Ryzen 9 7945HX3D vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Ryzen 9 7945HX3D by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 66 | 94 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | AMD Dragon Range (Zen 4, Ryzen 7045) |
| Power efficiency | 13.32 | 62.60 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Dragon Range-HX (Zen 4) (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) | 27 July 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 2 MB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | 2x 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 89 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 23540 Million | 17,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D 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 | 1 |
| Socket | sWRX8 | FL1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XFR 2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR5-5200 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon 610M |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 28 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.89 | 37.76 |
| Recency | 14 July 2020 | 27 July 2023 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 16 |
| Threads | 64 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 55 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Ryzen 9 7945HX3D, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 409.1% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 7945HX3D is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Ryzen 9 7945HX3D, 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.
