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 9995WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£9,790PassMark multi-core score:173772N. of physical cores:96CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:sTR5TDP (Thermal design power):350 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 4 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX
8.3/10

Overall score

Score
8.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components

40%

8.9

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

8.1

List score

10%

?

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

★Better than 98% of processors
6.1

Value for money

Value for money
6.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

70%

8.3

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

▼Worse than 95%
8.9

Technical score

Technical score
8.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.6

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

9.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

★Better than 99%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 66% of models

80%

7.9

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.
▲Better than 66%
8.1

List score

List score
8.1/ 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 (2)
List score: in 2 of 78 lists (3%)
★Better than 94%
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9995wx
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 9995WX

Based on 3 · 1

Reviewers like the platform, though there's little else they clearly agree on so far.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

Technical score
Technical score
8.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

9.6

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

9.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

8.9
Reviews score
7.9
List score
8.1
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

70%

8.3

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

6.1
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.
professional workstation
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
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
96
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 96 CPU cores, which is more than 99.9% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
CPU threads
192
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 192 CPU threads, which is more than 99.9% of processors and equal to 0.1% 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
96x 2.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 96x2.5 GHz which is higher than that of 99.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
173,772
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 173,772 in PassMark, which is higher than 100% 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
384 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 384 MB which is larger than that of 99.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
L2 cache
96 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 96 MB which is larger than that of 99.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
L1 cache
7,680 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 7,680 KB which is larger than that of 99.9% 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
?
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 9995WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 15.15x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (173,772 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    173,772 vs 11,469
  • 5.79x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (30,170 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    30,170 vs 5,209
  • 90 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (96 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    96 vs 6
  • 24.33x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (68,224 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    68,224 vs 2,804.5
  • 78.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,575 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,575 vs 2,558
  • 99% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,054 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,054 vs 1,535
  • 92 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (96 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    96 vs 4
  • 184 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (192 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    192 vs 8
  • 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.9

    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).
    professional 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
  • 15.15x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (173,772 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    173,772 vs 11,469
  • 5.79x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (30,170 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    30,170 vs 5,209
  • 90 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (96 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    96 vs 6
  • 24.33x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (68,224 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    68,224 vs 2,804.5
  • 78.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,575 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,575 vs 2,558
  • 99% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,054 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,054 vs 1,535
  • 92 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (96 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    96 vs 4
  • 184 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (192 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    192 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
  • 9.74x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (3,312.5 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    3,312.52 vs 340.075
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (96x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    96x2.5 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.
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 42.67x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (384 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    384 MB vs 9 MB
  • 32x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (96 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    96 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
  • 20x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (7,680 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    7,680 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
  • 20.16x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (99.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    99.78 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
  • 132 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (148 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    144 usable lanes
    148 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 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.
  • 65.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (136.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    136.4 vs 398.015
  • 6.98x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (1,235 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    1,235 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 39.16x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is more expensive than the average processor (£9,790 vs £250).
    £9,790 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
  • 39.16x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is more expensive than the average processor (£9,790 vs £250).
    £9,790 vs £250
  • 19.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.1 vs 7.3).
    6.1 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 65.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (136.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    136.4 vs 398.015
  • 6.98x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (1,235 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    1,235 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, 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.
  • 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

9.0
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
11/08/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks and workstation build
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the fastest workstation available, but only worth it for demanding workloads and careful configuration.
Shop video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Shop video
Shop video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
14/08/2025
Linux benchmark · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper PRO 9995WX performs well and stays power-efficient in some HPC workloads on quad-channel memory, but memory-heavy jobs hit a four-channel bottleneck.
9.0
aecmag.com
≈ estimated
03/02/2026
Workstation review · Rendering and simulation
Verdict
The Threadripper PRO 9995WX leads memory-heavy simulation work with eight channels, while the 64-core 9980X comes close in rendering.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

  • Unmatched multi-core performance for heavy workstation tasks like rendering, simulation, and 3D animation.
  • Massive 96-core/192-thread count based on the advanced Zen 5 architecture.
  • Extensive platform capabilities, including support for 8-channel DDR5-6400 ECC memory and 128 usable PCIe 5.0 lanes.
  • Excellent for virtualization and AI workloads, with the ability to handle massive parallel tasks simultaneously.
  • Unlocked multiplier simplifies overclocking for extreme performance enthusiasts.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

  • Extremely high MSRP of approximately $11,699, making it inaccessible for most users.
  • High power consumption with a 350W default TDP that can peak much higher under load or when overclocked.
  • Requires high-end, often custom, cooling solutions to manage significant heat output and avoid thermal throttling.
  • Single-core performance is not competitive with mainstream desktop CPUs for bursty consumer tasks.
  • Performance can be bottlenecked in certain workloads if used on lower-tier platforms with fewer memory channels.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is a flagship workstation processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, featuring a massive 96 cores and 192 threads. Operating on the sTR5 socket, it delivers a base clock speed of 2.5 GHz and a maximum boost clock of up to 5.4 GHz, supported by an expansive 384 MB L3 cache and a 350W TDP. Key advantages include its 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes for high-bandwidth expansion and support for 8-channel DDR5-6400 RDIMM memory, providing unmatched multi-threaded performance for simulation, rendering, and AI workloads. However, its primary drawbacks are its extremely high retail price—often exceeding £10,000—and the requirement for specialized WRX90 motherboards and high-end cooling solutions to manage its significant power draw and thermal output.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX 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 9995WX and other processors

No results found