CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Intel Xeon E-2378G occupy very different positions in the processor landscape, despite both being active production parts aimed at serious workloads. The Threadripper is a 12-core, 24-thread desktop part built on AMD's Zen architecture, while the Xeon E-2378G is an 8-core, 16-thread server/workstation chip using Intel's Rocket Lake-E design. Benchmark data shows the AMD part winning all six head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are consistently narrow, and the underlying specifications reveal why each processor exists for a distinct purpose.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads. This gives the AMD part a 50% advantage in core count and thread count.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel Xeon E-2378G has a lower base clock of 2.80 GHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2378G supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X does not. This is a key differentiator for reliability-focused server and workstation use cases.

Q: How do the memory buses differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X uses a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E-2378G uses a dual-channel DDR4 bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor include?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2378G includes UHD Graphics P750 integrated graphics. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has an average benchmark score of 5306, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G scores 5199. Both processors sit at the 60th percentile among all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is substantial. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is built on the Zen microarchitecture, specifically the Whitehaven variant, using a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It packs 9,600 million transistors across a dual-die design with each die measuring 213 mm². The Intel Xeon E-2378G uses the Rocket Lake-E architecture on Intel's own 14 nm process, with a single 276 mm² die. Both use the same 14 nm process node, but the design philosophies diverge sharply.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. The Threadripper 1920X has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with a 32 MB L3 cache. The Xeon E-2378G has 80 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its L3 cache is only 16 MB and is shared across all cores. This means the AMD part has double the L3 cache capacity, which can help with larger working sets.

Memory support represents another major architectural divide. The Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon E-2378G supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part offers 67% more memory bandwidth, which can be critical for memory-intensive workloads. However, the Xeon E-2378G supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Threadripper.

PCIe capabilities also differ significantly. The Threadripper 1920X provides 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon E-2378G provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The AMD part has three times the lane count, though on an older PCIe generation. The Intel part's Gen 4 support offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but far fewer total lanes.

The Xeon E-2378G includes UHD Graphics P750 integrated graphics, while the Threadripper 1920X has none. The Intel part also has a locked multiplier, whereas the AMD part is multiplier-unlocked for overclocking. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with margins between 9.3% and 9.4% across both single-core and multi-core tests. Its higher core count, larger L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bus give it a consistent edge in raw computational throughput.

However, the Intel Xeon E-2378G is not without justification. It offers ECC memory support, integrated graphics, and a much higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz compared to 4.00 GHz on the AMD part. Its 80W TDP is dramatically lower than the Threadripper's 180W TDP, making it a more power-efficient choice. The Xeon also uses PCIe Gen 4, though with fewer lanes.

For workloads that prioritize maximum multi-threaded performance, memory bandwidth, and overclocking flexibility, the Threadripper 1920X is the superior choice based on benchmark results. For applications that require ECC memory reliability, integrated graphics, or lower power consumption, the Xeon E-2378G presents a compelling alternative despite losing on raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator: the Threadripper 1920X draws 180W, while the Xeon E-2378G draws only 80W. The AMD part uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1200. The Threadripper is built on the Zen architecture with the Whitehaven codename, while the Xeon uses Rocket Lake-E.

Cache configurations differ: the Threadripper has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3. The Xeon has 80 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The AMD part uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

The Xeon E-2378G supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 1920X does not. The AMD part provides 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Intel part provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Xeon includes UHD Graphics P750, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics.

The Threadripper 1920X has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon E-2378G is locked. Their release dates differ significantly, with the AMD part launching on 2017-08-09 and the Intel part on 2021-09-07. The Threadripper has a launch MSRP of $799, while the Xeon has a launch MSRP of $494.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with consistent margins around 9.3%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 1979 against the Xeon's 1811, a 9.3% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the AMD part scores 279 against 255, a 9.4% lead.

The pattern continues in Cinebench R20. In multi-core, the Threadripper 1920X scores 8248 versus 7549 for the Xeon E-2378G, a 9.3% difference. In single-core, the AMD part scores 1164 versus 1065, again a 9.3% margin.

Cinebench R23 shows the same story. The Threadripper 1920X scores 19640 in multi-core, while the Xeon E-2378G scores 17974, a 9.3% advantage. In single-core, the AMD part scores 2772 versus 2537, a 9.3% lead.

Notably, the single-core margins are nearly identical to the multi-core margins. This is surprising given that the Xeon E-2378G has a much higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz compared to the Threadripper's 4.00 GHz. The benchmark results indicate that the Zen architecture's single-threaded performance at 4.00 GHz is sufficient to overcome the Intel part's clock advantage.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Threadripper 1920X has an average benchmark score of 5306, while the Xeon E-2378G scores 5199. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-9900X with an average score of 5301 and a delta of 0.1%, while the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-13400T with an average score of 5210 and a delta of -0.2%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins decisively in raw computational benchmarks. It leads in all six head-to-head tests, including both single-core and multi-core Cinebench variants across R15, R20, and R23. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration provides a 50% core advantage over the Xeon's 8-core, 16-thread design. The 32 MB L3 cache is double the Xeon's 16 MB, and the quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth offers 67% more bandwidth than the Xeon's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s setup.

The Threadripper also holds advantages in platform expansion. Its 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes dwarf the Xeon's 20 Gen 4 lanes, making it better suited for systems with multiple GPUs or high-speed storage devices. The unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, which the locked Xeon does not permit.

The Intel Xeon E-2378G wins in areas not captured by the benchmark suite. It supports ECC memory, which is essential for data integrity in server and workstation environments. Its integrated UHD Graphics P750 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display configurations. The 80W TDP is less than half the Threadripper's 180W, making it far more power-efficient for dense server deployments.

The Xeon's 5.10 GHz boost clock is substantially higher than the Threadripper's 4.00 GHz, which could benefit lightly-threaded workloads that depend heavily on clock speed, despite the benchmark results showing the AMD part winning single-core tests. Its PCIe Gen 4 support offers higher per-lane bandwidth, which matters for newer NVMe storage devices. The Xeon also has a lower launch MSRP of $494 compared to $799 for the Threadripper.

The choice ultimately depends on workload priorities. For multi-threaded rendering, scientific computing, and memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks, the Threadripper 1920X is the performance winner. For ECC reliability, integrated graphics, and power-constrained environments, the Xeon E-2378G offers capabilities the AMD part cannot match.