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 9975WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£3,610PassMark multi-core score:104923N. of physical cores:32CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:sTR5TDP (Thermal design power):350 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
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 91% of models
Score components

40%

8.3

Technical score

25%

7.9

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 91% of processors
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
8.3

Technical score

Technical score
8.3/ 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 91% of models
Score components

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

9.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

★Better than 91%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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 66% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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 66%
?

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-9975wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9975wx
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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Technical score
Technical score
8.3/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

9.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

8.3
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.8
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.
CPU socket
sTR5
This processor uses the sTR5 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Chipset
WRX90, TRX50
This processor supports WRX90, TRX50 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 99% of processors and equal to that of 1% 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, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
32
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 32 CPU cores, which is more than 98.8% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
CPU threads
64
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 64 CPU threads, which is more than 98.9% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.4 GHz which is higher than that of 94.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
32x 4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 32x4 GHz which is higher than that of 99.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
104,923
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 104,923 in PassMark, which is higher than 99.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
128 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 128 MB which is larger than that of 98% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% 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
2,560 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2,560 KB which is larger than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
6,400 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 97.5% of processors and equal to 1.8% of processors.
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
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)
350 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 350 W which is higher than that of 98.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
350 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 350 W which is higher than that of 98.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
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

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 9.15x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (104,923 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    104,923 vs 11,469
  • 26 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (32 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    32 vs 6
  • 2.07x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,174 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,174 vs 1,535
  • 71.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,395 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,395 vs 2,558
  • 28 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (32 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    32 vs 4
  • 56 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (64 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    64 vs 8
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 22.7% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sTR5 vs FP5).
    sTR5 vs FP5
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    July 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • 9.15x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (104,923 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    104,923 vs 11,469
  • 26 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (32 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    32 vs 6
  • 2.07x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,174 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,174 vs 1,535
  • 71.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,395 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,395 vs 2,558
  • 28 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (32 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    32 vs 4
  • 56 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (64 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    64 vs 8
  • 22.7% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (32x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    32x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 3.82x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,297.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,297.9 vs 340.075
  • 12 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (40 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    40 vs 28
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 14.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (128 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    128 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
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • 6.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2,560 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,560 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 6.72x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (33.3 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    33.26 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 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
  • 8.73x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (409.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    409.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 7.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    350 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 39% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,178 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,178 vs 5,209
  • 3.79x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (670 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    670 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 7.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    350 W vs 45 W
  • 14.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is more expensive than the average processor (£3,610 vs £250).
    £3,610 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
  • 25.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.81 vs 7.3).
    5.81 vs 7.29
  • 14.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is more expensive than the average processor (£3,610 vs £250).
    £3,610 vs £250
  • 25.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.81 vs 7.3).
    5.81 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
  • 39% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,178 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,178 vs 5,209
  • 3.79x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (670 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    670 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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.
  • 7.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    350 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 7.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    350 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

8.0
SkatterBencher
≈ estimated
23/07/2025
Hands-on overclocking test · tuning strategies and benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX overclocks smoothly with big gains, though its memory clock limits and per-CCD boost tool need work.
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
skatterbencher.com
≈ estimated
23/07/2025
Overclocking guide · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper PRO 9975WX can be pushed to 5625 MHz with custom liquid cooling, though Precision Boost Overdrive alone adds only about 5%.
9.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
23/07/2025
Creator app benchmarks · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper PRO 9975WX edges out its 9000WX siblings in Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve, though many creator tasks barely separate the chips.
7.0
scanproaudio.info
≈ estimated
19/09/2025
Studio audio test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the stronger of the two for in-the-box synths and mixing, but live sample playback at tight buffer settings still lags.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

  • Excellent multi-core performance for professional workloads like 3D rendering and simulations.
  • Support for up to 2TB of 8-channel DDR5 RDIMM memory (6400 MT/s) provides massive bandwidth.
  • Features 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes, making it ideal for multi-GPU AI and data-intensive tasks.
  • Strong single-core boost speeds up to 5.4 GHz improve responsiveness in less parallelized apps.
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for enthusiast-level overclocking and PBO2 tuning.
  • Backward compatibility with existing sTR5/WRX90 motherboards facilitates easier upgrades.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

  • Significant price increase (approx. 10-20%) compared to previous generation Threadripper PRO models.
  • High power consumption and thermal output (350W TDP) require high-end cooling solutions.
  • Performance scaling can be limited by the internal bus/CCD count (4 CCDs) in specific bandwidth-heavy tasks.
  • Lacks a memory bandwidth advantage over the non-Pro 9980X in certain 4-CCD configurations.
  • The extreme cost makes it difficult to justify for users who don't specifically need the extra PCIe lanes or RAM capacity.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is a high-performance workstation processor based on the 4nm Zen 5 'Shimada Peak' architecture, featuring 32 cores and 64 threads with a base clock of 4.0 GHz and a boost speed up to 5.4 GHz. It boasts a massive 128 MB of L3 cache, supports 8-channel DDR5-6400 ECC memory, and provides 128 lanes of PCIe 5.0 connectivity for professional-grade expansion. Key advantages include exceptional multi-threaded performance for simulation and rendering workloads, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and enterprise-grade AMD PRO security technologies. However, its high 350W TDP makes it extremely power-hungry, requiring premium cooling solutions, and its lack of integrated graphics necessitates a discrete GPU.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX 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 9975WX and other processors

No results found