Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 7800X3D outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1920X by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 489 | 246 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 16 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.46 | 36.26 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.64 | 17.02 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 10 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 7 7800X3D has 713% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 162 MHz |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 96 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 89 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D 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 | SP3r2 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, BMI1, BMI2, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT SHA, XFR2, Precision Boost 2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR5-5200 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 60 | 24 |
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 | 14.53 | 21.58 |
| Recency | 10 August 2017 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 8 |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 120 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Ryzen 7 7800X3D, on the other hand, has a 48.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 7 7800X3D is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 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.
