Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by a whopping 140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 56 | 365 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.06 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 14.15 | 9.16 |
| Architecture codename | Chagall PRO (2022) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 8 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 10 August 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 38 | 34 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 4x 81 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 68 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 16,600 million | 9,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 | WRX8 | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. 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 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 85.33 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 60 |
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 | 41.89 | 17.43 |
| Recency | 8 March 2022 | 10 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 16 |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 180 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX has a 140.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, on the other hand, has 55.6% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 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.
