Ryzen Threadripper 3960X vs C-50
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X outperforms C-50 by a whopping 21419% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3290 | 109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.44 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD C-Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 11.64 |
| Architecture codename | Ontario (2011−2012) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 25 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 × 16 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 38 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 102.403 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6250 | - |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 34.43 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 25 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 280 Watt |
C-50 has 3011.1% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, on the other hand, has a 21418.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is our recommended choice as it beats the C-50 in performance tests.
Be aware that C-50 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between C-50 and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
