Apple M3 Max 16-Core vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX outperforms Apple M3 Max 16-Core by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 26 | 185 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.25 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Apple M3 |
| Power efficiency | 17.81 | 31.27 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | no data |
| Release date | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) | 30 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,500 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 128 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.748 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 4.06 GHz |
| Multiplier | 27 | no data |
| L1 cache | 4 MB | no data |
| L2 cache | 32 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 256 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 38740 Million | 92000 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core 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 | sWRX8 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 78 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core. 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 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 54.69 | 26.75 |
| Recency | 14 July 2020 | 30 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 16 |
| Threads | 128 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 78 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has a 104.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.
Apple M3 Max 16-Core, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 259% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Apple M3 Max 16-Core in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a server/workstation processor while Apple M3 Max 16-Core is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Apple M3 Max 16-Core, 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.
