Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX vs Xeon Phi 7250
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 40 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | no data | 16.09 |
| Architecture codename | Knights Landing (2016) | Chagall PRO (2022) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 8 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 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 | 68 (Octahexaconta-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 272 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 36 |
| L1 cache | 32 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB (shared) | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 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 | 3647 | WRX8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 8 March 2022 |
| Physical cores | 68 | 32 |
| Threads | 272 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 280 Watt |
Xeon Phi 7250 has 112.5% more physical cores and 325% more threads, and 30.2% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Phi 7250 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, 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.
