Xeon W-3365 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1977
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 74 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Ice Lake-W (2021) |
| Release date | no data | 29 July 2021 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32768 KB | 48 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 77 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 81 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP3r2 | FCLGA4189 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 270 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Launched |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365.
| PCIe version | no data | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 14 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 270 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1977 is a desktop processor while Xeon W-3365 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1977 and Xeon W-3365, 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.
