Xeon W3690 vs Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X outperforms Xeon W3690 by a whopping 659% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 108 | 1312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.55 | 1.88 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.68 | 3.31 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Gulftown (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 25 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 14 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,399 | $450 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X has 887% better value for money than Xeon W3690.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.46 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 3.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 × 16 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 38 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 239 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 68 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | 1,170 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690 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 |
| Socket | TR4 | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 40 Bit |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 24 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 102.403 GB/s | 32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.55 | 4.55 |
| Recency | 25 November 2019 | 14 February 2011 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 6 |
| Threads | 48 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 130 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X has a 659.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon W3690, on the other hand, has 115.4% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3690 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is a desktop processor while Xeon W3690 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and Xeon W3690, 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.
