AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX vs Intel Core i7-1065G7 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX and the Intel Core i7-1065G7 occupy completely different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects that split clearly. The Threadripper PRO is a 12-core, 24-thread workstation part aimed at the Server/Workstation segment, while the Core i7-1065G7 is a 4-core, 8-thread mobile chip designed for laptops. There is no overlap in their intended use cases, and the recorded scores reinforce this divide.

The Threadripper PRO wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database. Across six Cinebench tests, it dominates both multi-core and single-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28,469 against the Intel chip's 6,866, a 314.6% advantage. Even in single-core tests, where mobile parts often close the gap, the AMD part leads by around 315%. This is not a close contest; it is a category difference. The Threadripper PRO is built for sustained, heavy compute tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing, and the numbers show it.

The Intel Core i7-1065G7, by contrast, wins in the context of its own benchmark suite. It has scores for 3DMark thread scaling, PassMark math tests, and other mobile-oriented workloads, but the database shows zero head-to-head wins against the Threadripper PRO. Its value lies in efficiency and integration. With a 15W TDP, it is designed for thin-and-light systems where power draw and thermal output matter more than raw throughput. The Threadripper PRO's 280W TDP is nearly nineteen times higher, so the Intel part wins on the basis of portability and battery life, not performance.

For buyers, the choice is simple. The Threadripper PRO is for professionals who need maximum multi-threaded performance in a workstation chassis. The Core i7-1065G7 is for users who need adequate performance in a compact, power-efficient laptop. The data shows no scenario where the Intel chip outperforms the AMD part in raw compute, but the Intel chip's existence is justified by its form factor and power envelope. The AMD part's 64th percentile ranking places it alongside other workstation-class CPUs, while the Intel chip also sits at the 64th percentile, indicating that both are mid-pack in their respective segments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28,469 versus the Intel Core i7-1065G7's 6,866, a 314.6% difference. The AMD part also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 11,956 versus 2,883, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 2,869 versus 691.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-1065G7 win any benchmark against the Threadripper PRO?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the AMD processor wins all six recorded tests, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. The Intel chip has zero wins in direct comparisons.

Q: How do their core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core i7-1065G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 3x core advantage and 3x thread advantage is the primary reason for the AMD part's multi-core dominance.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 280W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 15W. This makes the Intel chip far more suitable for battery-powered mobile devices, while the AMD chip requires a robust workstation cooling solution and power delivery system.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-1065G7 does not. This is an important distinction for workstation users who require error-correcting memory for data integrity.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX has a higher single-core score in every recorded test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,019 versus 969 for the Intel chip. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 1,687 versus 406, and in Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 404 versus 97.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX wins all six recorded comparisons, with margins that range from 314.6% to 316.5%. These are not subtle differences; they represent a generational and architectural chasm between a workstation-class processor and a mobile part.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 2,869 against the Intel part's 691, a 315.2% lead. The single-core version of the same test shows 404 versus 97, a 316.5% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows 11,956 versus 2,883, a 314.7% difference, and the single-core test shows 1,687 versus 406, a 315.5% margin. In Cinebench R23, the newest test in the set, the multi-core score is 28,469 versus 6,866, a 314.6% lead, and the single-core score is 4,019 versus 969, a 314.8% margin.

These numbers tell a consistent story. The AMD part is roughly four times faster in every Cinebench workload, regardless of whether the test scales across cores or runs on a single thread. This consistency suggests that the Threadripper PRO's advantage comes from a fundamentally stronger core design and a much higher power budget, not from any single architectural feature. The Intel chip's single-core scores are around 24% of the AMD part's scores, which is remarkable given that both processors were released within a year of each other (the Intel part in July 2019, the AMD part in July 2020).

It is notably the Intel Core i7-1065G7 has its own benchmark suite that the AMD part does not share. The Intel chip scores 2,323 in 3DMark with 16 threads, 1,735 with 4 threads, and 683 with a single thread. In PassMark tests, it scores 28,660 in integer math, 16,603 in floating-point math, and 88,300 in data compression. These scores are not directly comparable to the AMD part's data, but they provide context for the Intel chip's capabilities in its intended mobile environment. The absence of shared benchmarks beyond Cinebench means the head-to-head table is limited, but within that table, the AMD part is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification that matters. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i7-1065G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD part's base clock is 4.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel part's base clock is listed as 1300.00 MHz (1.30 GHz) with a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The AMD part has a TDP of 280W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 15W.

The memory subsystems are also vastly different. The AMD part supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel part also supports DDR4, but with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. This is a four-fold difference in memory channels and a similar gap in bandwidth. ECC memory support is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD part supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part supports PCIe Gen 3 with no lane count specified in the database. The AMD part has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part includes Iris Plus integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible: the AMD part uses AMD Socket WRX8, and the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1526, which is a soldered mobile socket.

The market segments are also distinct. The AMD part is classified as Server/Workstation, while the Intel part is classified as Mobile. Both processors are currently listed as Active in production status. The AMD part's part number is 100-000000168, and the Intel part's part number is SRG0N. Neither processor has a launch MSRP listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is as wide as the performance gap. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Castle Peak, part of the Ryzen Threadripper generation. It uses a 7 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, with 7,600 million transistors across a die size of 2x 74 mm². The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. This is a chiplet-based design that leverages AMD's multi-die approach to deliver massive core counts and high memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core i7-1065G7 is built on the Ice Lake architecture with the codename Ice Lake-U, part of the Core i7 generation using the Sunny Cove microarchitecture. It uses a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel, with a die size of 123 mm². The cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a monolithic design optimized for power efficiency in mobile systems, with integrated Iris Plus graphics that eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in many laptop configurations.

The transistor count for the Intel part is not listed in the database, but the die size difference is notable: the AMD part uses two 74 mm² dies (148 mm² total), while the Intel part uses a single 123 mm² die. The AMD part's smaller per-die size reflects its use of a more advanced 7 nm process, while the Intel part's larger die reflects its 10 nm process and integrated graphics. The AMD part's 64 MB of L3 cache is eight times larger than the Intel part's 8 MB, which contributes to its superior multi-threaded performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

The foundry relationship also differs: TSMC manufactures the AMD part, while Intel manufactures its own chip. This is a significant distinction in manufacturing strategy. The AMD part's PCIe Gen 4 support with 128 lanes is a workstation-grade feature, while the Intel part's PCIe Gen 3 support is typical for mobile platforms. The Intel part's integrated graphics are a major architectural advantage for compact systems, but they come at the cost of reduced CPU die area and lower core counts. The AMD part's lack of integrated graphics means it requires a discrete GPU in any system, which is standard for workstation configurations.