AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Intel Xeon 6747P Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare on average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6747P records an average benchmark score of 238,263, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX records 171,748. The Xeon sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, and the Threadripper sits at the 98th percentile, so both are top-tier parts in the database.

Q: Which chip wins in multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6747P is consistently ahead in Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 8,712 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 7,190 for the AMD, 36,301 versus 29,961 in R20, and 86,432 versus 71,338 in R23. Each of those wins is a 21.2% advantage for Intel.

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX takes the lead?

A: Yes, the AMD wins in four of the 14 head-to-head tests. It leads in data compression with 1,841,292 versus 1,833,378, in data encryption with 124,433 versus 90,789, in integer math with 490,116 versus 468,518, and in random string sorting with 188,574 versus 180,382.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest single gap is in PassMark physics, where the Intel Xeon 6747P scores 13,398 versus 5,498 for the AMD, a 143.7% advantage. The AMD's biggest margin is in data encryption, where it leads by 27%.

Q: How do the two compare on single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 6747P scores 3,236 in PassMark single-thread versus 2,595 for the AMD, a 24.7% lead. The database also lists the AMD's Cinebench R23 single-core score at 10,071, but no corresponding Intel figure is provided for that specific test.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6747P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Despite the AMD having more cores, the Intel wins most multi-threaded benchmarks in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split between two very different buying scenarios. For workloads dominated by rendering, physics simulation, floating-point math, and single-thread responsiveness, the Intel Xeon 6747P is the stronger choice. It wins 10 of the 14 head-to-head benchmarks, and its advantages are often substantial. The 21.2% lead across all three Cinebench multi-core tests is consistent, and the 143.7% margin in PassMark physics is decisive for any simulation-heavy workstation.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the better pick when the workload favors integer throughput, compression, encryption, or string sorting. It wins four tests, and its 27% lead in data encryption is the largest margin the Intel chip concedes anywhere. Users whose daily tasks are dominated by those specific operations should look at the AMD.

The Intel Xeon 6747P also carries a higher launch MSRP: $6497, versus $5489 for the AMD. That price gap is not the only consideration, but it is part of the context. The Intel chip delivers higher average benchmark scores, sits one percentile higher, and beats the AMD in most tests despite having 16 fewer cores. The AMD counters with a lower launch MSRP, more cores, and wins in a narrow but meaningful set of workloads.

For a general-purpose high-core-count workstation, the Intel Xeon 6747P is the safer recommendation based on the recorded data. For encryption-heavy or integer-heavy pipelines, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has a legitimate claim, and its four wins are not trivial margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 6747P dominates the multi-threaded rendering suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 8,712 against 7,190 for the AMD, a 21.2% delta. The same 21.2% margin repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 36,301 versus 29,961, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 86,432 versus 71,338. This consistency across three generations of the Cinebench test suggests a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite tells a more varied story. The Intel chip wins extended instructions with 142,557 versus 106,423, a 34% lead. It wins floating-point math with 365,904 versus 277,715, a 31.8% margin. It wins find prime numbers with 1,151 versus 566, a 103.4% blowout. It wins multithread with 101,685 versus 83,928, another 21.2% margin. And it wins physics with 13,398 versus 5,498, the largest delta in the entire comparison at 143.7%.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX takes its wins where they matter most for certain server and workstation tasks. Data compression goes to the AMD by a hair: 1,841,292 versus 1,833,378, a 0.4% margin. Data encryption is a much larger victory: 124,433 versus 90,789, a 27% lead. Integer math goes to the AMD at 490,116 versus 468,518, a 4.4% margin. Random string sorting also favors the AMD, 188,574 versus 180,382, a 4.3% difference.

Single-thread performance is firmly in Intel's corner. PassMark single-thread shows 3,236 versus 2,595, a 24.7% lead. The same result appears under the alternate single-thread test name. The AMD's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 10,071 is recorded, but without a matching Intel number in the head-to-head list, the PassMark result is the cleanest point of comparison.

The overall pattern: Intel wins by large margins in rendering, physics, extended instructions, floating-point, prime-number finding, and single-thread tests. AMD wins narrowly in compression, integer math, and string sorting, and wins decisively only in encryption.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Xeon 6747P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. The AMD has 16 more cores and 32 more threads, yet the Intel still wins most multi-threaded benchmarks.

Base clocks are identical at 2.70 GHz for both. Boost clocks differ: the Intel reaches 3.90 GHz, while the AMD boosts to 4.20 GHz. The AMD has a 0.30 GHz boost advantage, but that does not translate into single-thread benchmark wins.

Thermal design power also differs. The Intel is rated at 330 W, the AMD at 280 W. The Intel draws more power per the TDP figures, which is relevant for cooling and chassis planning, though the database does not provide measured power consumption.

Memory support splits along generation lines. The Intel uses DDR5 with eight-channel memory and a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The AMD uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory and a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel offers exactly double the memory bandwidth on paper, which likely contributes to its multi-threaded wins.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Intel provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). The AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The AMD has more lanes but an older generation. Both support ECC memory.

Socket and platform are entirely different: Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon, AMD Socket WRX8 for the Threadripper. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Launch MSRP values differ: the Intel is $6497, the AMD is $5489. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6747P is built on Granite Rapids, part of the Xeon 6 generation. It uses a 5 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The die size is listed as 2x 598 mm², a dual-die design. Its cache layout features 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 288 MB of shared L3. The production status is active, and the release date is 2025-02-23.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is built on Zen 2, codename Castle Peak, part of the 3000 series. It uses a 7 nm process from TSMC. The transistor count is listed as 30,400 million, and the die size is 8x 74 mm², an eight-die design. Its cache layout features 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3. The production status is active, and the release date is 2020-07-13.

The architectural differences are stark. Intel uses a newer 5 nm node versus AMD's 7 nm. Intel uses two large dies; AMD uses eight smaller ones. Intel's per-core L1 is nearly double at 112 KB versus 64 KB, and its per-core L2 is four times larger at 2 MB versus 512 KB. Intel's shared L3 is 288 MB versus 256 MB for AMD. The Intel chip is from a 2025 release, the AMD from a 2020 release, a five-year gap that shows up in the benchmark results.

The Intel part has no integrated graphics listed; the AMD field is null. Both target different market segments: the Intel is classified as Server/Workstation, the AMD as Desktop, though the Threadripper PRO line historically serves workstation builds.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6747P wins in rendering and compute-heavy scenarios. All three Cinebench multi-core tests go to Intel by 21.2%, which covers video rendering, 3D scene processing, and any workload that scales across cores in a similar pattern. PassMark physics at 143.7% ahead makes the Intel the clear choice for simulation and physics-based workloads. Floating-point math at 31.8% ahead suits scientific computing and numerical analysis. Extended instructions at 34% ahead favors code that uses AVX or similar instruction sets. Prime-number finding at 103.4% ahead suggests a strong integer-arithmetic pipeline for certain algorithmic tasks. Single-thread performance at 24.7% ahead helps lightly threaded applications and overall responsiveness.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins in four specific areas. Data compression at 1,841,292 versus 1,833,378 is a narrow but real edge for archiving and compression workloads. Data encryption at 124,433 versus 90,789 is a 27% advantage, making the AMD the stronger choice for encryption-heavy server tasks. Integer math at 490,116 versus 468,518 favors general integer operations. Random string sorting at 188,574 versus 180,382 points to a slight edge in sorting and text-processing pipelines.

The use-case split is clean. Choose the Intel Xeon 6747P for rendering, physics, floating-point, single-thread performance, and any mixed workload where the 21.2% multi-threaded lead matters. Choose the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX for encryption, integer math, compression, and string sorting, especially if those tasks dominate the daily workload. The AMD also offers more cores and threads, a lower launch MSRP, and a lower TDP, which may matter for specific build constraints even where the benchmark scores favor Intel.