EPYC 9275F
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
EPYC 9275F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +15.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,050 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,489 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 62.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 15.2 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,489 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of sWRX8 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
2020Why buy it
- ✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (83,235 vs 84,620).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.2 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,489 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on sWRX8 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9275F better than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
EPYC 9275F
The EPYC 9275F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 July 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: sWRX8. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 83,235 points. Launch price was $5,500.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9275F packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 40 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX — a 13.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9275F (base: 4.1 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses Matisse (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX's 83,235 — a 1.7% lead for the EPYC 9275F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 256 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX.
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 48 | 64 / 128+167% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+14% | 4.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 4.1 GHz+52% | 2.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core)+51100% |
| Process | 4 nm-43% | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 84,620+2% | 83,235 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 64,355 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,266 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 20,256 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses sWRX8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX — the EPYC 9275F supports 87.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 2048 GB — 200% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 8 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9275F) and WRX80 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX).
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | sWRX8 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 6000+88% | DDR4-3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 GB+200% | 2048 GB |
| RAM Channels | 12+50% | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9275F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX). Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | Yes | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP | true |
Value Analysis
At launch, the EPYC 9275F was priced at $3439, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX came in at $5489. On launch pricing ($3439 vs $5489), EPYC 9275F was $2050 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 15.2 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX — making the EPYC 9275F the 47.5% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3439-37% | $5489 |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.6+62% | 15.2 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2020 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
