AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The 2920X leads by 14% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 2920X scores 21380 versus 18756 for the 1920.

Q: Are these two processors built on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The 2920X uses a 12 nm process node, while the 1920 is built on a 14 nm process. Both are manufactured by GlobalFoundries and use 9,600 million transistors on dual 213 mm² dies.

Q: Do both chips support the same memory configuration?

A: Both support DDR4 memory in a quad-channel configuration, but the 2920X has a higher memory bandwidth of 93.9 GB/s compared to 85.3 GB/s for the 1920.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 tops out at 3.80 GHz. The base clocks are 3.50 GHz and 3.20 GHz respectively.

Q: Is the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 still in production?

A: No. The database lists the 1920 as end-of-life. The 2920X is marked as active production.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two?

A: The 2920X has a TDP of 180 watts, while the 1920 operates at a lower 140 watts TDP.

Architecture Differences

The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X belongs to the 2000 series and uses the Zen+ architecture under the Colfax codename. The Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is from the 1000 series, built on the original Zen architecture with the Whitehaven codename. This is a generational shift, and the data reflects the improvements.

The manufacturing process is the most visible change. The 2920X is fabricated on a 12 nm node, while the 1920 uses a 14 nm node. Despite this shrink, both chips pack the same transistor count of 9,600 million and use two 213 mm² dies. The process improvement likely contributes to the clock speed advantage of the 2920X.

Both processors share the same core topology: 12 physical cores with 24 threads, split across two dies. Cache allocation is identical too. Each core gets 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with a shared 32 MB L3 cache. The per-core cache structure does not change between generations.

The socket is the same AMD Socket SP3r2 for both, meaning physical compatibility with Threadripper platforms. Both expose PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes from the CPU only. Neither has integrated graphics, and both have unlocked multipliers for overclocking.

The memory controller differs in bandwidth. The 2920X achieves 93.9 GB/s, while the 1920 is rated at 85.3 GB/s. Both run quad-channel DDR4. The higher bandwidth on the 2920X aligns with its newer memory controller design.

Clock speeds are a clear differentiator. The 2920X runs at a 3.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The 1920 sits lower at 3.20 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. That is a 500 MHz gap in boost clocks, which directly impacts single-threaded performance.

The 2920X has a 180 watt TDP, which is higher than the 140 watt TDP of the 1920. This reflects the higher clock speeds and likely the memory bandwidth improvements. The 1920 was released earlier in the Threadripper lineup, while the 2920X is a refined 2000 series part.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X wins every recorded head-to-head test, taking all 6 wins with zero victories for the 1920. If you are choosing between these two for a new build, the 2920X is the stronger processor in every measurable category.

The 1920 is still a capable 12-core chip. Its average benchmark score of 5425 places it in the 60th percentile of all CPUs. It holds its own against recent desktop parts like the Intel Core i9-10900KF, which trails by 2.1%. But the 2920X sits higher at the 61st percentile with an average score of 5730.

For workloads that depend on multi-threading, the 2920X delivers a consistent 14% advantage across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. That is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial generational leap. Single-threaded performance also favors the 2920X by 14% to 14.3% in the same benchmark suite.

The 1920 makes sense only if you have a strict thermal or power budget. Its 140 watt TDP is lower than the 180 watt TDP of the 2920X. If your cooling solution or chassis cannot handle the higher thermal output, the 1920 remains a functional 12-core option. Otherwise, the 2920X is the clear choice for performance.

The 1920 is end-of-life, which means it may be harder to source new. The 2920X is still active in production. For long-term reliability and availability, the 2920X is the safer pick. The data does not support choosing the 1920 on performance grounds alone.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |

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

| Series | 2000 series | 1000 series |

| Architecture | Zen+ | Zen |

| Codename | Colfax | Zen (Whitehaven) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 180 watts | 140 watts |

| Memory Bandwidth | 93.9 GB/s | 85.3 GB/s |

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

| Release Date | 2018-10-02 | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | $649 | Not recorded |

The core count, thread count, cache sizes, socket, memory type, memory bus width, ECC support, PCIe configuration, and transistor count are identical between the two. The L1 cache is 96 KB per core, L2 is 512 KB per core, and L3 is 32 MB for both. Both use quad-channel DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a uniform pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 2920X scores 2154 against 1890 for the 1920, a 14% delta. The single-core R15 test shows 304 versus 266, a 14.3% advantage for the 2920X.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 8979 for the 2920X and 7877 for the 1920, again a 14% gap. The single-core R20 test produces 1267 versus 1111, also 14% in favor of the 2920X.

Cinebench R23 continues the trend. The multi-core result is 21380 for the 2920X against 18756 for the 1920, a 14% difference. The single-core test shows 3018 versus 2647, with the same 14% delta.

The Geekbench results are only recorded for the 2920X, which scores 7473 multi-core and 1266 single-core. The 1920 has no Geekbench entry in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there.

The consistency of the 14% delta across all three Cinebench versions is striking. It suggests a fundamental performance advantage tied to the Zen+ architecture and higher clocks, rather than a workload-specific quirk. The 2920X is not faster in some tests and slower in others; it is uniformly ahead.

The average benchmark score reinforces this. The 2920X averages 5730, while the 1920 averages 5425. That is a 5.6% overall difference across the recorded benchmark suite.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The 2920X is within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 7351 and 0.5% of the AMD EPYC 7F32. It edges out the Intel Xeon W-2175 by 0.7% and leads the Intel Core i9-7920X by 1%. The 1920, meanwhile, trails the Intel Xeon W-1290P by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 7351P by 0.8%, while beating the Intel Core i9-13900TE by 1.5% and the Intel Core i9-10900KF by 2.1%.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded rendering tasks, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21380. The 14% lead over the 1920 applies equally to single-threaded workloads, so there is no scenario where the 1920 catches up.

For creators running Cinebench-style workloads, the 2920X is the superior choice. The 4.30 GHz boost clock and 93.9 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a measurable edge in both compute-heavy and memory-sensitive tasks. The higher TDP of 180 watts is a trade-off, but the performance return is consistent.

The Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has one practical advantage: lower power consumption. Its 140 watt TDP is 40 watts lower than the 2920X. In a system where thermals are constrained, or where you want to minimize heat output, the 1920 is the more efficient option. It still delivers 12 cores and 24 threads, just at lower clocks.

The 1920 also benefits from being part of the original Zen generation, which may have more mature platform support in older BIOS revisions. But the database does not record any performance scenario where the 1920 wins. Its percentile rank of 60 is only one point below the 2920X, indicating that both are solid mid-range performers among all CPUs.

If you prioritize raw throughput in multi-threaded applications, the 2920X is the only logical pick. If you are building a system with a strict power envelope and cannot accommodate the 180 watt TDP, the 1920 remains a viable fallback. For every benchmark in the database, the 2920X delivers a 14% or better result.