CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Intel Xeon E-2336 occupy similar performance territory but are built for different worlds. The Threadripper 1900X is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier and quad-channel memory, while the Xeon E-2336 is a locked workstation/server CPU with ECC support. Benchmark results show the AMD part winning every single head-to-head test, but the margins are consistently narrow, and the platform differences tell the real story.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous on compute performance: the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it takes both multi-core and single-core tests. The multi-core wins are all at a 3.7% delta, while the R15 single-core margin is 4.1%. That means for pure rendering throughput, the Threadripper is the pick. It posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14286 against the Xeon's 13777, a difference of 509 points. Single-core R23 is 2016 versus 1945, a 71-point gap.

The Xeon E-2336 does not win a single benchmark in the comparison, but that does not make it a non-entity. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13777, which is within striking distance of the Threadripper's 8-core, 16-thread result. Where the Xeon wins is in the platform attributes that benchmarks do not capture. It supports ECC memory, which the Threadripper does not. It uses a 65W TDP against the Threadripper's 180W, making it dramatically easier to cool and power in a rack or small workstation. The Xeon also runs on Intel Socket 1200 with PCIe Gen 4, 20 lanes, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2 with PCIe Gen 3, 60 lanes.

For a builder prioritizing raw multi-threaded score per socket, the Threadripper has the edge. For someone building a server that needs error-correcting memory and lower power draw, the Xeon is the practical choice, even if it loses the benchmark war.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X if you need maximum benchmark performance in a desktop workstation. It wins every single benchmark in the comparison, with margins ranging from 3.7% to 4.1%. Its 8 cores and 16 threads outpace the Xeon's 6 cores and 12 threads in all Cinebench tests. The unlocked multiplier also allows overclocking, something the Xeon cannot do. The Threadripper's quad-channel memory bus provides 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 51.2 GB/s on the Xeon, which matters for memory-heavy workloads.

Pick the Intel Xeon E-2336 if you need ECC memory and lower power consumption. Its 65W TDP is less than half the Threadripper's 180W, which simplifies cooling and reduces operating costs in a server environment. The Xeon's dual-channel memory is adequate for many server tasks, and its PCIe Gen 4 support offers faster per-lane bandwidth than the Threadripper's Gen 3, even though there are fewer lanes total. The Xeon also has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.00 GHz, which helps lightly-threaded workloads even if the benchmark scores do not reflect it.

The data shows a 57th percentile ranking for both CPUs against all processors, meaning they sit in the same tier of overall performance. The Threadripper's average benchmark score is 4073, and the Xeon's is 3985. That 88-point difference is small. Neither CPU is a dominant performer in its class, but the Threadripper consistently edges ahead in every measured test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 203 against the Xeon's 195, a 4.1% delta. That is the largest margin in the entire comparison. The R15 multi-core test shows a 1440 versus 1388 result, a 3.7% advantage. The same 3.7% delta appears in R20 multi-core (6000 vs 5786), R20 single-core (846 vs 816), R23 multi-core (14286 vs 13777), and R23 single-core (2016 vs 1945).

The consistency of the 3.7% margin across multiple Cinebench versions indicates a stable performance gap rather than a workload-specific anomaly. The Threadripper's higher core count and larger L3 cache (32 MB versus 12 MB) likely contribute to this. The Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz is not enough to overcome these advantages in the Cinebench tests, even in single-core runs where clock speed usually dominates.

The Threadripper also has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, though the Xeon boosts higher. In the Geekbench tests, the Threadripper scores 6588 multi-core and 1205 single-core, though the Xeon does not have Geekbench results in the data, so no direct comparison is possible there.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 1440 in R15, 6000 in R20, and 14286 in R23, versus the Intel Xeon E-2336's 1388, 5786, and 13777 respectively. Each win is by a 3.7% margin.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2336 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the Xeon E-2336 loses all six tests. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X wins 6 out of 6.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2336 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X does not.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2336 has a 65W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has a 180W TDP. The Xeon draws less than half the power of the Threadripper.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2336 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X boosts to 4.00 GHz. The Xeon has an 800 MHz higher boost clock.

Q: Can I overclock either CPU?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Xeon E-2336 has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from completely different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 2x 213 mm² and 9,600 million transistors. The Intel Xeon E-2336 uses the Rocket Lake architecture on a 14 nm process from Intel, with a 276 mm² die and no transistor count listed. Both use 14 nm, but the implementations are drastically different.

The Threadripper is a dual-die design, which explains its large transistor count and the 32 MB L3 cache. The Xeon is a monolithic die with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. The Threadripper's 8 cores each have their own cache allocation, while the Xeon shares its L3 across all 6 cores.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Threadripper uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. The Threadripper also has 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon has 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Threadripper's lane count is triple the Xeon's, but the Xeon's lanes are a generation newer.

The Threadripper is classified as a desktop part, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part. This is reflected in the ECC support difference and the socket choices: SP3r2 for AMD versus Socket 1200 for Intel. The Threadripper's release date is 2017-08-30, while the Xeon's is 2021-09-07, making the Xeon a much newer design.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2336 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Threadripper's base clock is 3.80 GHz and boost is 4.00 GHz, while the Xeon's base is 2.90 GHz and boost is 4.80 GHz. TDP is 180W for AMD and 65W for Intel.

The Threadripper features 32 MB of L3 cache, while the Xeon has 12 MB. The Threadripper uses quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s. The Threadripper supports PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes, while the Xeon supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Intel Xeon E-2336. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon's is locked. The launch MSRP for the Threadripper was $549, and for the Xeon it was $284. The Threadripper's part number is YD190XA8AEWOFYD190XA8U8SAE, while the Xeon's is SRKN5. The Threadripper is a desktop market segment part, while the Xeon targets server/workstation. Both CPUs have no integrated graphics and are currently listed as active in production.