Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX vs Atom N2600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX outperforms Atom N2600 by a whopping 10930% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3179 | 195 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Atom | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 5.44 | 8.57 |
| Architecture codename | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 December 2011 (12 years ago) | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $47 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 39 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 66 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 176 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 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 | FCBGA559 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3.5 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
Security technologies
Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 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 Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 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 Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 2.44 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 1 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 (400 MHz) | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
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 | 0.23 | 25.37 |
| Recency | 1 December 2011 | 14 July 2020 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3 Watt | 280 Watt |
Atom N2600 has 9233.3% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX, on the other hand, has a 10930.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom N2600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Atom N2600 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom N2600 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX, 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.
