Ryzen 5 1600AF vs Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 62 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.57 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 25 November 2019 (4 years ago) | 11 October 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 × 16 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF 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 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| 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 | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 25 November 2019 | 11 October 2019 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 6 |
| Threads | 64 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has an age advantage of 1 month, 433.3% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
Ryzen 5 1600AF, on the other hand, has 330.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Ryzen 5 1600AF, 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.
