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

The Intel Xeon W-1290P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X present a fascinating split, with the data showing a clear division of labor: the Threadripper dominates in Cinebench rendering workloads, while the Xeon crushes the Threadripper in Geekbench, particularly in single-core tests. The Xeon W-1290P wins 2 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks, but those wins are decisive, while the Threadripper 1920X wins 6 benchmarks by smaller, consistent margins. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Xeon at 5443 and the Threadripper at 5306, placing both at the 60th percentile of all CPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this comparison is in Geekbench single-core, where the Xeon W-1290P scores 1703 against the Threadripper's 1185, a 43.7% advantage. This is a massive gap, reflecting the Xeon's 5.30 GHz boost clock, which is substantially higher than the Threadripper's 4.00 GHz ceiling. The Xeon also wins Geekbench multi-core with 8852 versus 7178, a 23.3% lead, despite having only 10 cores and 20 threads compared to the Threadripper's 12 cores and 24 threads.

The Cinebench results tell the opposite story. Across all three versions of Cinebench (R15, R20, and R23), the Threadripper 1920X wins by a consistent 3.2% in both single-core and multi-core tests, with one exception at 3.3%. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 19640 versus the Xeon's 19008. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 8248 versus 7983. Even in single-core Cinebench tests, the Threadripper edges ahead, scoring 2772 in R23 single-core versus 2683 for the Xeon.

This pattern is unusual. The Threadripper's boost clock is 1.30 GHz lower than the Xeon's, yet it still wins single-core Cinebench. The data suggests the Threadripper's older Zen architecture handles Cinebench's instruction mix more efficiently, while the Xeon's Comet Lake design excels in Geekbench's workloads. The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data confirm the closeness of the overall matchup: the Xeon's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920, is only 0.3% behind in average score, while the Threadripper 1920X's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-9900X, is 0.1% behind.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is 1.30 GHz higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X's 4.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does the Threadripper have more cores?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks, all of which are Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon W-1290P wins the 2 Geekbench tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.

Q: Does the Xeon have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon W-1290P includes UHD Graphics P630. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has no integrated graphics.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon W-1290P and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X have a production status of Active.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on workload. If your priority is Geekbench-style single-threaded performance or memory-sensitive tasks that benefit from the Xeon's higher clock speed, the Intel Xeon W-1290P is the statistically significant winner. Its 43.7% lead in Geekbench single-core and 23.3% lead in Geekbench multi-core are the largest margins in this entire comparison. The Xeon also offers integrated graphics, which is a practical fallback for troubleshooting or basic display output.

For Cinebench rendering, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the better pick. It wins every Cinebench test by a 3.2% margin, and its 12-core, 24-thread configuration provides 2 additional cores over the Xeon. The Threadripper's quad-channel memory bus, with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Xeon's 46.9 GB/s, supports heavily threaded workloads that scale with memory throughput. However, the Threadripper's overall average benchmark score is lower at 5306, and its percentile ranking is identical at 60, meaning the Xeon's Geekbench wins carry more weight in the aggregate.

The average benchmark scores are nearly tied — 5443 for the Xeon versus 5306 for the Threadripper — but the distribution of wins is not. The Xeon's wins are massive, while the Threadripper's are narrow. If you value consistent, moderate gains in Cinebench, choose the Threadripper. If you value decisive, large-margin wins in Geekbench, choose the Xeon.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference is the core and thread count: the Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Xeon W-1290P has 10 cores and 20 threads. Clock speeds also differ significantly, with the Xeon's base clock at 3.70 GHz and boost at 5.30 GHz, compared to the Threadripper's 3.50 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The TDP is another differentiator: the Threadripper consumes 180 watts, while the Xeon is rated at 125 watts.

The memory subsystems are very different. The Threadripper uses a quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses dual-channel with 46.9 GB/s. ECC memory support also differs: the Xeon supports ECC, while the Threadripper does not. The Xeon has integrated UHD Graphics P630, while the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. The PCIe lane counts also differ, with the Threadripper offering 60 lanes on Gen 3 versus the Xeon's 16 lanes on Gen 3.

The platform sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200, and the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2. The Xeon has a locked multiplier, while the Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP also differs: the Xeon launched at $539, and the Threadripper launched at $799.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon W-1290P is built on Intel's Comet Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The die size is 206 mm². The Threadripper 1920X uses AMD's Zen architecture, codenamed Whitehaven, on a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The Threadripper's die is composed of two 213 mm² dies, totaling 9,600 million transistors.

Cache configurations also differ. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache. The Threadripper's larger cache allocation per core and its dual-die design are architectural responses to its higher core count.

The Xeon belongs to the Comet Lake generation, while the Threadripper is part of the Ryzen Threadripper 1000 series from the Zen generation. The Xeon's market segment is listed as Mobile, while the Threadripper is classified as Desktop. The Xeon's process node advantage — 10 nm versus 14 nm — is partially offset by the Threadripper's larger transistor budget and dual-die layout. The Threadripper's unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, which the Xeon's locked multiplier does not permit.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-1290P is the winner in Geekbench workloads, both single-core and multi-core. The 43.7% single-core advantage is the headline number, but the 23.3% multi-core win is equally telling. For users running applications that behave like Geekbench — which often includes office productivity, web browsing, and general-purpose computing — the Xeon's high boost clock of 5.30 GHz is the decisive factor. The Xeon also wins on efficiency, with a 125 watt TDP versus 180 watts, and offers integrated graphics for systems that need a display output without a dedicated GPU. ECC memory support is another Xeon advantage, making it suitable for error-sensitive workloads like data processing.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the winner in all Cinebench tests, taking 6 of the 8 benchmarks. The consistent 3.2% margin across R15, R20, and R23 indicates a stable architectural advantage in rendering workloads. The Threadripper's additional 2 cores and 4 threads directly contribute to multi-core Cinebench wins, while its quad-channel memory bus provides 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth — nearly double the Xeon's — which helps feed those cores. The unlocked multiplier is a win for enthusiasts who want to push performance further. The Threadripper's larger cache, with 32 MB of L3 and 512 KB of L2 per core, also supports workloads that benefit from data locality.

For a mixed workload, the choice is less obvious. The Xeon's average benchmark score is higher at 5443, and its percentile rank matches the Threadripper at 60. But the Threadripper's Cinebench wins cover a broader range of multi-threaded scenarios. The Xeon's Geekbench wins are so large that they pull its average score above the Threadripper's despite losing 6 of 8 tests. This suggests the Xeon is a better all-rounder by the aggregate metric, while the Threadripper is a specialist in rendering. The production status of both is Active, so neither is a dead-end platform purchase today.