Xeon W-3345 vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms Xeon W-3345 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 69 | 157 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.30 | 10.89 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Ice Lake-W (2021) |
| Release date | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) | 29 July 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 2 MB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | 81 °C |
| Number of transistors | 23540 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345 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 | 2 |
| Socket | sWRX8 | FCLGA4189 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 250 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XFR 2 | 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 PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345 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 PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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 | 39.34 | 28.77 |
| Recency | 14 July 2020 | 29 July 2021 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 24 |
| Threads | 64 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 250 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has a 36.7% higher aggregate performance score, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon W-3345, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 12% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-3345 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Xeon W-3345, 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.
