AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 vs Intel Xeon W-1290P Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-1290P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 are both high-core-count workstation processors, but they approach the job from opposite directions. The Xeon is a 10-core, 20-thread part on Intel’s Comet Lake architecture, while the Threadripper packs 12 cores and 24 threads on AMD’s original Zen design. Benchmark data shows the Xeon winning every single head-to-head test, but the margins are remarkably thin, and the Threadripper’s extra cores and platform features change the practical calculus. The average benchmark score for the Xeon is 5443, versus 5425 for the Threadripper, a delta of just 0.3%. Both sit at the 60th percentile among all CPUs. The real story is not raw speed—it is which weaknesses you are willing to accept.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-1290P wins on every single-core and multi-core benchmark in the comparison suite. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it takes both the single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. The single-core advantage is consistent, ranging from 1.4% to 1.5% across all three Cinebench versions. Multi-core wins are also uniform at 1.3% in every Cinebench test. This suggests the Xeon’s higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz, versus the Threadripper’s 3.80 GHz, gives it a decisive edge in lightly-threaded workloads and a small but real advantage even when all cores are active.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 wins in the platform and configuration department, even though it loses in benchmark scores. It offers 12 cores and 24 threads, 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, and quad-channel DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon counters with 10 cores, 20 threads, 16 PCIe lanes, and dual-channel memory at 46.9 GB/s. For workloads that scale with memory bandwidth or need many PCIe devices, the Threadripper’s architecture is the clear winner, regardless of what Cinebench says. The data shows the Xeon is faster in compute-bound tests, but the Threadripper is built for a different class of system-level throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P wins all three Cinebench single-core tests. It scores 270 vs 266 in R15, 1126 vs 1111 in R20, and 2683 vs 2647 in R23. The margin is 1.4% to 1.5% in each case.

Q: Does the Threadripper’s extra cores make it faster in multi-core workloads?

A: No. Despite having 12 cores to the Xeon’s 10, the Threadripper loses every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 19008 versus 18756 for the Threadripper, a 1.3% difference. The Xeon’s higher clock speeds compensate for the core deficit.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper has a major advantage. It supports quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon is limited to dual-channel at 46.9 GB/s. That is a 82% difference in theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: Can I use ECC memory with either CPU?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 does not list ECC support in the data.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Threadripper offers 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon provides only 16 Gen 3 lanes. This makes the Threadripper far more suitable for multi-GPU or heavy expansion card setups.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P is marked as Active. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is entirely one-sided, but the margins are small enough to be almost noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1915 against 1890 for the Threadripper, a 1.3% win. In single-core, it is 270 vs 266, a 1.5% edge. Moving to R20, the multi-core result is 7983 vs 7877, again 1.3%, while single-core is 1126 vs 1111, a 1.4% margin. R23 shows the same pattern: 19008 vs 18756 multi-core (1.3%) and 2683 vs 2647 single-core (1.4%).

The Geekbench results reinforce the trend. The Xeon scores 8852 multi-core and 1703 single-core. The Threadripper does not have Geekbench results in the data, but the Cinebench pattern is consistent. The Xeon’s advantage is uniform across all tests, which points to a fundamental clock speed superiority rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Threadripper’s 12 cores cannot overcome the 5.30 GHz boost clock of the Xeon, even in fully parallel workloads. The average benchmark score difference is 18 points out of roughly 5400, which is negligible in real-world terms.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Threadripper has 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel decisively. The Xeon runs at 3.70 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The Threadripper is at 3.20 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The Xeon’s boost clock is 1.5 GHz higher, which explains its consistent benchmark wins.

Cache configurations are also different. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 20 MB shared L3. The Threadripper has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with 32 MB L3. Total L3 is 20 MB versus 32 MB, favoring AMD. The memory bus is dual-channel on Intel and quad-channel on AMD. Memory bandwidth is 46.9 GB/s vs 85.3 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 3 on both, but the Xeon offers 16 lanes while the Threadripper offers 60.

The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P630; the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Threadripper does not. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon is locked. The Xeon’s TDP is 125W, and the Threadripper’s is 140W. The Xeon was released on 2020-05-12 with a launch MSRP of $539. The Threadripper’s release date is not listed, and no launch MSRP is provided.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon W-1290P is built on Comet Lake, which is Intel’s 10 nm process. It is a monolithic die measuring 206 mm². The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses the Zen architecture on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. It uses two dies, each 213 mm², for a total of 9,600 million transistors. The Threadripper’s dual-die design is the reason for its massive PCIe lane count and quad-channel memory support. The Xeon’s single die is simpler but limits platform expansion.

The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 1200, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2. The Xeon is a 10 nm part, while the Threadripper is 14 nm. The Threadripper’s process node is older, but its larger die area and transistor count (9,600 million) give it more physical resources. The Xeon’s smaller 206 mm² die is more efficient in terms of die area per core. The Threadripper’s Zen architecture dates to the first generation of Ryzen, while the Xeon’s Comet Lake is a matured 14 nm derivative refined onto 10 nm.

The Xeon has a smaller L1 and L2 cache per core but a shared L3 of 20 MB. The Threadripper has larger per-core caches and a 32 MB L3. The Threadripper’s quad-channel memory controller and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth are direct results of the dual-die design, as each die has its own memory controller. The Xeon’s dual-channel controller matches its smaller platform footprint. The Threadripper’s 60 PCIe lanes are also a product of the dual-die layout, giving it a substantial advantage for server-style workloads. The Xeon’s 16 lanes are typical for a mainstream workstation part.

The Verdict

The data says the Intel Xeon W-1290P is the faster processor in every benchmark test. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins of 1.3% to 1.5%. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock delivers superior single-threaded performance, and it even beats the 12-core Threadripper in multi-threaded tests. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, has integrated graphics, is still in production, and carries a launch MSRP of $539. For a workstation that prioritizes raw compute speed and reliability features, the Xeon is the clear choice.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 loses every benchmark but wins the platform war. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 60 PCIe lanes, quad-channel memory, and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth make it the better option for systems that need massive I/O or memory throughput. It has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and its 32 MB L3 cache is larger. The Threadripper is end-of-life, lacks ECC support, and has no integrated graphics. If your workload is dominated by memory bandwidth or requires many expansion cards, the Threadripper’s architectural advantages matter more than the 1.3% Cinebench deficit. If you need the fastest possible CPU for compute-bound tasks, the Xeon’s benchmark sweep makes it the winner. The average scores are nearly identical, so the decision comes down to platform needs, not raw speed.