Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX vs EPYC 9684X
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9684X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX by a moderate 10% 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 | 17 | 20 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 13.89 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 7.31 | 7.61 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Genoa-X (2023) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (2 years ago) | 23 July 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,756 | $4,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 69350% better value for money than EPYC 9684X.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9684X and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1152 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 4x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 135,240 million | 33,260 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9684X and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX 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) | 400 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9684X and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX. 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 9684X and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9684X and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX. 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 9684X and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.
| 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 | 69.55 | 63.34 |
| Recency | 13 June 2023 | 23 July 2025 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 32 |
| Threads | 192 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 350 Watt |
EPYC 9684X has a 9.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 14.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between AMD EPYC 9684X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
