Ryzen 7 2700X vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
2017
16 cores / 32 threads, 180 Watt
17.84
+57.5%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by an impressive 57% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking315635
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.7326.43
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen ThreadripperAMD Ryzen 7
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Zen+ (2018−2020)
Release date10 August 2017 (6 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$329
Current price$396 (0.4x MSRP)$162 (0.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 2700X has 49% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X 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)
Threads3216
Base clock speed3.4 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.35 GHz
L1 cache96K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache32 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm12 nm
Die size213 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature68 °Cno data
Number of transistors9,600 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierYesYes

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketSP3r2AM4
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHASSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI++
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Quad-channelDDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size2 TiB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card--

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes6020

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 1950X 17.84
+57.5%
Ryzen 7 2700X 11.33

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 57% based on our aggregated 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 1950X 27587
+57.4%
Ryzen 7 2700X 17532

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 57% 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 1950X 1175
Ryzen 7 2700X 1246
+6%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 6% 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 1950X 7694
+26.1%
Ryzen 7 2700X 6101

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 26% 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 1950X 4754
Ryzen 7 2700X 5256
+10.6%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 11% 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 1950X 41814
+20.3%
Ryzen 7 2700X 34763

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 20% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 3.34
+4.2%
Ryzen 7 2700X 3.48

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 4% 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 1950X 23
+23.8%
Ryzen 7 2700X 19

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 24% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 2997
+70.1%
Ryzen 7 2700X 1762

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 70% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 159
Ryzen 7 2700X 176
+10.5%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 11% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 1.73
Ryzen 7 2700X 1.95
+12.7%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 13% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 19
+79.2%
Ryzen 7 2700X 10.6

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 79% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 4150
Ryzen 7 2700X 4779
+15.2%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 15% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 134
+28.5%
Ryzen 7 2700X 105

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 29% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 190
Ryzen 7 2700X 227
+19.6%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 20% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.84 11.33
Recency 10 August 2017 19 April 2018
Physical cores 16 8
Threads 32 16
Cost $999 $329
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 105 Watt

The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 2700X in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 7 2700X, 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 1950X
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Ryzen 7 2700X

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.


3.9 142 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 2727 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 2700X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 1950X or Ryzen 7 2700X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.