AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Threadripper 9980X supports quad-channel DDR5 with a peak bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, whereas the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with a peak bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Does the Threadripper support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Threadripper 9980X supports ECC memory. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper 9980X has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375's boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Threadripper 9980X has an average benchmark score of 321,753, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has an average score of 46,030, placing it in the 89th percentile.

Q: What are their respective sockets?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Threadripper 9980X uses AMD Socket sTR5.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 does not win a single recorded test. This is not a close contest; the Threadripper's advantage is consistent across every category, from single-threaded tasks to heavy multi-threaded workloads.

The largest deltas appear in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Threadripper leads by 89.2%, and in data compression, where it leads by 86.4%. Even the smallest gap, in PassMark single-thread performance, shows the Threadripper ahead by 14.8%. For use cases involving rendering, scientific computing, data processing, or any parallel workload, the Threadripper 9980X is clearly the dominant part.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, as a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, occupies a completely different role. Its strength lies in what the recorded scores do not show: power efficiency, integrated graphics (Radeon 890M), and portability. It is designed for laptops, not for workstation towers. The benchmark data reflects this, but the absence of a single win means the HX 375's appeal is based on its platform characteristics, not on raw performance.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Zen 5 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The similarities end there.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, codenamed Strix Point, is a monolithic design with a die size of 233 mm². It uses a hybrid configuration from the Ryzen AI 300 generation, combining Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core, L2 cache is 1 MB per core, and total L3 cache is 16 MB. It includes a Radeon 890M integrated GPU, making it a complete system-on-chip.

The Threadripper 9980X, codenamed Shimada Peak, uses a chiplet-based design. The database lists a transistor count of 66,520 million and a die configuration of 8x 70.6 mm². The L1 cache is 64 KB per core, L2 cache is 1 MB per core, and the L3 cache is 256 MB, a massive difference compared to the HX 375. The Threadripper has no integrated graphics. Its architecture is focused purely on compute density and memory throughput.

The cache hierarchy alone tells the story. The Threadripper's 256 MB L3 cache is 16 times larger than the HX 375's 16 MB. This contributes directly to its performance in data-heavy workloads, as shown by the 2974534 score in PassMark data compression versus the HX 375's 404918.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification recorded in the database.

• Cores: 12 (HX 375) vs 64 (Threadripper)
• Threads: 24 vs 128
• Base clock: 2.00 GHz vs 3.20 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.10 GHz vs 5.40 GHz
• TDP: 28 W vs 350 W
• Socket: FP8 vs sTR5
• Codename: Strix Point vs Shimada Peak
• Die size: 233 mm² vs 8x 70.6 mm²
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core vs 64 KB per core
• L3 cache: 16 MB vs 256 MB
• Memory support: DDR5, LPDDR5X vs DDR5 only
• Memory bus: Dual-channel vs Quad-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s
• ECC memory: No vs Yes
• PCIe: Gen 4, 16 lanes vs Gen 5, 80 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 890M vs N/A
• Market segment: Mobile vs Desktop
• Multiplier unlocked: No vs Yes
• Release date: 2024-06-30 vs 2025-07-29

The Threadripper has a higher base clock and boost clock, more than five times the cores, nearly four times the threads, and roughly 2.3 times the memory bandwidth. The HX 375 has a smaller L1 cache per core, but that is offset by its much lower power envelope and integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. The Threadripper 9980X wins every single comparison, with deltas ranging from -14.8% to -89.2%.

The most extreme gaps are in Cinebench R23 single-core and multi-core. In single-core, the Threadripper scores 18,427 against the HX 375's 1,988, a delta of -89.2%. In multi-core, the Threadripper scores 130,529 against 21,812, a delta of -83.3%. The Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern: multi-core 13,157 vs 3,334 (-74.7%), single-core 1,857 vs 301 (-83.8%).

PassMark tests show similar dominance. Data compression: 2,974,534 vs 404,918 (-86.4%). Data encryption: 157,137 vs 20,802 (-86.8%). Extended instructions: 228,959 vs 29,269 (-87.2%). Find prime numbers: 769 vs 122 (-84.1%). Floating point math: 559,003 vs 75,153 (-86.6%). Integer math: 872,071 vs 121,754 (-86%). Multithread: 141,641 vs 32,916 (-76.8%). Physics: 8,001 vs 1,819 (-77.3%). Random string sorting: 292,083 vs 44,552 (-84.7%).

The closest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Threadripper scores 4,537 versus the HX 375's 3,867, a delta of -14.8%. This indicates that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Threadripper's higher boost clock and architecture advantages carry it forward. The HX 375's single-thread score is respectable, but it cannot match the Threadripper's 5.40 GHz boost.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the Threadripper leads by roughly 75% to 89% in most multi-threaded and memory-intensive tests, while its advantage narrows to under 15% in single-threaded tests. This is exactly what would be expected from a 64-core processor versus a 12-core mobile chip, but the magnitude of the difference is striking.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is the clear performance winner in every recorded benchmark. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory give it an overwhelming advantage in multi-threaded workloads, as shown by the 130,529 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and the 141,641 PassMark multithread score. The launch MSRP is $4999.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, designed for laptops. It offers integrated Radeon 890M graphics, a 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and a 16 MB L3 cache. Its 12 cores and 24 threads are sufficient for mainstream tasks, but the benchmark data shows it is far behind the Threadripper in every category.

For a user building a high-end desktop workstation, the Threadripper 9980X is the only choice based on this data. Its 99th percentile ranking and the massive deltas in every test confirm its position at the top of the performance hierarchy. For a user needing a portable laptop processor, the HX 375 is the only viable option, since the Threadripper is a desktop part with a 350 W TDP and no integrated graphics.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Threadripper 9980X for maximum compute throughput, and choose the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 for mobile platforms where its integrated GPU and low power draw are essential. The database records no scenario where the HX 375 outperforms the Threadripper.