Xeon Gold 5218R vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX outperforms Xeon Gold 5218R by a whopping 521% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2 | 440 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.13 | 21.61 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon Gold |
| Power efficiency | 26.16 | 11.80 |
| Architecture codename | Storm Peak (2023) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 24 February 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | $1,273 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon Gold 5218R has 590% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R 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 | 96 | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 40 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 20 MB |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | 27.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | Compute Die (CCD) Size 71 mm2, I/O Die (IOD) Size 388 mm2 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 87 °C |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R 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 | no data |
| Socket | sTR5 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R. 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, AVX-512, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2 | 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 | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R 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 PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4-2667 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 128.001 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 48 |
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 | 96.74 | 15.58 |
| Recency | 19 October 2023 | 24 February 2020 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 20 |
| Threads | 192 | 40 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 125 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX has a 520.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 380% more physical cores and 380% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon Gold 5218R, on the other hand, has 180% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 5218R in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Xeon Gold 5218R, 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.
