AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-3175X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X are both high-core-count processors aimed at demanding workstation workloads, but they approach the task from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Xeon W-3175X is Intel’s 28-core Skylake-W part built for the server/workstation segment, while the Threadripper 3970X is AMD’s 32-core Zen 2 desktop flagship. Benchmark data shows a consistent and substantial performance lead for the AMD processor across every single-threaded and multi-threaded test, with the Threadripper winning all eight head-to-head comparisons. This analysis walks through the architectural reasons for that gap and the specific benchmark results that quantify it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Threadripper 3970X scores 7571 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 27.9% higher than the Xeon W-3175X’s score of 5462.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Geekbench performance?

A: The Threadripper 3970X scores 20112 in Geekbench multi-core, which is 28.7% ahead of the Xeon W-3175X’s 14331.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon W-3175X supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X does not list ECC memory support.

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X is built on Intel’s 14 nm process with a 688 mm² die, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X uses TSMC’s 7 nm process with four 74 mm² chiplets.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to 3.10 GHz for the Intel Xeon W-3175X.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent starkly different architectural eras and strategies. The Intel Xeon W-3175X is based on the Skylake architecture and codenamed Skylake-W, built on Intel’s 14 nm process with a massive monolithic die measuring 688 mm² and containing 8,000 million transistors. In contrast, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak, manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process. The AMD chip is a chiplet design consisting of four 74 mm² dies, totaling 15,200 million transistors. This process advantage gives AMD a significant transistor density lead and is a primary driver of its performance edge.

Cache configurations also differ markedly. The Xeon W-3175X has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 38.5 MB L3 cache. The Threadripper 3970X also has 64 KB L1 per core but only 512 KB L2 per core, yet it compensates with a much larger 128 MB L3 cache. This larger L3 cache helps the AMD part feed its 32 cores more effectively in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon W-3175X uses a six-channel memory bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper 3970X uses a quad-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Xeon W-3175X provides Gen 3 with 48 lanes, while the Threadripper 3970X provides Gen 4 lanes, offering double the bandwidth per lane despite the lower lane count. The Xeon is classified as a server/workstation part and is now end-of-life, whereas the Threadripper is an active desktop product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins every single head-to-head comparison, with margins ranging from 10.9% to 28.7%. The largest gap comes in Geekbench multi-core, where the Threadripper scores 20112 against the Xeon’s 14331, a 28.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a similar story: the Threadripper scores 53630 versus the Xeon’s 38692, a 27.9% lead. These multi-threaded results reflect the Threadripper’s four additional cores and 128 MB L3 cache.

Single-core performance also favors AMD decisively, though the margins are slightly smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper scores 7571 against the Xeon’s 5462, a 27.9% difference. Geekbench single-core shows the narrowest gap: the Threadripper’s 1653 is only 10.9% ahead of the Xeon’s 1472. This single-core advantage is consistent across all tests, including Cinebench R15 and R20, where the Threadripper leads by 27.8% and 27.8% respectively. The consistency of the single-core margin suggests that the Zen 2 architecture’s IPC advantage over Skylake is substantial, not just a product of higher clock speeds.

The multi-core deltas are nearly identical across Cinebench versions. In R15, the Threadripper scores 5405 versus 3900, a 27.8% lead. In R20, the scores are 22524 versus 16250, a 27.9% lead. This consistency across benchmark generations indicates that the performance gap scales linearly with thread count and is not workload-specific. The Xeon’s 28 cores and 56 threads simply cannot match the Threadripper’s 32 cores and 64 threads, even with the Intel part’s higher memory bandwidth.

It is worth remembering the Xeon’s average benchmark score of 10369 places it near rivals like the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N and Xeon Platinum 8280, with deltas of 0.2% and 1.4% respectively. The Threadripper’s average score of 10841 is comparable to the Intel Core i7-6700 and AMD EPYC 9224, with deltas of -2.1% and -2.5% respectively. Both processors sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, but the Threadripper’s raw scores are consistently higher in every test category.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for nearly all use cases: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X outperforms the Intel Xeon W-3175X in every benchmark category, with multi-core advantages of roughly 28% and single-core advantages of 11% to 28%. The Threadripper’s 32 cores, 7 nm process, and 128 MB L3 cache give it a structural advantage that the Xeon’s higher memory bandwidth and ECC support cannot overcome. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, especially in Cinebench and Geekbench workloads, the Threadripper is the superior choice.

However, the Xeon W-3175X retains relevance in specific enterprise contexts. Its six-channel memory bus provides 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is 25% higher than the Threadripper’s 102.4 GB/s, and its ECC memory support is critical for mission-critical server workloads. The Xeon also offers 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, which may be sufficient for certain I/O-heavy configurations. For a workstation user running memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications or requiring ECC reliability, the Xeon remains a viable option despite its lower core count.

That said, the Threadripper’s launch MSRP is $1999, which is lower than the Xeon’s launch MSRP of $2999. The AMD part is also an active product, while the Intel part is end-of-life. For most buyers, the Threadripper offers more cores, higher clocks, and better benchmark scores, making it the logical choice unless specific enterprise features like ECC are mandatory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 3.10 GHz for Intel and 3.70 GHz for AMD, with boost clocks of 4.30 GHz and 4.50 GHz respectively. The TDP is 255 W for the Xeon and 280 W for the Threadripper. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 3647, while the Threadripper uses the AMD Socket TRX4.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator: Intel uses 14 nm with a 688 mm² die and 8,000 million transistors, while AMD uses 7 nm with four 74 mm² dies and 15,200 million transistors. Cache hierarchies differ significantly, with the Xeon offering 1 MB L2 per core and 38.5 MB shared L3, versus the Threadripper’s 512 KB L2 per core and 128 MB L3. Memory support sees the Xeon with six-channel DDR4 and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Threadripper’s quad-channel DDR4 and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC is supported on the Xeon but not the Threadripper. PCIe is Gen 3 with 48 lanes on the Intel part, versus Gen 4 on the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins in every benchmark category, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 28% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 27.9% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core make it ideal for 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations that scale with thread count. The 10.9% single-core lead in Geekbench also makes it better for lightly-threaded applications like CAD software and general desktop responsiveness.

The Intel Xeon W-3175X does not win any benchmark comparisons, but its specification advantages point to specific use cases. The six-channel memory bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth is better suited for memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads like large database operations or in-memory analytics. The ECC memory support makes it appropriate for financial modeling, medical imaging, or any application where data integrity is paramount. The 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also support multiple high-speed peripherals without needing a separate switch.

For most users, the Threadripper 3970X is the superior choice due to its higher core count, faster clocks, and lower launch MSRP. The Xeon W-3175X is a specialized part for those who need ECC and maximum memory bandwidth, accepting lower multi-core performance and a higher price as trade-offs. The benchmark data is unambiguous: AMD wins eight out of eight head-to-head tests, and that statistical dominance should guide most purchasing decisions.