AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX vs Intel Xeon 6315P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins every benchmark recorded in the database against the Intel Xeon 6315P. Across all six head-to-head tests, the Threadripper PRO takes the win, with the Xeon 6315P recording zero wins. The margin is consistent and massive: the AMD part is roughly 80.8% to 80.9% ahead in every Cinebench test, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. This is not a case of one architecture favoring one workload type; the Threadripper PRO dominates both lightly threaded and heavily threaded scenarios.

For multi-core workloads, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 52895 dwarfs the Xeon 6315P's 10134, a gap of about 80.8%. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core (22215 vs 4256) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (5331 vs 1021). Any workload that scales across cores, such as rendering, simulation, or batch processing, will favor the AMD processor overwhelmingly.

The single-core results tell a similar story, though the margin is slightly larger. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 7467 against the Xeon's 1430, an 80.8% deficit for Intel. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 3136 vs 600 (80.9% gap), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 752 vs 144 (80.9% gap). Even in tasks that rely on a single thread, the AMD processor is far ahead. The Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz does not compensate for the architectural and core-count differences.

The database also shows the Threadripper PRO's average benchmark score at 13786, while the Xeon 6315P averages 14574. This is unusual: the Xeon has a higher average score despite losing every head-to-head test. The explanation lies in the benchmark sets. The Xeon's PassMark scores (integer math 27046, floating point math 33496, data compression 118313, random string sorting 14487) are included in its average, while the Threadripper PRO's recorded benchmarks are only the six Cinebench tests plus two Geekbench results. The Threadripper PRO's Geekbench multi-core of 16922 and single-core of 1570 are strong, but the Xeon's broader benchmark coverage inflates its average relative to the head-to-head results.

The percentile rankings are close: the Xeon sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, the Threadripper PRO at the 68th. This suggests that when placed against the entire database of processors, both are in a similar tier of overall performance, despite the Threadripper PRO's absolute dominance in these specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6315P is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R variant, on a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It is a small, efficient chip: 4 cores, 4 threads, with a die size of 163 mm². The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX uses Zen 2 architecture (Castle Peak codename) on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 32 cores and 64 threads across four chiplets, each 74 mm², totaling roughly 296 mm² of silicon and 15,200 million transistors.

The core count difference is the single largest factor. The Threadripper PRO has 8 times the cores and 16 times the threads of the Xeon. This directly explains the multi-core benchmark results. The Xeon's 4 cores and 4 threads mean it cannot compete in any parallel workload.

Cache configurations also differ sharply. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper PRO has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but a massive 128 MB of L3 cache. The larger L3 on the AMD part is a key advantage for workloads that reuse data, as it reduces memory latency and improves throughput.

Memory support diverges as well. The Xeon supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Threadripper PRO supports DDR4 only, but across an eight-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Xeon has no listed memory bandwidth figure in the database, but the eight-channel setup on the AMD side clearly provides far greater memory throughput for bandwidth-hungry tasks.

PCIe connectivity is another major difference. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Threadripper PRO offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes. While the Xeon has a newer PCIe standard, the AMD part has 8 times the lane count, which matters for multi-GPU or high-density storage configurations.

The Xeon's integrated graphics are listed as N/A, while the Threadripper PRO has no integrated graphics listed at all. Both rely on discrete GPUs.

Process node and foundry differ: Intel uses its own 10 nm process, while AMD uses TSMC's 7 nm. The smaller node on the AMD side contributes to its ability to pack 32 cores into a manageable power envelope, though the TDP figures tell a different story. The Xeon has a TDP of 55 W, while the Threadripper PRO is rated at 280 W. The AMD part consumes far more power, but delivers far more performance.

Release dates are far apart. The Xeon 6315P launched on 2025-02-23, while the Threadripper PRO 3975WX launched on 2020-07-13. The Xeon is a newer product, but it is positioned in the server/workstation segment with only 4 cores, while the Threadripper PRO is a desktop-class part with 32 cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, all from Cinebench. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins all six. The deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering around 80.8% to 80.9% across every test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 5331 against the Xeon's 1021, a delta of 80.8%. This is a 4310-point gap. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the AMD part scores 752 against 144, a delta of 80.9%. The single-core margin is slightly larger in percentage terms, which is notable because the Xeon has a higher boost clock (4.70 GHz vs 4.20 GHz). Despite the clock disadvantage, the Zen 2 core is simply more efficient per clock in this workload.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the Threadripper PRO at 22215 and the Xeon at 4256, again a 80.8% delta. The R20 single-core test shows 3136 vs 600, a 80.9% gap. The pattern is identical: the AMD processor is roughly 4 to 5 times faster in absolute terms, and the percentage gap is stable.

Cinebench R23 multi-core is the most demanding multi-threaded test in the set. The Threadripper PRO scores 52895, the Xeon 10134, a 80.8% delta. The R23 single-core test shows 7467 vs 1430, also 80.8%. The absolute single-core gap is 6037 points, which is larger than the Xeon's entire multi-core score in R15.

The consistency of the delta across all six tests is striking. Whether the workload uses one core or all cores, the Threadripper PRO holds roughly the same relative advantage. This suggests the performance difference is not workload-specific but systemic, driven by core count, cache size, memory bandwidth, and IPC advantages.

The Xeon's closest rivals in the database are the AMD EPYC 7473X (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 5500U (0.1% behind), Intel Core i5-9600K (0.2% behind), and AMD Ryzen 3 4100 (0.5% ahead). These are all mainstream or server parts with similar average scores. The Threadripper PRO's nearest rivals are the Intel Core 3 304 (0.3% ahead), Intel Core i7-8750H (0.6% behind), AMD EPYC 7443 (1.1% behind), and Intel Core 5 120UL (1.4% ahead). These are all far less powerful than the Threadripper PRO in raw multi-core performance, yet they have similar average scores because the Threadripper PRO's benchmark set is limited.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 52895 versus the Intel Xeon 6315P's 10134, a 80.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6315P win in any single-threaded test?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 7467 against 1430, an 80.8% gap. The Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz does not overcome the Zen 2 core's efficiency.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads. The AMD part has 8 times the cores and 16 times the threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s via an eight-channel DDR4 bus. The Xeon 6315P has no memory bandwidth figure recorded, but it uses a dual-channel configuration supporting DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon 6315P has 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The AMD part has 8 times the lane count.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The Xeon 6315P has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 128 MB of L3 cache, more than 10 times the capacity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6315P | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 32 |

| Threads | 4 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 280 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket WRX8 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-R | Castle Peak |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 4x 74 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 15,200 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 128 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Not listed |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2020-07-13 |

| Launch MSRP | $213 | $2749 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SRPLX | 100-000000086100-100000086WOF |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, and by a massive margin. Any user whose workload is bound by CPU performance, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, should choose the AMD part. The 80.8% to 80.9% advantage across all six Cinebench tests is not a narrow edge; it is a generation-defining gap.

The Intel Xeon 6315P does have advantages in the specification sheet. It is a much newer release (2025-02-23 versus 2020-07-13), has a higher boost clock (4.70 GHz versus 4.20 GHz), supports both DDR4 and DDR5, uses PCIe Gen 5, and has a far lower TDP at 55 W versus 280 W. Its launch MSRP of $213 is substantially lower than the Threadripper PRO's $2749. For a system that needs minimal CPU power, low power consumption, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, the Xeon could be a rational choice.

However, the benchmark results show that the Xeon cannot match the Threadripper PRO in any compute task recorded in the database. The Threadripper PRO's 32 cores, 64 threads, 128 MB of L3 cache, and eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth simply overwhelm the Xeon's 4 cores and 12 MB of L3. The AMD part's 80.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates directly to faster rendering, compilation, and data processing.

For users who prioritize raw CPU throughput, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the only choice from these two. The Xeon 6315P is better suited to low-power, low-core-count scenarios where its modern memory support and PCIe Gen 5 are more relevant than compute performance. The percentile rankings (69th for the Xeon, 68th for the Threadripper PRO) suggest both are in a similar overall tier, but the head-to-head data shows the Threadripper PRO is in a different league for actual computation. Choose the AMD part for performance, the Intel part for efficiency and platform features.