AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X and Intel Core Ultra X9 378H occupy entirely different segments of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects that separation clearly. The Threadripper 9980X wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 321,753 compared to 47,468 for the Ultra X9 378H. The Threadripper sits in the 99th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Ultra X9 sits in the 89th percentile.

The Threadripper 9980X is for workloads that demand massive parallel throughput: rendering, compilation, scientific computing, and heavy data processing. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB of L3 cache put it in a performance class where its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX (0.3% ahead), Intel Xeon 6781P (2% behind), AMD EPYC 9575F (3.2% behind), and AMD EPYC 9734 (3.6% behind). The Ultra X9 378H belongs in a thin-and-light mobile chassis where power limits dominate. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i7-13700KF (0.3% behind), Intel Core Ultra 7 265T (0.5% ahead), and Intel Core i9-12900F (0.6% behind). These two processors are not competitors; they are solutions for different problems.

The single-thread results show a closer contest than the multi-thread numbers. In PassMark single-thread, the Threadripper scores 4537 against 4453 for the Ultra X9, a margin of only 1.9%. That narrow gap means the Ultra X9 is competitive on lightly threaded tasks despite its far lower core count and power envelope. The decision between these two should be based on whether the workload scales with cores and memory bandwidth or runs on a single thread.

Architecture Differences

The Threadripper 9980X uses AMD Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process. It is built on the Shimada Peak codename and belongs to the Ryzen Threadripper 9000 series. The die is composed of 8 chiplets, each 70.6 mm², totaling 66,520 million transistors. The Ultra X9 378H uses Intel Panther Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Threadripper allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3. The Ultra X9 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper's 256 MB L3 is more than 14 times larger than the Ultra X9's 18 MB, which matters for datasets that exceed the smaller cache.

Memory architecture is also divergent. The Threadripper supports DDR5 over a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory. The Ultra X9 uses LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity differs sharply: the Threadripper provides Gen 5 with 80 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X9 provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Ultra X9 includes integrated Arc B390 graphics; the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent three-fold advantage for the Threadripper. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 13157 against 3281, a 301% delta. Single-core R15 shows 1857 against 462, a 301.9% delta. R20 multi-core repeats the pattern at 54822 versus 13672, 301% ahead. R20 single-core is 7739 versus 1929, 301.2% ahead. R23 multi-core delivers 130529 versus 32553, 301% ahead, and R23 single-core is 18427 versus 4595, also 301% ahead. The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions indicates the core count advantage scales linearly in this workload.

The PassMark suite reveals where the gap widens. Integer math shows the largest divergence: 872071 versus 92603, a 841.7% advantage for the Threadripper. Data compression follows at 2974534 versus 386591, a 669.4% delta. Extended instructions show 228959 versus 31315, a 631.1% delta. Random string sorting is 292083 versus 44648, 554.2% ahead. Data encryption shows 157137 versus 29840, a 426.6% delta. Floating-point math is 559003 versus 114500, 388.2% ahead. PassMark multi-thread is 141641 versus 38298, a 269.8% delta. Physics is 8001 versus 3404, 135% ahead. Prime number finding is 769 versus 357, a 115.4% delta.

The smallest gap in the entire benchmark set is PassMark single-thread: 4537 versus 4453, a 1.9% delta. The single-core Cinebench tests do not reflect this closeness, with margins around 301%, which indicates the two suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance. The PassMark single-thread result is the only benchmark where the Intel part comes within striking distance.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

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

| Cores | 64 | 16 |

| Threads | 128 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 256 MB | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 80 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-07-29 | 2026-04-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $4999 | Not recorded |

| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |

The Threadripper has 4 times the cores and 8 times the threads. Its TDP of 350 W is 14 times that of the Intel part's 25 W. The Threadripper has 20 times the PCIe lanes. The Intel part has a newer process node, 3 nm versus 4 nm, and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The Threadripper launched on 2025-07-29 with a launch MSRP of $4999; the Ultra X9 has no recorded launch MSRP and a later release date of 2026-04-03.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 130529 versus 32553 for the Ultra X9, a 301% advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows 141641 versus 38298, a 269.8% delta.

Q: Is the Intel part competitive in single-thread performance?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows 4537 for the Threadripper versus 4453 for the Ultra X9, a 1.9% margin. The Cinebench single-core tests tell a different story, with the Threadripper leading by about 301% in each version.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Threadripper 9980X supports DDR5 over a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Threadripper 9980X has no integrated graphics. The Ultra X9 378H includes Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Threadripper 9980X provides Gen 5 with 80 CPU lanes. The Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, a 20-fold difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper 9980X wins every recorded benchmark in the comparison. Its biggest margins come in integer math, where it leads by 841.7%, and data compression, where it leads by 669.4%. These results point to workloads involving heavy arithmetic, data transformation, and processing of large in-memory datasets. The 256 MB L3 cache and quad-channel DDR5 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth support this pattern. The 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow multiple high-bandwidth accelerators or storage devices to feed the processor simultaneously. The unlocked multiplier and 350 W TDP indicate the processor is designed to be pushed hard in a desktop workstation environment.

The Ultra X9 378H has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but its profile suggests where it fits. The 25 W TDP and mobile BGA 2540 socket place it in laptops where thermal and power budgets are tight. The integrated Arc B390 graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth from LPDDR5X is substantial for a mobile part. The PassMark single-thread result of 4453, within 1.9% of the Threadripper, shows that day-to-day responsiveness on lightly threaded applications will not feel dramatically different. The 3 nm process from Intel gives it a manufacturing advantage in density and efficiency, though no transistor count is recorded to quantify that.

The two processors serve separate markets. The Threadripper 9980X is a desktop part aimed at maximum throughput with 64 cores, 128 threads, 256 MB of L3, and 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra X9 378H is a mobile part aimed at balanced performance inside a 25 W envelope, with integrated graphics and a much smaller cache. The benchmark data shows the Threadripper dominating in every measured category, but the power and platform requirements differ so greatly that a direct substitution is not realistic. A system built around the Threadripper requires the sTR5 socket, a 350 W cooling solution, and a desktop chassis. A system built around the Ultra X9 requires a BGA 2540 board and a mobile chassis. The recorded data does not indicate that one is a better product than the other; it indicates that they are built for different use cases.