Ryzen Threadripper 1900X vs Xeon Silver 4116
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms Xeon Silver 4116 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1053 | 969 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.11 | 2.58 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon Silver | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 4.23 | 3.25 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Skylake (server) (2017−2018) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 11 July 2017 (8 years ago) | 31 August 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,002 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has 132% better value for money than Xeon Silver 4116.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X: 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 21 | 38 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16.5 MB (shared) | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 76 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 9,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA3647 | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 768 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 6 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 115.212 GB/s | 85.33 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Silver 4116 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 48 | 60 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.52 | 9.62 |
| Recency | 11 July 2017 | 31 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 8 |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon Silver 4116 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and 47% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, on the other hand, has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon Silver 4116 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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.
