AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX vs Intel Core 3 N355 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads. This 4x core advantage and 8x thread advantage is the primary driver of the AMD part's multi-threaded benchmark dominance.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX scores 52,895 versus the Intel Core 3 N355's 5,262. That is a 905.2% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N355 win any of the shared benchmark tests?

A: No. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins every single one. The win count is 6 for AMD and 0 for Intel.

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

A: The AMD part leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD scores 7,467 versus Intel's 1,039, a 618.7% delta. In R20 single-core, the advantage is 516.1% (3,136 vs 509), and in R15 single-core it is 347.6% (752 vs 168).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a peak bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core 3 N355 supports single-channel DDR4, DDR5, or LPDDR5 memory with a peak bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 N355 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has no integrated graphics listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is absolute. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is built on the Zen 2 architecture (codenamed Castle Peak) using TSMC's 7 nm process node. It packs 15,200 million transistors across a die configuration of 4x 74 mm². Intel's Core 3 N355, by contrast, uses the Twin Lake architecture (codenamed Twin Lake, within the Alder Lake-N generation) on Intel's 10 nm process. The data does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

Core topology differs sharply. AMD provides 32 cores and 64 threads with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Intel provides 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading support, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The AMD TDP is listed at 280 watts, while the Intel TDP is 15 watts — a massive power envelope difference that reflects their intended deployment contexts.

Cache hierarchies are also divergent. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 128 MB L3 cache. Intel's N355 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Notably, the Intel part has more L1 per core (96 KB vs 64 KB), but the AMD part dominates in aggregate L3 capacity by a factor of over 21x.

Memory support is a key separator. AMD uses DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus delivering 204.8 GB/s. Intel supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus, yielding 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the AMD part but not on the Intel part. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head Cinebench results paint an unambiguous picture. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX scores 5,331 against Intel's 822, a 548.5% win. The R15 single-core test shows a smaller but still decisive gap: 752 vs 168, a 347.6% margin. Even in single-core workloads, where the Intel part's higher per-core L1 cache might theoretically help, the AMD part's higher boost clock and newer architecture prevail.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern intensifies. Multi-core scores are 22,215 for AMD versus 3,612 for Intel, a 515% delta. Single-core R20 shows 3,136 vs 509, a 516.1% advantage. The near-parity of the single-core and multi-core deltas in R20 suggests the per-core performance gap is consistent, not just a product of core count. In R20 single-core, AMD's per-thread advantage is roughly 6.2x, which explains why even without the core-count disparity, the AMD part would still dominate.

Cinebench R23 delivers the most extreme result. Multi-core: 52,895 vs 5,262, a 905.2% margin — the largest head-to-head delta in the entire dataset. This near-10x gap in multi-threaded rendering performance is the headline statistic. Single-core R23 also shows a massive 618.7% gap (7,467 vs 1,039), confirming that AMD's architectural efficiency in this workload class is not merely a function of having more cores.

The broader benchmark data reinforces these findings. The AMD part's average benchmark score is 13,786, which sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 13,492, also in the 68th percentile. Despite the Cinebench deltas, both parts land in the same percentile band because their benchmark suites differ — Intel's includes PassMark tests that are not present for AMD. The AMD part's nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Core 3 304 (delta +0.3%), Intel Core i7-8750H (delta -0.6%), and AMD EPYC 7443 (delta -1.1%). The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F (delta 0%), Intel Core i5-9500 (delta +0.3%), and Intel Core 5 120UL (delta -0.8%).

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 32 (AMD) vs 8 (Intel)
• Threads: 64 (AMD) vs 8 (Intel)
• Base clock: 3.50 GHz (AMD) vs 1.90 GHz (Intel)
• Boost clock: 4.20 GHz (AMD) vs 3.90 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 280 watts (AMD) vs 15 watts (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket WRX8 vs Intel BGA 1264
• Architecture: Zen 2 vs Twin Lake
• Codename: Castle Peak vs Twin Lake
• Generation: Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 2 Castle Peak) vs Core 3 (Alder Lake-N)
• Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) vs 10 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 15,200 million vs not listed
• Die size: 4x 74 mm² vs not listed
• L1 cache: 64 KB (per core) vs 96 KB (per core)
• L2 cache: 512 KB (per core) vs 2 MB (shared)
• L3 cache: 128 MB vs 6 MB (shared)
• Memory support: DDR4 vs DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5
• Memory bus: Eight-channel vs Single-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s vs 38.4 GB/s
• ECC memory: True vs False
• PCIe: Gen 4, 128 lanes vs Gen 3, 9 lanes
• Integrated graphics: None vs UHD Graphics 770
• Market segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Release date: 2020-07-13 vs 2025-01-06
• Launch MSRP: $2749 vs not listed

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins in every head-to-head benchmark that the data covers. Its strengths are most pronounced in multi-threaded rendering workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 905.2% lead, R15 multi-core a 548.5% lead, and R20 multi-core a 515% lead. These results make it the clear choice for any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth — the eight-channel 204.8 GB/s memory path and 128 MB L3 cache are ideal for large dataset processing, compilation, and 3D rendering. The AMD part also leads in single-threaded performance across all three Cinebench generations, with deltas ranging from 347.6% to 618.7%.

The Intel Core 3 N355 wins in the categories that the head-to-head benchmarks do not measure. Its 15-watt TDP versus AMD's 280-watt TDP makes it viable for fanless or low-power mobile designs. It supports a wider range of memory types — DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 — versus AMD's DDR4-only support. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The Intel part also has a newer release date (2025-01-06) versus AMD's 2020-07-13, indicating a more recent design cycle. Its single-channel memory bus and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are sufficient for lightweight mobile workloads, though they cannot match AMD's eight-channel bandwidth or 128 Gen 4 lanes.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the overwhelmingly more powerful processor for compute-intensive desktop workloads. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 347.6% to 905.2%. Its 32-core, 64-thread configuration, 128 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s are all class-leading specifications. The launch MSRP of $2749 reflects its positioning as a high-end workstation part.

The Intel Core 3 N355, conversely, is a low-power mobile processor that trades raw performance for efficiency. Its 15-watt TDP, integrated UHD Graphics 770, and support for three memory types make it suitable for compact laptops and embedded systems where the AMD part's 280-watt requirement would be impractical. It does not win a single shared benchmark, but its average benchmark score of 13,492 is remarkably close to AMD's 13,786, because the Intel part benefits from a broader benchmark suite that includes PassMark tests.

For buyers who need maximum multi-threaded throughput, the AMD part is the only rational choice. For buyers who need a low-power mobile processor with integrated graphics and modern memory options, the Intel part serves a different market segment entirely. The 68th percentile ranking for both parts in the general CPU population is a statistical artifact of different benchmark sets, not an indication of comparable performance. In any workload covered by the head-to-head tests, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the decisive winner.