AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs Intel Xeon E-2388G Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X leads with an average benchmark score of 6231, while the Intel Xeon E-2388G scores 5805. The AMD chip sits at the 62nd percentile of all CPUs, slightly above Intel's 61st percentile.

Q: How does the Threadripper compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Threadripper's average score of 6231 sits 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7272, 1.4% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7940X, and 1.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7501. It trails the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U by just 0.3%.

Q: Where does the Xeon E-2388G stand among its competitors?

A: The Xeon's average score of 5805 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7401P, which scores 5814, a delta of only 0.2%. It sits 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon W-2175, 1.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, and 1.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7351.

Q: Which chip wins in Geekbench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2388G takes both Geekbench tests decisively. In multi-core, it scores 9615 against 7989, a 20.4% advantage. In single-core, the gap is enormous: 2227 versus 1183, an 88.3% lead.

Q: Does the Threadripper win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Threadripper wins all six Cinebench tests. Across R15, R20, and R23, it holds a consistent lead of roughly 15% in both single-core and multi-core workloads, though the exact margins vary by test.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2388G has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X doubles that with 16 cores and 32 threads. This core advantage likely explains the Threadripper's consistent Cinebench lead.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data reveals a clear split based on workload type. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X dominates all six Cinebench tests, which are heavily threaded rendering workloads. Its 16 cores and 32 threads provide a substantial advantage in multi-core rendering, and notably, it also wins the single-core Cinebench tests, suggesting its Zen architecture handles these specific workloads efficiently even without the Xeon's higher boost clock.

The Intel Xeon E-2388G, by contrast, wins both Geekbench tests. The single-core Geekbench result is particularly striking: 2227 versus 1183, an 88.3% advantage. This indicates the Xeon's architecture excels in the kinds of mixed integer and floating-point tasks Geekbench measures, especially those that benefit from high clock speeds and modern IPC improvements.

For users running Cinebench-type rendering workloads, the Threadripper is the clear choice. For applications that resemble Geekbench's test patterns, including general productivity, web browsing, and single-threaded legacy software, the Xeon holds the edge. The data suggests a workload-specific decision rather than a universal winner.

The wins break down as 6 for the Threadripper and 2 for the Xeon, but the magnitude of the Xeon's Geekbench victories, particularly the 88.3% single-core margin, carries significant weight for certain use cases.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E-2388G uses the Rocket Lake architecture, specifically the Rocket Lake-E variant, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 276 mm², and the architecture is designed for server and workstation deployments requiring high single-thread performance and platform features like ECC memory.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X uses the original Zen architecture, codenamed Whitehaven, also built on a 14 nm process but at GlobalFoundries. Its silicon consists of two dies, each measuring 213 mm², totaling roughly 426 mm² of silicon. The chip integrates 9,600 million transistors across both dies, a reflection of its 16-core design.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Xeon provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 32 MB of L3 cache. The Threadripper's doubled L3 capacity aligns with its doubled core count, though the per-core L3 ratio is actually lower than the Xeon's.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Xeon supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper supports quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s. This gives the Threadripper a substantial memory bandwidth advantage, which benefits multi-core workloads. However, the Xeon supports ECC memory, a critical feature for servers and workstations, while the Threadripper does not.

The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P750, whereas the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. The Xeon also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Threadripper's PCIe configuration is not specified in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. Core counts: the Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, the Threadripper has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are close: 3.20 GHz for the Xeon versus 3.40 GHz for the Threadripper. Boost clocks diverge significantly: the Xeon reaches 5.10 GHz, while the Threadripper tops out at 4.00 GHz.

Thermal design power reflects the core disparity: the Xeon is rated at 95 W, the Threadripper at 180 W. Sockets differ entirely: Intel Socket 1200 for the Xeon, AMD Socket SP3r2 for the Threadripper. The Xeon's release date is September 2021, while the Threadripper launched in August 2017, a four-year gap that explains some architectural differences.

The Xeon's launch MSRP is $539, while the Threadripper's launch MSRP is $999. The Xeon's multiplier is locked, while the Threadripper's is unlocked, allowing overclocking. The Xeon targets the server and workstation market segment, while the Threadripper targets desktop enthusiasts. The Xeon's part number is SRKMZ; the Threadripper's is YD195XA8UGAAE.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon. The Xeon features integrated graphics, which the Threadripper lacks. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Threadripper's PCIe generation and lane count are not recorded. Both support DDR4 memory, but with different channel configurations, as noted.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a consistent story. In R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 2362 against the Xeon's 2009, a 14.9% lead. The single-core R15 test shows 333 versus 283, a 15% advantage for AMD. R20 multi-core: 9844 versus 8374, again 14.9% ahead. R20 single-core: 1389 versus 1181, 15% ahead. R23 multi-core: 23440 versus 19939, 14.9% ahead. R23 single-core: 3309 versus 2814, 15% ahead.

These margins are remarkably consistent, hovering around 15% across every Cinebench iteration. This suggests the Threadripper's advantage is structural, likely stemming from its higher base clock and larger core count, rather than workload-specific quirks.

The Geekbench results invert the picture. In multi-core, the Xeon scores 9615 against 7989, a 20.4% lead. The single-core test is even more lopsided: 2227 versus 1183, an 88.3% advantage for Intel. The Xeon's 5.10 GHz boost clock, combined with Rocket Lake's architectural improvements over the older Zen design, explains this massive single-core gap.

The Geekbench multi-core result is notable because the Threadripper has twice the cores yet still loses by 20.4%. This indicates that Geekbench's multi-core workload does not scale perfectly with core count and instead rewards per-core efficiency and clock speed, both of which favor the Xeon.

Overall, the Threadripper wins 6 benchmarks, the Xeon wins 2. But the average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story: the Threadripper's average of 6231 exceeds the Xeon's 5805 by approximately 7.3%, reflecting the weight of six Cinebench wins against two Geekbench wins.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but conditional recommendation. For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is the stronger choice. Its 15% advantage across all Cinebench tests, combined with double the cores and threads, makes it the better fit for multi-threaded content creation, 3D rendering, and video encoding tasks that scale with core count.

For users running Geekbench-style workloads, particularly those emphasizing single-thread performance, the Intel Xeon E-2388G is the definitive pick. The 88.3% single-core Geekbench lead is one of the largest margins in the database, indicating the Xeon's architecture delivers exceptional per-core performance. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and integrated graphics, features that matter for server and workstation deployments.

The Threadripper's quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth versus the Xeon's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s further supports its case for memory-intensive workloads. Its unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, though that comes with a 180 W TDP versus the Xeon's 95 W.

The Xeon's newer 2021 release date brings architectural advantages in single-thread performance and platform features like PCIe Gen 4. The Threadripper's 2017 design shows its age in Geekbench but remains competitive in Cinebench due to raw core count.

The verdict depends entirely on workload. Rendering and heavily threaded production: choose the Threadripper. Single-thread performance, server reliability, and platform features: choose the Xeon. The database's percentile rankings, 61st for Intel and 62nd for AMD, confirm these are closely matched processors overall, but their strengths lie in different domains.