Atom C3708 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X outperforms Atom C3708 by a whopping 687% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 466 | 2098 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.93 | 0.33 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 3.95 | 5.31 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | ZEN+ (2018−2019) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $209 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has 1697% better value for money than Atom C3708.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Atom C3708 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 35 | 17 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 448 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Atom C3708 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | Socket TR4 | FCBGA1310 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Atom C3708. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Atom C3708 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Atom C3708 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| 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 2950X and Atom C3708. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR4: 2133 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 93.867 GB/s | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Atom C3708.
| PCIe version | no data | 3 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
| USB revision | no data | 3 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 16 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | 4x10/2.5/1 GBE |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.84 | 2.14 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 15 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 8 |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has a 686.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
Atom C3708, on the other hand, has 958.8% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Atom C3708 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop processor while Atom C3708 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
