Ryzen 7 2700X vs Ryzen Threadripper 1956
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 701 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.02 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.94 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.35 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32768 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 | SP3r2 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 12 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 105 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1956 has 50% more physical cores.
Ryzen 7 2700X, on the other hand, has a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 19% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Ryzen 7 2700X, 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.
