Xeon Platinum 8280 vs Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X outperforms Xeon Platinum 8280 by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 65 | 270 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.23 | 1.66 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Xeon Platinum |
| Power efficiency | 13.42 | 9.53 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Cascade Lake-SP (2018) |
| Release date | 7 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 11 December 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $10,009 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 878% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8280.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 28 (Octacosa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 56 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 × 16 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | 27 |
| L1 cache | 2 MB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 38.5 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 84 °C |
| Number of transistors | 23540 Million | 8,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280 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) | 8 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | TR4 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280. 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 | + | + |
| 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 | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280 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 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280 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 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 102.403 GB/s | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.70 | 20.64 |
| Recency | 7 November 2019 | 11 December 2018 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 28 |
| Threads | 64 | 56 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 205 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has a 92.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon Platinum 8280, on the other hand, has 36.6% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8280 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is a desktop processor while Xeon Platinum 8280 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Xeon Platinum 8280, 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.
