Ryzen 9 7950X vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX outperforms Ryzen 9 7950X by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 45 | 58 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.67 | 55.60 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Architecture codename | Chagall PRO (2022) | Raphael (Zen 4) |
| Release date | 8 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 27 September 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Current price | $2686 | $821 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 9 7950X has 255% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 4x 81 mm2 | CCD = 2x 70 sq. mm, I/O = 122 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | 47 °C |
| Number of transistors | 16,600 million | 13140 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X 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 | WRX8 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | CCD = 5 nm, I/O = 6 nm, 0.650 - 1.475 V |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X. 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 Graphics (Ryzen 7000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 24 |
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.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX outperforms Ryzen 9 7950X by 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX outperforms Ryzen 9 7950X by 6% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 9 7950X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX by 42% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 9 7950X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX by 30% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 43.12 | 40.64 |
| Recency | 8 March 2022 | 27 September 2022 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 16 |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 170 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 7950X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen 9 7950X, 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.
