AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M across every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison. The Threadripper 2990WX does not win a single benchmark here, with the Xeon taking all six recorded tests. The margins are remarkably uniform, with the Intel part leading by 2.4% in five of the six tests and by 2.3% in the remaining one.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Platinum 8180M scores 2826 against the Threadripper's 2758, a 2.4% delta. Single-core R15 shows the same pattern: 398 versus 389, a 2.3% edge for Intel. Moving to R20, the Xeon posts 11776 multi-core and 1662 single-core, while the Threadripper manages 11495 and 1622 respectively. That is another 2.4% gap in both tests. The R23 results tell the same story: 28040 versus 27370 multi-core, and 3958 versus 3864 single-core, each a 2.4% difference.

What stands out is the consistency. The Xeon's lead does not grow or shrink with workload intensity; it stays pinned near 2.4% across every generation of the Cinebench suite. This suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent. The Threadripper's higher core count and boost clock do not translate into a win in any recorded test, and the Xeon's lower core count and clock speeds do not hold it back. In absolute terms, the Xeon's average benchmark score sits at 8110 against the Threadripper's 7578, a gap that places the Intel part in the 64th percentile of all CPUs while the AMD part sits in the 63rd.

The nearest-rival data reinforces this positioning. The Threadripper 2990WX has an average score of 7578, which places it within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-6500 (7569) and the AMD EPYC 7371 (7568), and 1.5% ahead of the Core i5-7400 (7469). The Xeon Platinum 8180M, at 8110, lands within 0.2% of the Core i3-8100 (8123) and 0.5% of the Xeon Gold 6326 (8071). Neither part is dramatically ahead of its nearest peers, but the Xeon's peer group sits at a higher absolute level.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results give the Xeon Platinum 8180M a clean sweep, but the margins are small enough that the practical differences depend on the use case. For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Xeon leads by 2.4% in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. That translates into a modest but real time saving on long render jobs. A 30-minute render on the Threadripper would complete roughly 43 seconds earlier on the Xeon, assuming the 2.4% delta holds linearly. For single-threaded tasks, the Xeon also holds the edge, with 2.3% to 2.4% leads across all three R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. This matters for lightly threaded applications like older games, scripted workflows, or any software that relies on one or two cores.

The Threadripper 2990WX, despite losing every head-to-head test, still has its own strengths in the database. It offers 32 cores and 64 threads against the Xeon's 28 cores and 56 threads, and its boost clock is higher at 4.20 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. The recorded benchmarks do not show those advantages converting into wins, but the core count difference could matter in specific workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures. The Threadripper also has a larger L3 cache at 64 MB versus 38.5 MB, which can help in certain data-heavy workloads. However, the database does not include a benchmark that isolates cache sensitivity, so these remain qualitative observations.

For users prioritizing raw multi-core throughput in Cinebench-style workloads, the Xeon is the safer pick based on the recorded numbers. For users who value the flexibility of a desktop platform with more cores and an unlocked multiplier, the Threadripper offers those features, though the benchmark data does not show them yielding a performance win. The Xeon's ECC memory support and server-grade positioning make it the choice for reliability-focused builds, while the Threadripper's desktop segment classification and unlocked multiplier appeal to enthusiasts who want tuning headroom.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX uses the Zen+ architecture on a 12 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm node at Intel. The Threadripper is built from a multi-die design with a die size listed as 4x 213 mm² and a transistor count of 19,200 million. The Xeon uses a monolithic design with 8,000 million transistors; its die size is not recorded.

The cache layouts differ substantially. The Threadripper allocates 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 64 MB L3. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 38.5 MB L3. That means the Threadripper has more total L3, but the Xeon has double the L2 per core. For workloads that thrash a small working set, the Xeon's larger per-core L2 could be beneficial, while the Threadripper's larger L3 helps with bigger datasets.

Memory support also diverges. The Threadripper uses quad-channel DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 93.9 GB/s, but it does not support ECC memory. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is typical for server and workstation platforms, but its memory bus and bandwidth are not recorded in the database. Both parts use DDR4, but the Threadripper's explicit quad-channel configuration and bandwidth figure give it a documented advantage in memory throughput, even though the benchmarks do not isolate this.

The socket and platform differ completely. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647. The Threadripper is classified as a desktop part with 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon's PCIe configuration is not recorded. The Threadripper's multiplier is unlocked, making it overclockable, while the Xeon's multiplier is locked. The Threadripper's release date is recorded as August 12, 2018, and it has a launch MSRP of $1799; the Xeon's release date is July 10, 2017, with no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The database points to a straightforward conclusion for anyone choosing between these two. If the workload is dominated by Cinebench-style multi-threaded rendering and single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M wins every recorded comparison. The margins are narrow, between 2.3% and 2.4%, but they are uniform across all six tests. The Xeon also carries ECC memory support, which matters for data integrity in long-running server or workstation tasks.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is the alternative for a different set of priorities. It offers more cores (32 versus 28) and more threads (64 versus 56), a higher boost clock (4.20 GHz versus 3.80 GHz), a larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 38.5 MB), a documented memory bandwidth figure of 93.9 GB/s, and an unlocked multiplier. None of those advantages show up as a win in the recorded benchmarks, but they remain relevant for workloads that the database does not cover, such as certain compilation, simulation, or data-processing tasks that scale with core count and cache capacity.

The percentile rankings are close: the Xeon sits at the 64th percentile of all CPUs, the Threadripper at the 63rd. The average benchmark scores, 8110 versus 7578, favor the Xeon by about 7%. That is the single clearest summary statistic. For a builder who wants the better Cinebench performer, the Xeon is the data-backed choice. For a builder who wants more cores, an unlocked multiplier, and a desktop platform with documented memory bandwidth, the Threadripper has those features, even if the benchmarks do not reward them.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M scores 28040, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX scores 27370. The Xeon leads by 2.4%.

Q: Does the Threadripper 2990WX win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the Xeon Platinum 8180M winning all six tests, with the Threadripper losing each by 2.3% to 2.4%.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between the two?

A: The Threadripper 2990WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M has 28 cores and 56 threads. The Threadripper has 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Q: Does the Threadripper support ECC memory?

A: No. The database records ECC memory as false for the Threadripper 2990WX, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M lists ECC memory support as true.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Threadripper 2990WX boosts to 4.20 GHz, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M boosts to 3.80 GHz. The Threadripper's boost clock is 0.40 GHz higher.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8180M has an average benchmark score of 8110, placing it in the 64th percentile of all CPUs. The Threadripper 2990WX has an average score of 7578, placing it in the 63rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX | Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M |

|----------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------|

| Cores | 32 | 28 |

| Threads | 64 | 56 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 205 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 | Intel Socket 3647 |

| Architecture | Zen+ | Skylake |

| Codename | Colfax | Skylake-SP |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 19,200 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 4x 213 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 38.5 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Not recorded |

| Memory Bandwidth | 93.9 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 60 Lanes (CPU only) | Not recorded |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2017-07-10 |

| Launch MSRP | $1799 | Not recorded |

| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | No |