AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X vs Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are remarkably thin. Across six Cinebench tests, the Xeon leads by between 3.4% and 3.8%, which is a consistent but not overwhelming advantage. The data shows a clear winner in raw performance, yet the Threadripper 1900X is far from being embarrassed.

The Xeon E5-4669 v3 is the choice for anyone who needs maximum multi-threaded throughput in a server or workstation context, especially if ECC memory support and a proven 22 nm Haswell platform are priorities. Its 18 cores and 36 threads give it a structural advantage in heavily parallel workloads, and it converts that into a 3.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is the pick for desktop builders who want a modern platform with an unlocked multiplier, higher base and boost clocks, and more PCIe lanes. It trails the Xeon in every recorded test, but the deltas are small enough that real-world differences in lightly threaded tasks will be difficult to distinguish. The Threadripper also carries a much lower launch MSRP, at $549 versus $7007 for the Xeon, though pricing should not be the primary consideration here.

The verdict splits along platform intent: the Xeon is a server/workstation part optimized for sustained multi-core loads, while the Threadripper is a desktop enthusiast chip with better single-thread clock headroom and upgrade flexibility. If you are building a render node and ECC is non-negotiable, the Xeon wins. If you want a desktop CPU with unlockable multipliers and a modern socket, the Threadripper is the more practical daily driver.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two parts is generational and structural. The Xeon E5-4669 v3 is built on Intel's 22 nm process using the Haswell-EP architecture, with a die size of 662 mm². The Threadripper 1900X uses AMD's Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with two dies of 213 mm² each and 9,600 million transistors. The Xeon's single large die contrasts sharply with the Threadripper's dual-die design.

Core counts differ dramatically: the Xeon has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the Threadripper has 8 cores and 16 threads. Cache layouts also diverge. The Xeon offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 45 MB L3 cache. The Threadripper provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a smaller 32 MB L3. The Xeon's larger shared L3 is a direct result of its higher core count.

Memory support is where the two parts align on paper: both support DDR4 and use a quad-channel memory bus. However, the Threadripper has a higher recorded memory bandwidth at 85.3 GB/s versus the Xeon's 68.3 GB/s. ECC memory is supported by the Xeon but not by the Threadripper, which is a significant distinction for server deployments. The Xeon's market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, while the Threadripper is explicitly a Desktop part.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper offers Gen 3 with 60 lanes (CPU only). The Threadripper's extra 20 lanes are meaningful for users running multiple GPUs or NVMe devices. The Xeon has a locked multiplier, while the Threadripper is fully unlocked for overclocking. The Xeon is end-of-life, whereas the Threadripper is listed as active production.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-4669 v3 wins everywhere in the recorded benchmarks, but the nature of those wins matters. Its largest margin is a 3.8% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core, which is notable because the Xeon has a significantly lower boost clock (2.90 GHz versus 4.00 GHz for the Threadripper). That result suggests the Xeon's Haswell architecture extracts more instructions per clock in this workload, at least as measured by Cinebench.

The Xeon also wins all three multi-core tests by 3.7% each: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Given that the Xeon has more than double the cores (18 versus 8), the fact that its multi-core lead is only 3.7% is surprising. The Threadripper's higher clocks and Zen efficiency close most of the gap, but the Xeon still edges ahead in every case. The Xeon's wins are consistent, methodical, and present across all six tests.

The Threadripper wins in areas not captured by the Cinebench tests. It has a higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.10 GHz) and a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 2.90 GHz). It also has more PCIe lanes (60 versus 40) and higher memory bandwidth (85.3 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s). The unlocked multiplier means users can push clocks beyond stock, which the Xeon cannot do. The Threadripper's active production status and newer 14 nm process also suggest a longer useful life for new builds.

For users who rely on Geekbench, the Threadripper has recorded scores of 6588 multi-core and 1205 single-core, though no comparable Geekbench scores exist for the Xeon in this data set. Those numbers indicate the Threadripper is a capable performer in both parallel and single-threaded tasks, but the Xeon's advantage in the Cinebench suite remains the deciding factor in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 is faster in every recorded multi-core test, leading by 3.7% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core. Its scores are 1493, 6222, and 14815 respectively, versus 1440, 6000, and 14286 for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.

Q: Does the Threadripper win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the Xeon wins all six tests. The Threadripper has zero wins. However, the Threadripper does have higher clock speeds and more PCIe lanes, which are not captured in these specific benchmark results.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Xeon has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the Threadripper has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having over twice the cores, the Xeon's multi-core lead is only 3.7%, indicating the Threadripper's higher clocks and architecture efficiency mitigate much of the core count disadvantage.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X does not support ECC memory. This makes the Xeon the only option for workloads that require error-correcting memory.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Threadripper has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. Despite the Threadripper's higher clocks, the Xeon still wins the single-core Cinebench tests by 3.4% to 3.8%.

Q: Is the Threadripper overclockable?

A: Yes, the Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Xeon has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked. This is a key advantage for desktop enthusiasts using the Threadripper.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the comparison is the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Xeon scores 878 against the Threadripper's 846, a 3.8% margin. This is the largest delta in the entire data set. It is especially telling because the Threadripper's boost clock is 4.00 GHz, more than a gigahertz higher than the Xeon's 2.90 GHz. The Xeon's Haswell architecture evidently compensates for the clock disadvantage in this test.

The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a similar pattern. The Xeon scores 210, the Threadripper scores 203, giving the Xeon a 3.4% win. This is the smallest margin of the six tests, but still a clear victory. In both single-core tests, the Xeon's per-core efficiency outpaces the Threadripper's raw clock speed.

Multi-core results are uniform across all three Cinebench versions. In R15, the Xeon scores 1493 versus 1440, a 3.7% lead. In R20, the Xeon scores 6222 versus 6000, also 3.7%. In R23, the Xeon scores 14815 versus 14286, again 3.7%. The consistency of this margin across different Cinebench versions suggests the performance relationship is stable and not an artifact of a single test.

The Threadripper's closest result is in the R15 single-core test, where it trails by only 3.4%. Its best multi-core showing is also a 3.7% deficit, which means no benchmark comes within shouting distance of a Threadripper win. The Xeon's six wins are absolute, and the data does not show any scenario where the Threadripper takes the lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2. The Xeon is built on a 22 nm node, the Threadripper on 14 nm. The Xeon's die is 662 mm², while the Threadripper uses two 213 mm² dies. The Threadripper has 9,600 million transistors, a figure not reported for the Xeon.

Core and thread counts are a major differentiator: 18 cores and 36 threads for the Xeon, 8 cores and 16 threads for the Threadripper. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz versus 3.80 GHz, and boost clocks are 2.90 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. The Xeon's TDP is 135 watts, while the Threadripper's is 180 watts. The Xeon's higher core count achieves lower power consumption, while the Threadripper uses more power for higher clocks.

Cache hierarchies differ in size and structure. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 45 MB shared L3. The Threadripper has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3. The Threadripper's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches reflect its Zen design, while the Xeon's larger shared L3 reflects its many-core layout.

Memory bandwidth favors the Threadripper at 85.3 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s, though both support DDR4 over a quad-channel bus. ECC support is exclusive to the Xeon. PCIe lane counts favor the Threadripper at 60 lanes versus 40 lanes, both Gen 3. The Xeon's multiplier is locked, the Threadripper's is unlocked. The Xeon is end-of-life, the Threadripper is active. Release dates are May 2015 for the Xeon and August 2017 for the Threadripper. Launch MSRP is $7007 for the Xeon and $549 for the Threadripper.