i9-10800F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1977

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Comet Lake (2020)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)30 April 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threadsno data20
Base clock speedno data2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache32768 KB20 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F 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
SocketSP3r21200
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+

Security technologies

Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-2933

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 14 10
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 65 Watt

Ryzen Threadripper 1977 has 40% more physical cores.

i9-10800F, on the other hand, has 138.5% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Core i9-10800F, 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 1977
Ryzen Threadripper 1977
Intel Core i9-10800F
Core i9-10800F

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 1977 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 11 votes

Rate Core i9-10800F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 1977 or Core i9-10800F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.