AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous outcome. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all six recorded tests. The Intel Core 7 160UL records zero wins. The margin is consistently large, with the AMD part leading by 82.3% in every Cinebench comparison, whether single-core or multi-core. That uniformity is striking: the gap does not narrow in lightly threaded workloads, nor does it widen dramatically in heavily threaded ones. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the clear choice for any workload where raw processing throughput is the priority.

However, the Intel Core 7 160UL is not without purpose. Its 15 W TDP, integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, and dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory support point to a very different usage profile. The data shows a part designed for compact, power-conscious desktop systems where integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX, by contrast, carries a 280 W TDP, requires a WRX8 platform, has no integrated graphics, and supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with ECC. Its launch MSRP was $2749. The choice between these two processors is not a choice between two similar products; it is a choice between two entirely different computing philosophies.

The database percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Intel part sits at the 69th percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 68th percentile. Despite the AMD part dominating the head-to-head benchmarks, their overall percentile positions are nearly identical. This is because the average benchmark score for the Intel part is 14232 versus 13786 for the AMD part, a narrow gap that reflects a broader mix of workloads, including some where the Intel part's strengths in single-threaded integer tasks and integrated graphics capabilities matter more. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185 (0.3% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (-0.3% delta). The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 3 304 at 13745 (0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (-0.6% delta).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins everywhere in the direct comparison. It leads by 82.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, and Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core. The raw scores tell the story: 5331 versus 946 in R15 multi-core, 22215 versus 3942 in R20 multi-core, and 52895 versus 9386 in R23 multi-core. Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the AMD part scoring 752 versus 133 in R15, 3136 versus 556 in R20, and 7467 versus 1325 in R23. There is no workload category in the head-to-head set where the Intel part comes out ahead.

That said, the Intel part has strengths that the head-to-head benchmarks do not capture. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units means a system can be built without a discrete graphics card. The 15 W TDP allows for low-power, potentially fanless or near-silent builds. The dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives platform flexibility. The AMD part has no integrated graphics at all, so a discrete GPU is mandatory. In a compact desktop or an office productivity machine, the Intel part's feature set is more practical.

The AMD part's strengths extend beyond the benchmark wins. It supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. It has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to the Intel part's dual-channel bus. It offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, versus 8 lanes on the Intel part. For compute-heavy tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, or database workloads, the AMD part's memory bandwidth and PCIe connectivity are decisive advantages. The Intel part is better suited for general desktop use, media consumption, and light productivity, where its integrated graphics and low power draw matter more than raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 7 160UL is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS variant, and uses a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It has 10 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is a Zen 2 part, codenamed Castle Peak, built on a 7 nm process node from TSMC. It has 32 cores and 64 threads.

The cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The AMD part's 128 MB L3 cache is more than ten times larger than the Intel part's 12 MB, which helps with workloads that repeatedly access large data sets.

The memory support is another major divergence. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The AMD part supports only DDR4, but over an eight-channel bus with a rated memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. That eight-channel configuration gives the AMD part a massive memory throughput advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

PCIe connectivity differs greatly. The Intel part provides 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. For systems with multiple GPUs, high-speed NVMe storage arrays, or other expansion cards, the AMD part offers far more headroom.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics, specifically Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD part has no integrated graphics. The Intel part has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel part's higher boost clock helps in lightly threaded tasks, though the benchmark data shows the AMD part still wins those tests by a wide margin.

The power envelopes are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP, while the AMD part has a 280 W TDP. The AMD part uses a massive amount of power, which is expected given its core count and performance level. The Intel part's low TDP makes it suitable for systems with minimal cooling and small power supplies.

The AMD part has 15,200 million transistors spread across four dies, each 74 mm² in size. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The AMD part belongs to the Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series and uses the AMD Socket WRX8. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700.

The release dates differ by several years. The AMD part was released in July 2020. The Intel part was released in April 2024. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part does not have a launch MSRP in the database. The AMD part had a launch MSRP of $2749.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 160UL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160UL does not.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 160UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory channels does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 160UL supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core 7 160UL provides 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a 15 W TDP. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has a 280 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are entirely one-sided. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins all six recorded benchmarks, with a delta of 82.3% in every test. This consistency is notable because it spans both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 5331 against the Intel part's 946. That is an 82.3% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the AMD part scores 752 against 133, again an 82.3% lead. The fact that the single-core delta matches the multi-core delta suggests the AMD part's per-core performance is also far ahead, not just its core count.

Cinebench R20 tells the same story. Multi-core: 22215 for the AMD part, 3942 for the Intel part. Single-core: 3136 versus 556. Both show an 82.3% delta. The AMD part's single-core score of 3136 is roughly 5.6 times the Intel part's 556, which is a massive gap for a single-threaded workload.

Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern. Multi-core: 52895 for the AMD part, 9386 for the Intel part. Single-core: 7467 versus 1325. The AMD part's multi-core score of 52895 is more than five times the Intel part's 9386. Its single-core score of 7467 is more than five times the Intel part's 1325.

These results indicate that the AMD part does not merely win because it has more cores. Its per-core performance, as measured by the single-core tests, is also dramatically higher. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz does not translate into a win in any single-core benchmark. The AMD part's lower boost clock of 4.20 GHz is paired with a much higher base clock of 3.50 GHz, and the benchmark results show that this combination delivers superior single-threaded performance in these tests.

Outside the head-to-head set, the Intel part has additional benchmark data that the AMD part lacks. The Intel part scores 108953 in PassMark data compression, 7146 in data encryption, 5832 in extended instructions, 50 in find prime numbers, 25670 in floating point math, 47515 in integer math, 11043 in multithread, 819 in physics, 11843 in random string sorting, and 3391 in single-thread. The AMD part has Geekbench scores of 16922 multi-core and 1570 single-core. These additional results suggest the Intel part is competitive in certain integer-heavy and encryption workloads, though no direct comparison is available in the head-to-head set.

The database's overall percentile rankings place both processors within one point of each other: 69th percentile for the Intel part and 68th for the AMD part. The average benchmark scores are 14232 for the Intel part and 13786 for the AMD part. This near parity in the aggregate metrics, despite the AMD part's complete dominance in the head-to-head tests, reflects the different workloads captured in the full benchmark suite. The Intel part's nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 and the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185, are all within half a percent of its average score. The AMD part's nearest rivals, including the Intel Core 3 304 at 13745 and the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868, are similarly close. These rivalries suggest that both processors sit in competitive performance tiers, even though they are not direct competitors with each other.

For buyers, the decision hinges on the use case. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is for users who need maximum compute throughput, large memory bandwidth, and extensive PCIe connectivity. The Intel Core 7 160UL is for users who want a low-power desktop processor with integrated graphics and flexible memory support. The benchmark data does not present a close contest; it presents two processors designed for different jobs, and the AMD part wins the head-to-head tests by a consistent and decisive margin.