AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs Intel Core i5-13500E Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents a surprisingly consistent picture: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X wins every single head-to-head test in the database, despite being a much older design. Across six Cinebench workloads, the Threadripper 1950X takes all six wins, with margins ranging from 2.9% to 3.1%. The Intel Core i5-13500E, meanwhile, does not win a single recorded comparison. However, the average benchmark score tells a different story: the i5-13500E posts an average of 6586 across all its recorded benchmarks, while the Threadripper 1950X averages 6231. That is a 5.7% advantage for Intel in the aggregate, which suggests the Cinebench suite specifically favors the AMD part, while other workloads in the database tip the overall average toward Intel. The verdict for buyers depends entirely on which workload matters most. For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering and multithreaded throughput at the specific metrics recorded here, the Threadripper 1950X is the stronger pick. For a more balanced, general-purpose processor with a much lower TDP, the i5-13500E holds the aggregate edge. The Threadripper 1950X also carries a launch MSRP of $999, which can be stated once as a reference point, but the i5-13500E has no recorded launch price in the database. Both processors sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a top-tier performer by the database's ranking; they are peers in overall standing, with the Intel part having a slightly higher average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design eras and philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is built on the Zen architecture, specifically the Whitehaven generation, using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It is a 16-core, 32-thread monster with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its TDP is 180 W, and it uses the AMD Socket SP3r2. The chip is built from two dies, each measuring 213 mm², totaling a die size of 2x 213 mm², with 9,600 million transistors. Cache is organized per core: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 32 MB L3 pool. Memory support is DDR4 over a quad-channel bus, delivering 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Notably, ECC memory is not supported. There is no integrated graphics, and the part is unlocked for overclocking.

The Intel Core i5-13500E is a Raptor Lake-S part from the Core 13th Gen family, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. It has 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. TDP is dramatically lower at 65 W. It uses the Intel Socket 1700. Cache layout differs significantly: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Memory support covers both DDR4 and DDR5, but the memory bus is dual-channel, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. ECC memory is supported, which is a notable difference from the AMD part. It also includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 770, and its PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The multiplier is locked, so overclocking flexibility is absent. Its die size is 215 mm², and no transistor count is listed. These architectural differences explain the performance split: the Threadripper has more threads and a larger L3 cache, while the i5-13500E has a much higher boost clock, newer process, and lower power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Threadripper 1950X scores 2362 against 2295 for the i5-13500E, a 2.9% win. In R15 singlecore, the AMD part scores 333 versus 323, a 3.1% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 9844 for AMD versus 9564 for Intel, again 2.9% in favor of the Threadripper. The R20 singlecore test shows 1389 versus 1349, a 3% lead. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the scores are 23440 for the Threadripper and 22772 for the i5-13500E, a 2.9% gap. Finally, R23 singlecore yields 3309 versus 3214, another 3% win for AMD. Every single one of the six tests lands within a narrow band of 2.9% to 3.1%. This consistency suggests the Threadripper's advantage is structural, not workload-specific within the Cinebench suite. The older Zen architecture with 32 threads outperforms the newer Raptor Lake design with 20 threads in every Cinebench metric, even though the i5-13500E has a 0.60 GHz higher boost clock. The singlecore results are especially telling: despite the lower clock speed, the Threadripper 1950X wins singlecore tests by 3% to 3.1%. That is an unusual outcome, as newer architectures typically dominate single-threaded workloads. The data shows the Zen architecture's per-core efficiency in these tests was sufficient to overcome the clock deficit. The i5-13500E's aggregate average score of 6586 versus the Threadripper's 6231, however, indicates that outside Cinebench, the Intel part likely has wins that are not captured in the head-to-head table. The database records only these six comparisons, so the full picture leans on the average scores and percentile rankings.

Specification Differences

Comparing the two processors field by field, the differences are stark. The Threadripper 1950X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i5-13500E has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, but boost clocks reverse the order: 4.00 GHz for AMD versus 4.60 GHz for Intel. TDP is a major separator, with the AMD part drawing 180 W versus 65 W for Intel. The process node differs: 14 nm for GlobalFoundries, 10 nm for Intel. Die size is 2x 213 mm² for AMD versus 215 mm² for Intel. Cache configurations diverge: L1 is 96 KB per core for AMD versus 80 KB per core for Intel; L2 is 512 KB per core for AMD versus 1.25 MB per core for Intel; L3 is 32 MB for AMD versus 24 MB shared for Intel. Memory support: AMD uses DDR4 only, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus width is quad-channel for AMD and dual-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for AMD at 85.3 GB/s; no figure exists for Intel. ECC memory is unsupported on the AMD part but supported on the Intel part. Integrated graphics are absent on AMD, present as UHD Graphics 770 on Intel. PCIe is unlisted for AMD, while Intel has Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only). The multiplier is unlocked on AMD, locked on Intel. Release dates are far apart: the Threadripper 1950X launched on 2017-08-09, while the i5-13500E launched on 2023-01-03. The launch MSRP for the AMD part is $999; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel part. Socket types are entirely different, meaning no platform compatibility between the two. The part numbers are YD195XA8UGAAE for AMD and SRMFW for Intel. Both are listed as active production status and both target the desktop market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X wins all six recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core i5-13500E, with margins between 2.9% and 3.1%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-13500E have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes. The i5-13500E has a higher average benchmark score of 6586 compared to the Threadripper 1950X's 6231, indicating the Intel part performs better across the broader benchmark database, even though it loses every Cinebench head-to-head test.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Threadripper 1950X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i5-13500E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD part has more cores and threads, which aligns with its Cinebench multicore wins.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Threadripper 1950X has a TDP of 180 W, while the i5-13500E has a TDP of 65 W. The Intel part draws significantly less power.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The i5-13500E supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 1950X does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the i5-13500E has integrated graphics, in the form of UHD Graphics 770. The Threadripper 1950X has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X wins in every Cinebench scenario recorded: R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and singlecore. Its margins are consistent at 2.9% to 3.1%, which makes it the clear choice for users whose workloads are heavily represented by Cinebench-style rendering. The multicore wins (2362 vs 2295 in R15, 9844 vs 9564 in R20, 23440 vs 22772 in R23) come despite the Intel part's higher boost clock, which points to the Threadripper's 32 threads and 32 MB L3 cache as decisive factors. The singlecore wins (333 vs 323 in R15, 1389 vs 1349 in R20, 3309 vs 3214 in R23) are more surprising given the 0.60 GHz clock disadvantage, but the data is unambiguous. For users who prize thread count, quad-channel memory bandwidth at 85.3 GB/s, and unlocked overclocking, the Threadripper 1950X is the stronger part. It also offers a larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 24 MB) and a higher base clock. However, it comes with a much higher TDP of 180 W and no integrated graphics, and it is limited to DDR4 memory.

The Intel Core i5-13500E wins in the aggregate benchmark average, posting 6586 versus 6231. That advantage, combined with no head-to-head wins in the Cinebench suite, suggests its strengths lie outside the recorded comparisons. The i5-13500E has a significantly lower TDP of 65 W, supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes ECC memory support, and features UHD Graphics 770 integrated graphics. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz is substantially higher than the Threadripper's 4.00 GHz. The Intel part also has a much newer release date (2023-01-03 vs 2017-08-09) and uses a smaller 10 nm process. For users who need ECC memory, integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or a more modern platform with PCIe Gen 5 support, the i5-13500E is the logical choice. The dual-channel memory bus is a limitation compared to the Threadripper's quad-channel configuration, but the Intel part's support for DDR5 may offset that in memory-sensitive workloads. In summary, the Threadripper 1950X is the Cinebench champion and the thread-count king, while the i5-13500E is the aggregate-average leader with superior efficiency, newer features, and broader memory compatibility.