OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£3,770PassMark multi-core score:94960N. of physical cores:64CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:sWRX8TDP (Thermal design power):280 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

40%

8.2

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 92% of processors
5.9

Value for money

Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 97%
8.2

Technical score

Technical score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

★Better than 90%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 86%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Based on 4 · 4

Multi-core performance and memory support impress, but reviewers question the value and split on how much it improves over earlier models.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Technical score
Technical score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components:

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

8.2
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.9
Processor type
workstation
This processor belongs to the workstation processor class, which is more advanced than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
desktop workstation
CPU socket
sWRX8
This processor uses the sWRX8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 93% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
WRX80
This processor supports WRX80 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
64
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 64 CPU cores, which is more than 99.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU threads
128
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 128 CPU threads, which is more than 99.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
64x 2.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 64x2.7 GHz which is higher than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
94,960
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 94,960 in PassMark, which is higher than 99.3% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
256 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 256 MB which is larger than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L2 cache
32 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L1 cache
4,096 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 4,096 KB which is larger than that of 99% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
2 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 2 TB of memory, which is more than 98.4% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
280 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 280 W which is higher than that of 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8.28x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (94,960 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    94,960 vs 11,469
  • 58 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (64 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    64 vs 6
  • 3.16x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,448 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,448 vs 5,209
  • 9.02x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (25,297 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    25,297 vs 2,804.5
  • 60 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (64 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    64 vs 4
  • 120 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (128 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    128 vs 8
  • 28.44x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (256 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    256 MB vs 9 MB
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 MB vs 3 MB
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 86% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sWRX8 vs FP5).
    sWRX8 vs FP5
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    desktop workstation
    workstation vs mobile
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8.28x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (94,960 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    94,960 vs 11,469
  • 58 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (64 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    64 vs 6
  • 3.16x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,448 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,448 vs 5,209
  • 9.02x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (25,297 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    25,297 vs 2,804.5
  • 60 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (64 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    64 vs 4
  • 120 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (128 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    128 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (64x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    64x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 3.72x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,482 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,481.96 vs 398.015
  • 26.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,235 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,235 vs 2,558
  • 25.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1926 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,926 vs 1,535
  • 28.44x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (256 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    256 MB vs 9 MB
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2.16x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 10.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (4,096 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    4,096 KB vs 384 KB
  • 54.2% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (81 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    81 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 6.71x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (33.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    33.2 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 112 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (128 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    128 vs 16
  • 32x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (2 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    2 TB vs 64 GB
  • 4.37x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (204.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    204.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake).
    Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 6.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • 15.08x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is more expensive than the average processor (£3,770 vs £250).
    £3,770 vs £250
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 24.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.85 vs 7.3).
    5.85 vs 7.29
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 15.08x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is more expensive than the average processor (£3,770 vs £250).
    £3,770 vs £250
  • 24.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.85 vs 7.3).
    5.85 vs 7.29
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake).
    Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 6.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
02/05/2023
Benchmark review · creator and rendering workloads
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is unmatched for niche heavy rendering and science workloads, but not worth it for most creators.
6.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
11/09/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks, boost and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX offers huge power, but it is overkill and overpriced for most buyers, so waiting for the next generation is wiser.
9.0
ServeTheHome
≈ estimated
15/08/2022
Hands-on review · platforms, vendor lock-in and launch timing
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is a strong new workstation chip, but it arrived too late and is locked to vendor systems.
9.5
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
08/08/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power, cooling and real editing use
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is the fastest Ryzen available and a big step up for demanding workloads, though its price makes value hard to judge.
Brand video
Shop video
Shop video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
08/08/2022
Benchmark review · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is a 64-core workstation chip that leads in multi-threaded work, but single-core speed trails Intel's Core i9-12900K.
9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
21/08/2022
Benchmark review · Workstation CPUs
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is the fastest chip for highly parallel workloads, though the 32-core 5975WX gets most of the speed with half the cores.
9.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
23/06/2022
Content creation review · Workstation CPUs
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX offers little edge over the 24- and 32-core models in DaVinci Resolve, and trails them by nearly 20% in Lightroom Classic.
9.0
kitguru.net
≈ estimated
14/02/2023
Lab review · Workstation CPUs
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is a fast renderer that stays cool on air coolers, though its clocks trail the 32-core model by almost 1GHz.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

  • Unbeatable multi-core performance for highly parallel workloads like 3D rendering (Blender, Cinebench R23)
  • Massive scalability with 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes for extensive GPU and storage expansion
  • High memory capacity supporting up to 2TB of 8-channel DDR4 ECC RAM
  • Significant 20-30% generational performance uplift over the previous 3995WX due to Zen 3 architecture
  • Superior enterprise features including AMD Pro Security, Manageability, and Shadow Stack
  • Surprisingly manageable thermal design (280W TDP) that can be effectively air-cooled in optimized workstations

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

  • Extremely high price point (approx. $6,499 retail) making it difficult to justify for non-enterprise users
  • Diminishing returns in software not optimized for 64 cores, where the cheaper 32-core 5975WX often matches it
  • Weaker single-threaded performance compared to newer consumer-grade Zen 4 or Intel Raptor Lake chips
  • Suboptimal performance in specific applications like Adobe Lightroom Classic and Photoshop due to thread management overhead
  • Limited availability and restricted platform ecosystem (WRX80 motherboards only)
  • Significant platform power consumption under full system load, often exceeding 500W at the wall

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is a powerhouse workstation processor built on the Zen 3 architecture, featuring a massive 64 cores and 128 threads with a base clock of 2.7 GHz and a boost up to 4.5 GHz. It offers professional-grade expansion with 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes and 8-channel DDR4-3200 memory support for up to 2TB of RAM, complemented by a substantial 256MB of L3 cache. Its main strengths include industry-leading multi-threaded performance for 3D rendering, scientific simulations, and heavy multitasking, alongside enterprise-grade security and management via AMD PRO technologies. However, its primary drawbacks are the extremely high retail price, a high thermal design power (TDP) of 280W that requires robust cooling, and the lack of integrated graphics.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and other processors

No results found