CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Across six Cinebench tests, the 1920X leads by a margin that hovers narrowly between 4.5% and 4.7%. That consistency is notable. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 1920X scores 1979 against the 1920's 1890, a 4.5% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 279 versus 266, a 4.7% gap. The pattern holds as the workloads evolve. In R20 multi-core, 8248 versus 7877; in R23 multi-core, 19640 versus 18756, both exactly 4.5% deltas. The single-core variants are equally tight: R20 single-core gives 1164 versus 1111 (4.6%), and R23 single-core gives 2772 versus 2647 (4.5%).

What does this consistency imply? It suggests the performance difference is not workload-dependent but a systematic clock-speed advantage. The 1920X's higher base and boost clocks appear to translate directly into proportional gains across the board. There is no test where the 1920 pulls ahead, not even by a fraction. The wins are clean and uniform.

Looking at the broader context, both CPUs sit in the 60th percentile of all CPUs tested, meaning they are comparable mid-pack performers. The 1920's average benchmark score is 5425, while the 1920X's is 5306. The 1920X actually has a lower average score despite winning every head-to-head, a quirk explained by the fact that the 1920X's benchmark set includes Geekbench results (7178 multi-core, 1185 single-core), which are not present in the 1920's data. That extra data drags down the 1920X's average, but it doesn't change the direct comparison.

For the nearest rivals, the 1920 sits just 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon W-1290P (5443) and 0.8% behind the AMD EPYC 7351P (5469), while leading the Intel Core i9-13900TE by 1.5% and the i9-10900KF by 2.1%. The 1920X, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the Intel Core i9-9900X (0.1% ahead at 5301) and the EPYC 7281 (0.2% behind at 5315). Both chips are clearly in the same performance class as these rivals, but the 1920X's head-to-head sweep is the defining data point.

Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, these two processors are near-identical twins. Both use the Zen architecture, codenamed Zen, from the Ryzen Threadripper (Zen Whitehaven) generation. Both are built on the 14 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with 9,600 million transistors spread across a dual-die design measuring 2x 213 mm². The cache hierarchy is exactly the same: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Memory support is identical too, DDR4, quad-channel, with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and neither supports ECC memory. Both have 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), no integrated graphics, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

The differences are confined to clock speeds and power. The 1920X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz versus the 1920's 3.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. That 0.3 GHz base and 0.2 GHz boost advantage is the entire source of the performance gap. The thermal design power reflects this: the 1920X is rated at 180 W, while the 1920 draws 140 W. The 40 W difference is the cost of those higher clocks.

Production status differs as well. The 1920 is marked end-of-life, while the 1920X remains active. The 1920X also has a release date of 2017-08-09, and a launch MSRP of $799, the 1920 has no listed launch price. Socket, part numbers, and all other physical specifications are otherwise identical.

One subtle point that invites investigation: the 1920X's higher TDP suggests it may sustain those clocks under sustained loads better than the 1920, but the benchmark data alone cannot confirm this. What the data does show is that the 1920X achieves its wins across both short and long Cinebench runs, so the power headroom is clearly being put to use.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the 1920X wins everywhere. Every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core flavors, goes to the 1920X. There are zero wins for the 1920 in the head-to-head comparison. The margin is always in the 4.5% to 4.7% range, which is meaningful but not transformative.

For single-threaded tasks, the 1920X's 4.7% lead in R15 (279 versus 266) and 4.6% lead in R20 (1164 versus 1111) indicate that the higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz provides a tangible edge in latency-sensitive workloads. The 1920's 3.80 GHz boost is simply not enough to close that gap. For multi-threaded workloads, the 1920X's 4.5% advantage across all three Cinebench versions shows that the higher base clock of 3.50 GHz makes a consistent difference when all 12 cores and 24 threads are engaged.

The only scenario where the 1920 could be considered the better choice is from a power perspective. Its 140 W TDP versus the 1920X's 180 W means it draws less power for a performance deficit that never exceeds 4.7%. For systems where power delivery or cooling is constrained, that trade-off might be acceptable. But in raw performance terms, the 1920X is the clear winner in every measurable category.

The average benchmark scores complicate this picture slightly. The 1920's 5425 average is higher than the 1920X's 5306, but this is an artifact of different benchmark sets. The 1920X includes Geekbench results that the 1920 lacks, and those Geekbench scores (7178 multi, 1185 single) are relatively low compared to the Cinebench scores. When comparing only the shared Cinebench tests, the 1920X wins all six. The average score is a red herring in this direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The 1920X wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests: R15 (1979 vs 1890), R20 (8248 vs 7877), and R23 (19640 vs 18756), each by a 4.5% margin.

Q: Is the 1920X faster in single-core workloads?

A: Yes, the 1920X wins all three single-core tests: R15 (279 vs 266, a 4.7% lead), R20 (1164 vs 1111, a 4.6% lead), and R23 (2772 vs 2647, a 4.5% lead).

Q: What causes the performance difference between the two?

A: The 1920X has a higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) and boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.80 GHz), with a correspondingly higher TDP of 180 W versus 140 W.

Q: Are there any architectural differences beyond clocks?

A: No. Both use the same Zen architecture, 14 nm process, 12 cores, 24 threads, 32 MB L3 cache, and identical memory support (DDR4 quad-channel, 85.3 GB/s).

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 1920 is 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon W-1290P and 0.8% behind the AMD EPYC 7351P, while leading the Intel Core i9-13900TE by 1.5% and i9-10900KF by 2.1%. The 1920X is tied with the Intel Core i9-9900X and EPYC 7281 within 0.2%.

Q: Does the 1920X's lower average benchmark score mean it is slower overall?

A: No. The 1920X's average (5306) includes Geekbench scores absent from the 1920's data, which lowers the average. In every shared head-to-head test, the 1920X wins.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 180 W |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2017-08-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $799 |

| Part Number | YD1920A9UC9AE | YD192XA8UC9AE |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5425 | 5306 |

All other specifications are identical: 12 cores, 24 threads, Zen architecture, 14 nm process, 9,600 million transistors, 2x 213 mm² die size, 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, 32 MB L3, DDR4 quad-channel memory, 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, no integrated graphics, unlocked multiplier, AMD Socket SP3r2.

The Verdict

The data is straightforward. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the faster processor in every benchmark comparison, winning all six head-to-head Cinebench tests with a consistent 4.5% to 4.7% margin. If raw performance is the sole criterion, the 1920X is the only choice. Its higher base and boost clocks deliver measurable gains across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, with no test where the 1920 manages to pull ahead.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920, however, offers a meaningful alternative for power-conscious builds. Its 140 W TDP versus the 1920X's 180 W means it consumes less power while giving up less than 5% performance. For systems with limited cooling or power delivery, that trade-off could be worthwhile. The 1920 is also end-of-life, while the 1920X remains active, which may matter for long-term availability.

The 1920X's launch MSRP of $799 is the only pricing data available; no price is listed for the 1920. The benchmark data does not indicate that the 1920X's performance advantage is worth any additional cost, that is a separate decision. What the data does show is that, on performance alone, the 1920X is the superior part. For users who want the best possible scores in Cinebench workloads without regard to power draw, the 1920X wins outright. For users who prioritize efficiency and can accept a ~4.5% deficit, the 1920 remains a viable option. The verdict from the numbers is clear: the 1920X is the stronger performer, and the 1920 is the more power-efficient alternative.