AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX vs Intel Core i5-10400 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-10400 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX occupy opposite ends of the desktop spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects a complete mismatch in workload capability. In every single head-to-head benchmark listed, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins decisively, often by margins exceeding 80%. However, both processors share the same 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs, indicating that their average benchmark scores, when weighted across a diverse set of tests, land in a similar tier. The data shows a 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake part against a 32-core, 64-thread Zen 2 behemoth, and the results are predictable yet worth quantifying for any builder weighing these two very different platforms.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the uniformity of the Threadripper’s victory across all eight shared tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 52895 against the Intel’s 8316, a delta of -84.3% from the Intel’s perspective. That is not a marginal gap; it is a 6.4x advantage in raw multi-threaded rendering throughput. The same -84.3% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core (5331 vs 838) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (22215 vs 3492), showing that the scaling penalty for the i5-10400 is consistent across Cinebench versions. Single-core results are less lopsided but still favor AMD: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 7467 for the Threadripper versus 1174 for the i5, again a -84.3% delta. This is surprising because single-core performance typically favors higher boost clocks; the i5-10400 boosts to 4.30 GHz while the Threadripper boosts to 4.20 GHz. Yet the Zen 2 architecture’s efficiency at 7 nm wins out.

Geekbench tests reveal a slightly narrower gap. In Geekbench multi-core, the Threadripper scores 16922 versus 4790, a -71.7% delta. In Geekbench single-core, the gap shrinks to -29.4%, with the AMD at 1570 and the Intel at 1108. This suggests that the i5-10400’s single-threaded performance is not entirely uncompetitive, but it is still behind by nearly a third. The Cinebench single-core results, however, contradict this narrative by showing a much larger deficit, likely due to differences in how each benchmark loads the CPU. Across all eight head-to-head tests, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins 8 out of 8, with deltas ranging from -29.4% to -84.3%. The i5-10400 has zero wins in this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

From the data, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins everywhere in this direct comparison. There is no benchmark category in the head-to-head set where the Intel part comes out ahead. The Threadripper’s advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core, where its 32 cores and 64 threads produce scores that are 6.4x higher. This makes it the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, simulation, and any workload that scales with core count. The Geekbench multi-core result (16922 vs 4790) reinforces this, showing a 3.5x advantage in a broader CPU test suite.

The i5-10400’s only potential saving grace is its single-core performance relative to its multi-core weakness, but even that is not enough. In Geekbench single-core, the i5-10400 scores 1108 against 1570, a 30% deficit. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the deficit is much worse at 1174 vs 7467. The Intel part’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz does not translate into a win anywhere. For a builder considering the i5-10400, the data shows it is suited for basic desktop tasks, light gaming, and everyday productivity, but in this head-to-head, it fails to claim a single victory. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX, by contrast, is the definitive winner in every measured category, making it the superior choice for any compute-intensive scenario, with the caveat that its 280 W TDP and eight-channel memory requirements demand a workstation-class platform.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the better processor by every benchmark metric in this comparison. It wins all eight head-to-head tests, with multi-core deltas of -84.3% in Cinebench and -71.7% in Geekbench. The i5-10400 is not competitive in any shared workload. Who should pick which? The Threadripper PRO 3975WX is for users who need massive parallel processing power—think professional 3D rendering, scientific computing, or heavy multi-threaded compilation. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 128 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory support (204.8 GB/s bandwidth), provide a clear path to high throughput. The i5-10400, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is for builders on a conventional desktop platform who do not need extreme multi-threading. However, based strictly on the data, the i5-10400 offers no advantage over the Threadripper in any of the eight tests. If the workload is multi-threaded, the Threadripper is the only rational choice. If the workload is single-threaded, the Threadripper still wins, albeit by a smaller margin. The i5-10400’s lower TDP (65 W vs 280 W) and integrated UHD Graphics 630 are not benchmark wins, but they do make it a more practical choice for a standard desktop build where the Threadripper’s platform requirements are prohibitive.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX scores 52895, while the Intel Core i5-10400 scores 8316, giving the AMD part a 6.4x advantage and a delta of -84.3%.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400 faster in any single-threaded test?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins every single-threaded test, including Geekbench single-core (1570 vs 1108) and Cinebench R23 single-core (7467 vs 1174).

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400 has an average benchmark score of 14037, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has an average of 13786. Both sit at the 68th percentile, and the Threadripper’s nearest rival is the Intel Core 3 304 with a delta of 0.3%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3975WX supports eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-10400 supports dual-channel memory with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Threadripper PRO 3975WX support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-10400 does not.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each CPU provide?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3975WX provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-10400 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core i5-10400 uses Comet Lake, a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel, with a die that features 6 cores and 12 threads. Its cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX uses Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a chiplet design comprising 4x 74 mm² dies and 15,200 million transistors. Its cache is significantly larger: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3. The Threadripper also features a different memory controller, supporting eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus the i5-10400’s dual-channel 42.7 GB/s. PCIe support differs as well: the AMD part offers 128 Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel part offers 16 Gen 3 lanes. The Threadripper has no integrated graphics, while the i5-10400 includes UHD Graphics 630. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX is unlocked? No, the multiplier is locked on both parts. The production status for both is Active, with the i5-10400 released on 2020-04-29 and the Threadripper on 2020-07-13.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two CPUs are stark. The Intel Core i5-10400 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for Intel and 3.50 GHz for AMD, with boost clocks of 4.30 GHz and 4.20 GHz, respectively. TDP differs massively: 65 W for the i5-10400 versus 280 W for the Threadripper. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 versus AMD Socket WRX8. The memory bus is dual-channel versus eight-channel, and memory bandwidth is 42.7 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. ECC support is absent on Intel and present on AMD. PCIe generation and lane count differ (Gen 3, 16 lanes vs Gen 4, 128 lanes). The i5-10400 has integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Threadripper has none. The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD. The Threadripper’s launch MSRP was $2749; the i5-10400 has no launch MSRP listed. The Threadripper’s part number is 100-000000086100-100000086WOF, while the i5-10400’s is SRH3CSRH78.