Xeon Bronze 3408U vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen Threadripper 1950
2017
16 cores / 32 threads, 180 Watt
13.90
+131%
Xeon Bronze 3408U
2023
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
6.02

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 outperforms Xeon Bronze 3408U by a whopping 131% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking5271091
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data27.58
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency7.314.56
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date29 July 2017 (7 years ago)10 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$425

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads328
Base clock speed3.2 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz1.9 GHz
L1 cache96K (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache32 MB22.5 MB
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size213 mm2no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
Number of transistors9,600 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U 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 configuration11
SocketSP3r2FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
TSX-+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Quad-channelDDR5-4000
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data80

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 1950 13.90
+131%
Xeon Bronze 3408U 6.02

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 22077
+131%
Xeon Bronze 3408U 9557

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.90 6.02
Recency 29 July 2017 10 January 2023
Physical cores 16 8
Threads 32 8
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 125 Watt

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has a 130.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Xeon Bronze 3408U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and 44% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Bronze 3408U in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is a desktop processor while Xeon Bronze 3408U is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1950 and Xeon Bronze 3408U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U
Xeon Bronze 3408U

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 20 votes

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 1950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 2 votes

Rate Xeon Bronze 3408U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 1950 or Xeon Bronze 3408U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.