Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX vs Core i3-2357M
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms i3-2357M by a whopping 7851% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2773 | 57 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 30.15 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i3 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 27 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $250 | no data |
| Current price | $149 (0.6x MSRP) | $1350 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 149 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 624 Million | 3800 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | BGA1023 | sWRX8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XFR 2 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 128 |
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.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 7851% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 7859% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 628% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 2681% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 258% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 1316% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 974% in 3DMark06 CPU.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Core i3-2357M outperforms Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX by 1066% in wPrime 32.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Core i3-2357M by 4400% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.51 | 40.55 |
| Recency | 27 June 2011 | 14 July 2020 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 32 |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 280 Watt |
i3-2357M has 1547.1% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, on the other hand, has a 7851% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 1500% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-2357M in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i3-2357M is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-2357M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
