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
