Ryzen Threadripper 2950X vs Xeon 3.2
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 448 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.39 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.95 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Irwindale (2004) | ZEN+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | June 2004 (21 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $899 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 178 million | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 604 | Socket TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 93.867 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 180 Watt |
Xeon 3.2 has 33.3% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Intel Xeon 3.2 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon 3.2 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
