AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Intel Xeon 6732P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a clear overall winner in raw performance, with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX taking 14 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Xeon 6732P claimed only 3 wins, and two of those are marginal. The AMD part wins every Cinebench iteration by a nearly identical margin, while its PassMark workload results range from narrow to dominant.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX scores 7190 against 6412 for the Xeon 6732P, a 12.1% advantage. Single-core in the same test shows 1014 versus 905, a 12% lead. The pattern holds across Cinebench R20 and R23: multi-core scores of 29961 versus 26720 and 71338 versus 63621, respectively, both exactly 12.1% ahead. Single-core results in R20 (4229 versus 3772) and R23 (10071 versus 8981) also match that 12.1% delta. This consistency suggests the architectural differences translate into a uniform clock-for-clock efficiency gap rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite reveals where the AMD part truly separates itself. Data compression shows 1841292 versus 1339480, a 37.5% win. Integer math is even more lopsided: 490116 versus 334340, a 46.6% margin. Random string sorting goes 188574 versus 133467, a 41.3% advantage. Data encryption delivers the single largest delta: 124433 versus 63848, a 94.9% gap, meaning the Threadripper PRO 3995WX nearly doubles the Xeon 6732P in that workload. Floating point math is closer but still favors AMD at 277715 versus 261703, a 6.1% win. The PassMark multi-thread score follows the Cinebench pattern at 83928 versus 74849, again 12.1%.

The Intel part wins PassMark physics by a wide margin: 8109 versus 5498, a 32.2% advantage. It also edges out the AMD part in extended instructions, 106697 versus 106423, though that is only a 0.3% difference. Prime number finding goes to Intel as well, 628 versus 566, a 9.9% lead. Single-thread PassMark scores are close, with AMD ahead at 2595 versus 2506, a 3.6% margin.

The overall average benchmark score in the database reflects this dominance: 171748 for the Threadripper PRO 3995WX versus 143444 for the Xeon 6732P, a difference of roughly 19.7%. Both parts sit in the 98th percentile against all CPUs, but the AMD processor sits higher within that tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Castle Peak codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. The Intel Xeon 6732P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, built on Intel's 5 nm process. The AMD part belongs to the 3000 series of Ryzen Threadripper processors; the Intel part is part of the Xeon 6 generation under the Granite Rapids-SP family.

Core counts differ substantially. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, double the Xeon 6732P's 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Intel part has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, but the AMD part boosts slightly higher at 4.20 GHz versus 4.10 GHz. Thermal design power favors the AMD part at 280 W versus 350 W for Intel.

Cache hierarchies are designed differently. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The AMD total L3 is substantially larger, though the Intel per-core L2 allocation is four times larger.

Memory support shows a generational split. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon 6732P uses DDR5 with eight-channel memory and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, double the raw memory throughput. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs by generation. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 136 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), while the AMD part has no integrated graphics field recorded.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket WRX8; the Intel part uses Intel Socket 4710. The AMD processor is marked for the Desktop market segment, while Intel lists Server/Workstation. Both are currently marked as Active in production status. The AMD part carries a part number of 100-000000087100-100000087WOF; the Intel part is SRVP2.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Xeon 6732P has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly half.

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon 6732P win PassMark physics despite losing most tests?

A: The PassMark physics test is one of three workloads where Intel comes out ahead. The Xeon 6732P scores 8109 versus 5498 for the Threadripper PRO 3995WX, a 32.2% advantage. This likely reflects the higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, though the database does not isolate the specific cause.

Q: What is the most lopsided benchmark result between these two?

A: PassMark data encryption shows the largest gap. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX scores 124433 compared to 63848 for the Xeon 6732P, a 94.9% advantage, meaning the AMD part nearly doubles the Intel part in that workload.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: Both use eight-channel memory, but the Intel Xeon 6732P supports DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX supports DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has twice the raw memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and the Intel Xeon 6732P have ECC memory support recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX leads in every single-thread test recorded. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 1014 versus 905 (12% ahead), R20 shows 4229 versus 3772 (12.1%), R23 shows 10071 versus 8981 (12.1%), and PassMark single-thread shows 2595 versus 2506 (3.6%).

Specification Differences

The database records the following specification differences between the two processors:

• Cores: 64 (AMD) versus 32 (Intel)
• Threads: 128 (AMD) versus 64 (Intel)
• Base clock: 2.70 GHz (AMD) versus 3.80 GHz (Intel)
• Boost clock: 4.20 GHz (AMD) versus 4.10 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 280 W (AMD) versus 350 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket WRX8 versus Intel Socket 4710
• Architecture: Zen 2 versus Granite Rapids
• Codename: Castle Peak versus Granite Rapids
• Generation: Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 2, Castle Peak) versus Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP)
• Process node: 7 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 30,400 million (AMD) versus not recorded (Intel)
• Die size: 8x 74 mm² (AMD) versus not recorded (Intel)
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) versus 112 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 cache: 512 KB per core (AMD) versus 2 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 cache: 256 MB (AMD) versus 144 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 4, 128 lanes versus Gen 5, 136 lanes
• Integrated graphics: not recorded (AMD) versus N/A (Intel)
• Market segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation
• Release date: 2020-07-13 versus 2025-05-21
• Launch MSRP: $5489 (AMD) versus $5295 (Intel)
• Part number: 100-000000087100-100000087WOF versus SRVP2

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive overall performance winner. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX leads in 14 of 17 benchmark comparisons, including every Cinebench test and the majority of PassMark workloads. Its average benchmark score of 171748 sits well above the Xeon 6732P's 143444, a gap of roughly 19.7%. The AMD part also achieves this with a lower TDP of 280 W versus 350 W and double the core count.

The Intel Xeon 6732P has clear strengths in specific areas. It wins PassMark physics by 32.2%, prime number finding by 9.9%, and extended instructions by a slim 0.3%. It offers double the memory bandwidth at 409.6 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s and newer PCIe Gen 5 support. Its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.70 GHz likely contributes to its physics win.

However, the consistency of the AMD advantage across Cinebench and most PassMark workloads suggests the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the stronger all-round processor. The 12.1% lead in every Cinebench test, the 46.6% lead in integer math, and the 94.9% lead in data encryption are substantial margins that the Intel part cannot offset with its three wins.

For users prioritizing memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, or the specific physics and prime number workloads where Intel leads, the Xeon 6732P has a rationale. For users who need maximum multi-core throughput, encryption performance, integer math, or data compression, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins in all Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both multi-core and single-core), PassMark data compression, data encryption, floating point math, integer math, multi-thread, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. Its largest margins come in data encryption (94.9%), integer math (46.6%), and random string sorting (41.3%). These results indicate workloads involving encryption, integer-heavy computation, and sorting algorithms will see the biggest benefit from the AMD processor.

The Intel Xeon 6732P wins in PassMark physics, extended instructions, and prime number finding. The physics win is substantial at 32.2%, while extended instructions is essentially a tie at 0.3% and prime number finding shows a 9.9% lead. The Intel part also offers architectural advantages in memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s) and PCIe generation (Gen 5 versus Gen 4), which the benchmark suite does not directly measure.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX suits workloads that are multi-threaded, encryption-heavy, integer-intensive, or involve data compression and sorting. The Intel Xeon 6732P suits workloads that rely on physics simulation, extended instruction set execution, prime number computation, or that require maximum memory bandwidth and newer PCIe connectivity. Both processors sit at the 98th percentile against all CPUs, so neither is a weak choice; the question is which strengths matter more for the specific workload.