AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 vs Intel Xeon E-2388G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E-2388G across all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons. The margin is remarkably consistent, with the Intel part winning every single test by either 6.3% or 6.4%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon E-2388G posts 2009 points against 1890 for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920, a 6.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in percentage terms: 283 versus 266, a 6.4% lead for Intel. This consistency suggests the gap is structural rather than workload-specific, which matters when interpreting the rest of the results.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Intel Xeon E-2388G scores 8374 in multicore, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 manages 7877. That is again a 6.3% delta. In R20 single-core, the Intel chip posts 1181 against 1111, another 6.3% margin. The R23 results follow the same script: 19939 versus 18756 in multicore, and 2814 versus 2647 in single-core, both 6.3% gaps. No benchmark in the head-to-head set favors the Threadripper. The wins counter reads 6 for Intel, 0 for AMD.

What does that mean in practical terms? The Xeon E-2388G is not just faster in one discipline; it is faster in every measured Cinebench scenario. The single-core advantage is particularly notable because the Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads, yet it cannot overcome the Intel part's higher boost clock in lightly threaded work. The Intel chip boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the AMD part tops out at 3.80 GHz. That 1.30 GHz gap in boost frequency explains why the Intel part leads even in tests that should favor more cores, assuming the workload scales well with frequency.

For multicore, the Threadripper's extra cores do narrow the gap, but only slightly. The Intel Xeon E-2388G still wins by 6.3%, which indicates that per-core efficiency and clock speed outweigh the raw core count advantage in these Cinebench versions. The data does not show any test where the Threadripper's 12 cores and 24 threads translate into a win. The largest absolute difference is in R23 multicore, where Intel leads by 1183 points. The smallest absolute difference is in R15 single-core, where the margin is 17 points.

The average benchmark score in the database tells a similar story. The Intel Xeon E-2388G has an average score of 5805, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 sits at 5425. That is a 380-point average gap, which aligns with the head-to-head results. The Intel part also holds a slightly better percentile rank among all CPUs: 61st percentile versus 60th for AMD. In the nearest rivals list, the Xeon E-2388G is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 7401P, which scores 5814, a delta of -0.2%. The Threadripper 1920, meanwhile, sits just below the Intel Xeon W-1290P, which scores 5443, a delta of -0.3%. These contextual numbers reinforce that the Intel part occupies a slightly higher performance tier in this database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore, and by how much?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2388G wins with a score of 19939, compared to 18756 for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920. That is a 6.3% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records 6 wins for the Intel Xeon E-2388G and 0 wins for the AMD part across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multicore.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2388G leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2814 versus 2647 for the Threadripper 1920, a 6.3% gap. In R15 single-core, the margin is 6.4% (283 versus 266).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2388G has an average benchmark score of 5805, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has an average of 5425. The Intel part is also rated at the 61st percentile of all CPUs, versus the 60th percentile for AMD.

Q: How does the Intel Xeon E-2388G compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: Its closest rival is the AMD EPYC 7401P, which has an average score of 5814. The delta is -0.2%, meaning the Xeon E-2388G is essentially on par with that EPYC part. The Intel Xeon W-2175 is also close, with a score of 5770 and a delta of 0.6%.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 compare to its nearest rival?

A: The closest rival is the Intel Xeon W-1290P, which scores 5443, a delta of -0.3%. The AMD EPYC 7351P is also nearby at 5469, a delta of -0.8%. The Intel Core i9-13900TE and Core i9-10900KF are slightly lower at 5342 and 5316, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E-2388G is built on the Rocket Lake architecture, specifically the Rocket Lake-E variant, and uses a 14 nm process node from Intel. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920, meanwhile, is based on the Zen architecture, with the codename Zen (Whitehaven), and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 12 cores and 24 threads. Both use 14 nm, but the transistor counts differ sharply: the Threadripper 1920 has 9,600 million transistors across two dies, each measuring 213 mm², for a total die area of 426 mm². The Xeon E-2388G has a single die of 276 mm², with transistor count not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 32 MB L3 cache. That doubling of L3 capacity may help the Threadripper in some workloads, but the benchmark data does not show a corresponding win in the Cinebench tests. The Intel part also includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics P750, while the AMD part has no integrated GPU. That makes the Xeon E-2388G a more self-contained option for systems that need display output without a discrete card.

PCIe connectivity is another major difference. The Intel Xeon E-2388G supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes. The AMD part offers far more lanes, which matters for multi-GPU or high-expansion systems, but the Intel part has the newer Gen 4 standard, which doubles per-lane bandwidth. Memory support also differs: Intel uses dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while AMD uses quad-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Threadripper's memory bandwidth is substantially higher, yet that does not translate to a Cinebench win.

ECC memory support is another split. The Intel Xeon E-2388G supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 does not. That makes the Intel part more suitable for server or workstation reliability scenarios. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, which enables overclocking, while the Intel part is locked. The production status also differs: the Xeon E-2388G is listed as Active, while the Threadripper 1920 is End-of-life. The release date for the Intel part is recorded as 2021-09-07, while the AMD part has no release date in the database.

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights several key differences. Core count: 8 versus 12. Thread count: 16 versus 24. Base clock is identical at 3.20 GHz for both, but boost clock differs dramatically: 5.10 GHz for Intel versus 3.80 GHz for AMD. TDP also differs: 95 watts for the Intel part versus 140 watts for the AMD part. The Intel chip draws less power while delivering higher boost clocks, which is notable given the performance results.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The Intel Xeon E-2388G uses Intel Socket 1200, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses AMD Socket SP3r2. These are not interchangeable. The market segment also differs: Intel is listed as Server/Workstation, while AMD is Desktop. The Intel part has a part number of SRKMZ, and the AMD part is YD1920A9UC9AE. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $539, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel part is not multiplier unlocked, while the AMD part is.

Memory channels differ: dual-channel for Intel, quad-channel for AMD. ECC support: true for Intel, false for AMD. Integrated graphics: present on Intel (UHD Graphics P750), absent on AMD. The Intel part has 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the AMD part has 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The process node is the same at 14 nm, but the foundry differs: Intel for the Xeon, GlobalFoundries for the Threadripper. The die size is 276 mm² for Intel and 2x 213 mm² for AMD. The AMD part has 9,600 million transistors, while the Intel transistor count is not recorded.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E-2388G wins every head-to-head Cinebench test, with margins between 6.3% and 6.4%. It also holds a higher average benchmark score (5805 versus 5425) and a better percentile rank (61 versus 60). For users prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the Intel part is the clear choice. The consistent single-core lead, driven by a 5.10 GHz boost clock versus 3.80 GHz, makes it particularly strong for lightly threaded applications. The lower TDP of 95 watts versus 140 watts also means less thermal load for the same or better performance.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920, however, is not without arguments in its favor, based on the recorded data. It offers 12 cores and 24 threads, which is a 50% core advantage over the Intel part. It also has 32 MB of L3 cache versus 16 MB, quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth versus dual-channel 51.2 GB/s, and 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, cache capacity, or expansion slot count, the Threadripper may still be preferable. The unlocked multiplier is another point for enthusiasts who want to push clocks manually.

But the production status is decisive for many buyers. The Intel Xeon E-2388G is Active, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is End-of-life. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, which is a requirement for certain server or workstation deployments. The AMD part does not. The Intel launch MSRP of $539 is recorded, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database.

The verdict, strictly from the data: the Intel Xeon E-2388G is the better performer in every benchmark recorded, with a higher average score, a higher percentile, and a 6.3% to 6.4% lead in all Cinebench tests. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers more cores, more cache, more memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes, which could matter in specific non-Cinebench scenarios, but none of those advantages appear in the measured benchmarks. For users who need maximum Cinebench scores and ECC support, the Intel part wins. For users who need maximum core count and expansion capability, the Threadripper retains a structural edge, but the data shows it loses in every recorded performance test.