Xeon Gold 6403N vs Ryzen Threadripper 1956
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | no data |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 July 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 32768 KB | 45 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 85 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N 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 | no data |
| Socket | SP3r2 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 185 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N 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 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5-4000 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N.
| PCIe version | no data | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 12 | 24 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 185 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1956 has 48% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 6403N, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1956 is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6403N is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1956 and Xeon Gold 6403N, 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.
