Xeon W-3245M vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Xeon W-3245M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 358 | 380 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.91 | 5.30 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Xeon W |
| Power efficiency | 9.14 | 7.79 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 10 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $5,002 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W-3245M has 8% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 34 | 32 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 22 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | 77 °C |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | SP3r2 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA | 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 | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M 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 1950X and Xeon W-3245M 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 1950X and Xeon W-3245M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 2 TB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 60 | 64 |
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 | 17.39 | 16.88 |
| Recency | 10 August 2017 | 3 June 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 205 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, and 13.9% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-3245M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a desktop processor while Xeon W-3245M is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Xeon W-3245M, 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.
