Xeon Platinum 8571N vs Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Platinum 8571N outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 3970X by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 65 | 54 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.27 | 10.42 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.35 | 13.51 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Emerald Rapids (2023) |
| Release date | 25 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $6,839 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 56% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8571N.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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) | 52 |
| Threads | 64 | 104 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 × 16 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 300 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 763 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 78 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 300 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| 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 | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC) |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 8 |
| 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 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 80 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.70 | 43.05 |
| Recency | 25 November 2019 | 14 December 2023 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 52 |
| Threads | 64 | 104 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 300 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 7.1% lower power consumption.
Xeon Platinum 8571N, on the other hand, has a 8.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 62.5% more physical cores and 62.5% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is a desktop processor while Xeon Platinum 8571N is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8571N, 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.
