Threadripper PRO 7945WX vs EPYC 9654
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 6 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.36 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.91 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Genoa (2022−2023) | Storm Peak (2023) |
| Release date | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) | 19 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,805 | $1,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX 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 | 96 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm, 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 2x 71 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | 13,140 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX 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) | 360 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX. 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 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 6 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 November 2022 | 19 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 12 |
| Threads | 192 | 24 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 350 Watt |
EPYC 9654 has 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads.
Threadripper PRO 7945WX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and 2.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation processor while Threadripper PRO 7945WX is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9654 and Threadripper PRO 7945WX, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
