Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs Ryzen AI 9 HX 375
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 291 | 365 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.06 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Strix Point (Zen 5/5c, Ryzen AI 3/5/7/9) | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 34.47 | 9.16 |
| Architecture codename | Strix Point-HX (Zen 5) (2024) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 25 July 2024 (less than a year ago) | 10 August 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 34 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 68 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 9,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FP8 | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 54 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | USB 4, XDNA 2 NPU (55 TOPS), SMT, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 85.33 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon 890M ( - 2900 MHz) | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 60 |
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.68 | 17.43 |
| Recency | 25 July 2024 | 10 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 16 |
| Threads | 24 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 54 Watt | 180 Watt |
Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has a 12.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, on the other hand, has 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 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.
