AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a complete benchmark record for the Intel Core Ultra 3 205, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry shapes the comparison. The Threadripper 9960X cannot be directly scored against the Ultra 3 205 in any individual test, because the recorded data for the AMD part is empty. The analysis below therefore relies on the Ultra 3 205's own results and its position among nearby processors.

The Core Ultra 3 205 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19856 and a single-core score of 2803. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 8339 and single-core is 1177. The R15 run shows 2001 multi-core and 282 single-core. These scores place the chip at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 31473.

The nearest recorded rivals for the Core Ultra 3 205 are tightly clustered. The Intel Core 7 240H averages 31483, a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX averages 31495, a delta of -0.1 percent. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H averages 31508, also -0.1 percent. The Intel Core i5-13500 averages 31510, again -0.1 percent. The Ultra 3 205 sits effectively at parity with all four, within one tenth of one percent in either direction.

PassMark results for the Ultra 3 205 show a multi-thread score of 26167 and a single-thread score of 4575. In the specialized workloads, integer math reaches 54755, floating point math reaches 75136, and extended instructions reach 22578. Data compression scores 260651, data encryption scores 18772, and random string sorting scores 31083. Physics simulation scores 2016, and the prime number search scores 268.

The Threadripper 9960X has no recorded benchmarks, so no head-to-head win can be assigned to either part. The wins counter in the database shows 0 for both processors. The only meaningful head-to-head statement is that the Ultra 3 205 has a complete measured profile and the Threadripper 9960X does not.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The benchmark list for the Threadripper 9960X is empty, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

Q: What is the Core Ultra 3 205's best multi-threaded result?

A: Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 19856, and its PassMark multi-thread score is 26167.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 3 205 compare to its closest rivals?

A: It sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core 7 240H, AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, Intel Core Ultra 5 225H, and Intel Core i5-13500. The Core 7 240H is the only one with a delta of exactly 0 percent.

Q: What single-thread performance does the Core Ultra 3 205 show?

A: Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2803, its Cinebench R20 single-core score is 1177, its Cinebench R15 single-core score is 282, and its PassMark single-thread score is 4575.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Both support DDR5, but the Threadripper 9960X uses a quad-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Threadripper 9960X has no integrated graphics. The Core Ultra 3 205 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 3 205 wins in every category where measured data exists. It has a complete set of Cinebench and PassMark results, a recorded average benchmark score of 31473, and a percentile rank of 82 among all CPUs. The Threadripper 9960X has no measured wins because it has no measured scores. In the database's win counter, both parts hold 0 wins.

The Ultra 3 205's multi-threaded results indicate a processor that competes directly with mobile H-series parts and a previous-generation desktop i5. The Cinebench R23 score of 19856 and PassMark multi-thread score of 26167 place it in the same performance band as the Core 7 240H, Ryzen 9 5980HX, Core Ultra 5 225H, and Core i5-13500, all within a delta of -0.1 to 0 percent. Its single-thread score of 4575 in PassMark and 2803 in Cinebench R23 show a balanced per-core capability.

The Threadripper 9960X would presumably win heavily in multi-threaded workloads based on its configuration, but the database contains no scores to confirm this. The hardware specification suggests a very large multi-threaded advantage, but a hardware analysis must rely on measurements, and there are none for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every physical and electrical specification. The Threadripper 9960X has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The AMD part has no hyper-threading equivalent in its thread count, while the Intel part also has no additional threads, so the ratio of threads to cores is 2:1 for AMD and 1:1 for Intel.

Base clocks differ: 4.20 GHz for the Threadripper 9960X versus 3.80 GHz for the Core Ultra 3 205. Boost clocks differ: 5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. Thermal design power differs substantially: 350 watts for the AMD part versus 57 watts for the Intel part.

Sockets differ completely. The Threadripper 9960X uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part is unlocked, with a free multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $1499. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $140.

Memory channels differ: quad-channel for AMD versus dual-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the AMD part and absent on the Intel part. PCIe lanes differ: Gen 5 with 80 lanes for AMD versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for Intel. The AMD part has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units.

Architecture Differences

The Threadripper 9960X uses Zen 5 architecture under the Shimada Peak codename, part of the Ryzen Threadripper generation. The Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Ultra 3 generation.

Process nodes differ. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 33,260 million transistors spread across four chiplets, each 70.6 mm² in die size. The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process at the same foundry, TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Threadripper 9960X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures are larger on the Intel part, but the total L3 cache is far larger on the AMD part.

The part numbers differ: 100-000001595 for AMD, SRVFC for Intel. Production status for both is Active. Release dates are within days of each other: the Threadripper 9960X released on 2025-07-29, and the Core Ultra 3 205 released on 2025-07-31.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion for the Core Ultra 3 205: it is a measured, competitive desktop processor whose average benchmark score of 31473 places it at the 82nd percentile, with nearest rivals within 0.1 percent. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19856 and PassMark single-thread score of 4575 define its performance envelope. It achieves this with a 57 watt TDP, dual-channel DDR5 memory at 102.4 GB/s, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

The Threadripper 9960X presents a different situation. Its specifications indicate a much larger processor: 24 cores, 48 threads, 128 MB of L3 cache, quad-channel memory at 204.8 GB/s, 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and a 350 watt TDP. Its unlock multiplier and ECC support target a workstation-class use case. But the database contains no benchmark scores for it, so no measured performance claim can be made.

A buyer selecting between these two parts should base the decision on the recorded data. For a desktop processor with verified scores, the Core Ultra 3 205 is the only option with measurements. For a processor with the physical resources of a high-end workstation part, the Threadripper 9960X offers the specification advantage, but no benchmark confirmation exists in the database. The choice rests on whether measured results or raw specifications carry more weight.