Athlon 750 vs Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 65 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.24 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.42 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Thunderbird (1999−2000) |
| Release date | 25 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 29 November 1999 (25 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 0.75 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 × 16 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 180 nm |
| Die size | no data | 102 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | 22 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750 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 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR1 |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 102.403 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | N/A |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 25 November 2019 | 29 November 1999 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 1 |
| Threads | 64 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has an age advantage of 19 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 2471.4% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon 750, on the other hand, has 700% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Athlon 750, 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.
