CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 represent two very different philosophies for high-core-count desktop computing. The data shows a clear split: the AMD part dominates in Cinebench across every version tested, while the Intel Xeon takes a decisive victory in Geekbench multicore. With an average benchmark score of 5306 against 5259, the Threadripper holds a slight overall edge, but the Xeon’s 22 cores and 44 threads versus the Threadripper’s 12 cores and 24 threads tell a story of divergent strengths. The Threadripper wins 7 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks, yet the single Geekbench multicore loss is massive, indicating that the choice between these two hinges entirely on workload type.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for most users: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the superior processor for rendering and simulation tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 19640 is 10.2% ahead of the Xeon’s 17826, and this consistent 10.2% advantage repeats across R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. The Threadripper also leads by 16.2% in Geekbench single-core, making it the better choice for lightly-threaded applications. Its unlocked multiplier and active production status further cement its position as the more versatile, future-proof option.

However, the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 is not without its niche. Its Geekbench multicore score of 10118 crushes the Threadripper’s 7178, a 29.1% margin. This suggests the Xeon handles certain parallel workloads, particularly those that scale heavily with core count and memory bandwidth, more effectively. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the AMD part, making it the safer pick for data integrity-sensitive environments. For users running mixed workloads that stress Geekbench-style multithreading, the Xeon’s 22 cores provide a tangible advantage. Given its end-of-life status, the Xeon is a legacy purchase, but for specific server-like tasks on a desktop socket, it remains relevant.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split begins with the fundamentals: the Threadripper uses AMD’s Zen architecture, codenamed Whitehaven, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Xeon, by contrast, uses Intel’s Broadwell-EP architecture, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel. It packs 22 cores and 44 threads, though at lower clocks: 2.40 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The Threadripper’s transistor count is higher at 9,600 million versus 7,200 million, but its die size is split into two 213 mm² dies, while the Xeon uses a single 456 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Threadripper allocates 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a 32 MB L3 cache. The Xeon uses 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but offers a much larger 55 MB shared L3 cache. This larger L3 could explain the Xeon’s Geekbench multicore advantage, as it provides more on-chip data storage for thread-heavy workloads. Memory support is quad-channel DDR4 for both, but the Threadripper’s bandwidth is higher at 85.3 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The Threadripper also offers 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon provides 40. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon, and the Threadripper’s multiplier is unlocked for overclocking, whereas the Xeon’s is locked.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins decisively in all Cinebench tests. This benchmark family measures 3D rendering performance, and the Threadripper’s higher clock speeds, 4.00 GHz boost versus 3.60 GHz, allow it to outperform the Xeon despite having 10 fewer cores. The 10.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore, alongside the same margin in R20 and R15, indicates that the Threadripper’s per-core efficiency and clock advantage dominate in this workload. The Threadripper also wins Geekbench single-core by 16.2%, reinforcing its strength in tasks that rely on single-thread performance, such as older software or lightly-parallelized applications.

The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 wins only one benchmark, but it wins big. The Geekbench multicore score of 10118 represents a 29.1% advantage over the Threadripper. Geekbench includes a mix of integer and floating-point tasks, often scaling with core count and memory cache. The Xeon’s 22 cores and 55 MB L3 cache likely drive this result. For workloads like video encoding, scientific simulation, or database queries that are highly parallel and cache-sensitive, the Xeon’s architecture provides a substantial edge. Users running such applications will find the Xeon’s 44 threads beneficial, even at lower clocks, because the sheer core count overcomes the frequency deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores and 44 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all single-core tests. It leads by 10.3% in Cinebench R15, 10.2% in R20, 10.2% in R23, and 16.2% in Geekbench.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Threadripper’s average benchmark score is 5306, which is 0.9% higher than the Xeon’s 5259. The Threadripper’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-9900X, scores 5301, placing it within 0.1%.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the Intel Xeon’s 3.60 GHz.

Q: Is the Threadripper’s multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4’s multiplier is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the Geekbench multicore test. The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 scores 10118, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X manages only 7178. This 29.1% delta is the single largest margin in either direction. The Xeon’s 22 cores and 55 MB L3 cache likely enable this performance, as Geekbench’s multicore suite scales well with core count. This result alone justifies the Xeon’s existence for users whose primary applications resemble this benchmark’s workload.

Every other benchmark, however, belongs to the Threadripper. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Threadripper scores 19640 against the Xeon’s 17826, a 10.2% lead. This pattern repeats exactly in R20 (8248 vs 7486) and R15 (1979 vs 1796). The single-core results follow the same trend: the Threadripper leads by 10.3% in R15 (279 vs 253), 10.2% in R20 (1164 vs 1056), and 10.2% in R23 (2772 vs 2516). Geekbench single-core also favors the Threadripper, with a 16.2% margin (1185 vs 1020).

The consistency of the 10.2% delta across Cinebench tests is notable. It suggests that the Threadripper’s clock advantage, 4.00 GHz versus 3.60 GHz boost, translates directly into a fixed performance gain for this benchmark suite. The Xeon’s extra 10 cores cannot compensate for its lower frequency in Cinebench’s rendering workloads. Conversely, the Geekbench multicore result shows that core count and cache can override clock speed in other contexts. The Xeon’s 29.1% win there is nearly three times larger than any of the Threadripper’s wins, indicating that for certain parallel workloads, the Xeon is dramatically better. The overall win tally of 7 to 1 favors the Threadripper, but the magnitude of the Xeon’s single victory means that dismissing it entirely would be a mistake for users with matching workloads.