AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX represent two distinct approaches to high-core-count computing, with the data showing a clear, consistent performance advantage for the AMD part across nearly every benchmark. The Intel processor, a 24-core Cascade Lake-SP part, and the AMD processor, a 16-core Zen 2-based Threadripper, are both positioned in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, yet their average benchmark scores tell different stories. The Intel Xeon posts an average score of 58323, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX posts a lower average of 56555, a discrepancy that highlights how the AMD part’s wins are concentrated in specific, high-impact workloads, while the Intel part’s single victory is narrow. The head-to-head results are lopsided, with the AMD processor winning 16 of 17 benchmarks, but the underlying architecture and market positioning of each chip make them suitable for different scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX come in encryption and prime number workloads. In the PassMark data encryption test, the AMD part scores 38058, which is 53.7% higher than the Intel Xeon’s 17625. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, indicating a substantial advantage in cryptographic operations. Similarly, in the PassMark find prime numbers test, the AMD processor scores 198, outperforming the Intel’s 141 by 28.8%. These are not marginal wins; they represent a significant capability gap in specific computational tasks.

Across the Cinebench suite, the AMD processor demonstrates a consistent edge in both multi-core and single-core performance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 34131, which is 13.9% ahead of the Intel Xeon’s 29403. The single-core result in the same test shows a comparable 13.8% lead, with the AMD scoring 4818 against the Intel’s 4151. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 and R20, where the deltaPct remains consistent at approximately 13.9% for multi-core and 13.8% for single-core. The consistency of these margins suggests a fundamental per-core performance advantage for the AMD design, not just a scaling benefit from higher core counts.

The PassMark multithread test reinforces the Cinebench multi-core results. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX scores 40155, a 13.9% improvement over the Intel Xeon’s 34592. The physics test shows a similar trend, with the AMD part scoring 2460, a 15.4% advantage over the Intel’s 2080. Even in floating-point math, where the Intel part’s 24 cores might be expected to help, the AMD processor leads with a score of 77979 versus 73514, a 5.7% delta. The integer math test is closer, with the AMD scoring 132456 against the Intel’s 129213, a 2.4% lead.

The AMD processor’s advantage is not limited to raw compute; it also excels in data compression, scoring 601738 versus the Intel’s 573896, a 4.6% lead. Extended instructions also favor the AMD part, with a score of 38952 against 35529, an 8.8% delta. The single-thread PassMark tests show a 13.4% lead for the AMD processor, with scores of 2679 versus 2320.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M secures only one victory in the head-to-head benchmarks: random string sorting. In this test, the Intel processor scores 69236, which is 8.6% higher than the AMD’s 63758. This is a notable but isolated win, indicating that the Intel architecture retains an edge in specific memory-access or sorting algorithms. However, this single victory does little to offset the broader trend, where the AMD processor leads by double-digit percentages in most workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD processor scores 34131, which is 13.9% higher than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M’s 29403. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar 13.9% delta, with the AMD scoring 40155 against the Intel’s 34592.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M outperform the AMD processor?

A: The Intel Xeon wins the PassMark random string sorting test, scoring 69236, which is 8.6% higher than the AMD’s 63758. This is the only benchmark among the 17 compared where the Intel part leads.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark data encryption test, where the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX scores 38058, a 53.7% improvement over the Intel Xeon’s 17625.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4 memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M has a higher average benchmark score of 58323, compared to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX’s 56555. This is despite the AMD part winning 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD processor leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4818, a 13.8% advantage over the Intel’s 4151. The PassMark single-thread test shows a 13.4% delta, with the AMD scoring 2679 versus 2320.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two processors is stark, starting with their respective process nodes. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is built on a 14 nm process by Intel, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX uses a 7 nm process fabricated by TSMC. This process advantage is a key factor in the AMD part’s higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, whereas the AMD part operates at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Core and thread counts also differ significantly. The Intel Xeon features 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD processor delivers higher multi-core scores, indicating that its Zen 2 architecture is more efficient per-core. The cache hierarchy reflects this difference: the Intel part has 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 35.75 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD part has 512 KB of L2 cache per core and a larger 64 MB of L3 cache. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core.

The AMD processor’s die configuration is also distinct, consisting of two 74 mm² dies, whereas the Intel part’s die size is not listed. Transistor counts are similar, with the Intel part using 8,000 million transistors and the AMD part using 7,600 million. Memory support is a major differentiator: while both support DDR4 and ECC, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX features an eight-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Xeon’s memory bus and bandwidth are not specified in the data.

The AMD processor also has a substantial PCIe advantage, offering Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part’s PCIe configuration is not listed. The sockets are incompatible: the Intel Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, and the AMD part uses AMD Socket WRX8. The market segments differ as well, with the Intel Xeon classified as a Server/Workstation part and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX classified as a Desktop part. The AMD processor is also listed as having an Active production status, while the Intel part’s status is not provided. The launch dates are notable: the Intel Xeon was released on 2018-12-10, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX launched later on 2020-07-13.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX is the faster processor in nearly every measurable workload. Its 13.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 13.8% lead in single-core demonstrate a balanced, superior performance profile. The 53.7% advantage in data encryption is particularly striking, making the AMD part the clear choice for cryptographic workloads. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M’s only win in random string sorting is a narrow 8.6% margin, which does not compensate for the double-digit deficits elsewhere.

For users prioritizing raw performance in multi-threaded applications, rendering, or scientific computing, the data points squarely to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX. Its higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz, larger 64 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bus contribute to its dominance. The Intel Xeon’s higher core count of 24 does not translate into a performance advantage, as the AMD’s 16 cores are consistently faster. The Intel part may still be relevant for specific workloads that rely on its random string sorting performance, but the overall benchmark picture shows a decisive victory for AMD.

The average benchmark scores complicate the narrative slightly, as the Intel Xeon’s 58323 average is higher than the AMD’s 56555. However, this aggregate figure is likely influenced by the specific composition of the benchmark suite and does not reflect the head-to-head comparisons, where the AMD part wins 16 of 17 tests. For a buyer choosing between these two based on performance data, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX is the recommended option, offering superior speed across a broad range of tasks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD part has a higher base clock of 3.90 GHz versus the Intel’s 2.40 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Thermal design power (TDP) also varies, with the Intel part rated at 165 W and the AMD part at 280 W.

The process nodes are different, with the Intel part using 14 nm and the AMD part using 7 nm. The foundries differ as well: Intel for the Xeon, and TSMC for the Ryzen Threadripper. Transistor counts are close, with the Intel part at 8,000 million and the AMD part at 7,600 million. The AMD part has a listed die size of 2x 74 mm², while the Intel part’s die size is not specified. L2 cache differs, with the Intel part having 1 MB per core and the AMD part having 512 KB per core. L3 cache is larger on the AMD part, at 64 MB, compared to the Intel’s 35.75 MB.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX features an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while these specifications are not listed for the Intel Xeon. The AMD part also has a PCIe configuration of Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Intel part’s PCIe is not listed. The sockets are different, with the Intel using Intel Socket 3647 and the AMD using AMD Socket WRX8. The market segments differ, with the Intel classified as Server/Workstation and the AMD as Desktop. The production status is Active for the AMD part, but not provided for the Intel part. The release dates differ, with the Intel launching on 2018-12-10 and the AMD on 2020-07-13.