AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and Intel Xeon 676X represent two very different philosophies for high-end workstation computing. The AMD part is a 64-core Zen 2 monster from the 3000 series, while the Intel Xeon 676X is a 32-core Granite Rapids part aimed at server and workstation tasks. Benchmark results show a clear split: Intel wins the majority of tests, but AMD claims decisive victories in specific workloads. The data shows that neither processor is universally superior, and the right choice depends entirely on the application mix.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the consistency of the Cinebench scores. Across all five Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core), the Intel Xeon 676X wins by exactly -7.9% delta. In R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 7806 against the Threadripper’s 7190. The R20 multi-core test shows 32527 versus 29961, and R23 multi-core shows 77447 versus 71338. Even in single-core tests, the margin is identical: R15 single-core is 1101 versus 1014, R20 single-core is 4591 versus 4229, and R23 single-core is 10071 for the AMD part. This uniformity suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage for Intel rather than a workload-specific edge.

The Passmark multithread test also goes to Intel, with a score of 91115 versus 83928, a -7.9% delta that mirrors the Cinebench results. However, the picture changes dramatically in other Passmark subtests. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins passmark_integer_math by a massive 38.1%, scoring 490116 versus 354777. It also dominates passmark_data_compression with a 35.8% lead, posting 1841292 against 1355807. The data encryption test is even more lopsided: AMD scores 124433 versus Intel’s 67638, an 84% advantage. Random string sorting also favors AMD heavily, with 188574 versus 137976, a 36.7% delta.

Intel strikes back in the remaining tests. Passmark_find_prime_numbers shows a 23.3% Intel win (738 versus 566), and passmark_physics is a 33.6% Intel win (8281 versus 5498). Floating point math is close, with Intel ahead by just 2.1% (283570 versus 277715), and extended instructions are nearly tied, with AMD ahead by only 1.1% (106423 versus 105231). The single-thread Passmark score is decisively Intel’s: 4015 versus 2595, a 35.4% gap. Overall, Intel wins 11 tests while AMD wins 5, but the magnitude of AMD’s wins in integer math, compression, and encryption is substantial.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the clear choice for workloads that stress integer arithmetic and data manipulation. The 38.1% lead in integer math and the 35.8% lead in data compression indicate that this processor excels in database operations, financial modeling, and any task that involves heavy sorting or hashing. The 84% advantage in data encryption is particularly notable; this is a massive margin that would make the AMD part the obvious pick for security-focused workloads, VPN gateways, or any environment requiring bulk encryption. The 36.7% win in random string sorting further reinforces this profile—this is a machine built for processing large datasets with complex indexing.

The Intel Xeon 676X, by contrast, is the winner in nearly every synthetic rendering and physics workload. Its consistent -7.9% delta across all Cinebench versions suggests that its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz, compared to the AMD’s 4.20 GHz, gives it a straightforward advantage in lightly-threaded and moderately-threaded render tasks. The 33.6% win in Passmark physics is significant, and the 23.3% win in prime number finding indicates strong performance in mathematical calculations that are not purely integer-bound. The 35.4% single-thread Passmark lead is the largest gap in the entire dataset, making the Xeon the obvious pick for legacy software, scripting, or any workload that cannot scale beyond one or two cores.

The floating point and extended instruction results are essentially a wash. Intel’s 2.1% lead in floating point math is within noise, and AMD’s 1.1% lead in extended instructions is similarly marginal. For mixed workloads that rely on SIMD operations, the data shows no meaningful difference between these two processors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 30,400 million transistors across 8 separate 74 mm² dies. The Intel Xeon 676X uses the Granite Rapids architecture, built on a 5 nm process at Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy: AMD uses a chiplet approach with eight compute dies, while Intel uses two large monolithic dies.

Cache structures differ significantly. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 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’s larger L3 pool likely contributes to its data compression and integer math wins, as more data can be held on-chip. The Intel’s larger per-core L2 cache (2 MB versus 512 KB) helps single-threaded performance.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The AMD uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory, achieving 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel uses DDR5 with eight-channel memory, doubling the bandwidth to 409.6 GB/s. PCIe also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The Intel’s newer memory and PCIe standards give it a substantial I/O advantage, which matters for GPU-heavy workloads or fast NVMe storage arrays.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket WRX8, while Intel uses Socket 4710. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The Intel Xeon also lists integrated graphics as N/A, and the AMD part has no integrated graphics listed.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference: AMD has 64 cores and 128 threads, while Intel has 32 cores and 64 threads. The base clocks are close (2.70 GHz for AMD versus 2.80 GHz for Intel), but the boost clocks diverge significantly (4.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz). TDP is nearly identical at 280 W for AMD and 275 W for Intel. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $5489, while the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $2499. The Intel processor is newer, with a release date of 2026-02-01, compared to the AMD’s 2020-07-13. Both are listed as Active in production status.

The memory bus is eight-channel for both, but the Intel’s DDR5 support doubles its theoretical memory bandwidth. The AMD’s L3 cache is 256 MB, while the Intel’s is 144 MB shared. The Intel has a larger L1 (112 KB per core) and L2 (2 MB per core) compared to the AMD’s 64 KB and 512 KB respectively. The AMD part number is 100-000000087100-100000087WOF, while the Intel part number is SA2CY.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X wins decisively. In Passmark single-thread, it scores 4015 versus the AMD’s 2595, a 35.4% lead. It also wins every Cinebench single-core test by 7.9%.

Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test with 77447 versus 71338, and also wins the Passmark multithread test with 91115 versus 83928. Both deltas are -7.9%.

Q: Where does the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX excel?

A: The AMD part wins data compression by 35.8%, integer math by 38.1%, and data encryption by 84%. It also wins random string sorting by 36.7% and extended instructions by 1.1%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X supports DDR5 with an eight-channel bus, providing 409.6 GB/s. The AMD supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The AMD uses AMD Socket WRX8, while the Intel uses Intel Socket 4710. They are not interchangeable.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe support?

A: The AMD provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Intel provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear use-case split. If your work involves heavy encryption, large-scale data compression, integer-heavy financial calculations, or complex string sorting, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the superior choice. Its 84% lead in data encryption and 38.1% lead in integer math are not small margins; they represent a transformative difference in throughput for those specific tasks. The 5.7% delta versus its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 9375F, shows it is competitive in its own ecosystem, but the head-to-head data is what matters here.

If your workload is more general-purpose, involves rendering, physics simulation, or relies on high single-thread performance, the Intel Xeon 676X is the better pick. It wins 11 of the 16 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench variants and the Passmark multithread test. Its 35.4% single-thread lead over the AMD makes it far more responsive for everyday tasks and legacy software. The fact that it achieves this while having half the cores and a lower launch MSRP ($2499 versus $5489) is notable, though pricing should not be the primary consideration. The Intel’s higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz and DDR5 memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s give it a modern platform advantage.

The benchmark results indicate that core count alone does not determine the winner. The AMD’s 64 cores are not enough to overcome the Intel’s clock speed and memory advantages in most tests. However, the AMD’s wins are so large in its specialty areas that it remains the right tool for data-centric workloads. The Intel Xeon 676X is the more balanced, broadly-capable processor, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a specialized powerhouse for encryption and data processing. Both are in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, but they serve different masters.