AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split between these two workstation processors, with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX taking 11 of the 16 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon w9-3575X wins 5. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The closest contests come in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD scores 7190 against Intel's 7140, a 0.7% edge. The single-core result is similarly tight, 1014 versus 1008, a 0.6% advantage for AMD. Move to Cinebench R20, and the pattern holds: multicore shows 29961 against 29751 (0.7%), single-core 4229 against 4200 (0.7%). Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the same 0.7% margin, with 71338 versus 70837. These are effectively statistical ties in rendering workloads, meaning neither chip offers a meaningful advantage in this category.

The Passmark suite is where the real divergence appears. AMD's biggest wins are dramatic. In data encryption, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX scores 124433 against Intel's 62258, a 99.9% advantage, essentially doubling the throughput. Integer math shows a 64.3% lead, 490116 versus 298224. Data compression follows at 51% ahead, 1841292 versus 1219584. Random string sorting adds another 40% win, 188574 against 134723. Floating point math is closer, 277715 versus 273398, a 1.6% edge for AMD.

Intel's wins are concentrated in different workloads. The biggest is single-thread performance, where the Xeon w9-3575X scores 3672 against AMD's 2595, a 29.3% advantage. Physics simulation favors Intel by 19.6%, 6836 versus 5498. Prime number finding shows a 17.6% lead, 687 against 566. Extended instructions are only 3.1% ahead, 109843 versus 106423. The Passmark multithread test is nearly even, with AMD at 83928 and Intel at 83338, a 0.7% margin.

The data indicates that AMD's 64-core design dominates throughput-heavy integer and data manipulation tasks, while Intel's higher clock speed and per-core efficiency win in latency-sensitive and physics-based workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the clear choice for workloads that scale with raw core count and parallel integer operations. Data encryption, compression, and sorting tasks show the most dramatic separation, with margins ranging from 40% to 99.9%. Integer math also falls squarely in AMD's court with a 64.3% lead. These are the kinds of operations found in database processing, file archiving, and cryptographic workloads. The 0.7% Cinebench multicore edges, while small, still consistently favor AMD across all three Cinebench versions, indicating a slight advantage in heavily threaded rendering.

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X wins where single-thread speed and physics calculations matter. The 29.3% single-thread lead is substantial, making it the better fit for applications that rely on one or a few fast cores, such as legacy software, certain CAD tools, or scripting workflows. The 19.6% physics advantage points towards simulation and gaming physics engines, which benefit from higher per-core clocks rather than sheer core count. Prime number finding, a classic latency-bound workload, also favors Intel by 17.6%.

For mixed workloads, the Passmark multithread test shows both chips are effectively equal, with only a 0.7% separation. This suggests that on highly parallel, balanced workloads without a specific algorithmic pattern, the user experience would be nearly identical. The decision hinges on whether the software leans towards the integer-heavy, multi-core pattern where AMD excels, or the single-thread, physics-heavy pattern where Intel dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. AMD's Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Intel's Xeon w9-3575X uses Sapphire Rapids, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs. The process node difference gives AMD a density and power efficiency advantage per transistor, although the Xeon compensates with higher clock speeds.

The core counts differ substantially. AMD packs 64 cores and 128 threads, while Intel offers 44 cores and 88 threads. AMD's base clock is higher, 2.70 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, but Intel's boost clock is significantly higher, 4.80 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. This explains the single-thread dominance of the Intel part and the multi-core dominance of the AMD part.

Cache layouts also differ meaningfully. AMD uses a per-core L1 of 64 KB and L2 of 512 KB, with a massive 256 MB L3 cache. Intel uses a larger per-core L1 of 80 KB and L2 of 2 MB, but a smaller total L3 of 97.5 MB. The Intel design gives each core more fast local cache, which helps single-thread performance, while AMD's aggregate L3 favors massive data sets in parallel workloads. The die size reflects the different approaches: AMD uses 8x 74 mm² chiplets, while Intel uses 4x 477 mm² tiles. AMD lists 30,400 million transistors, while Intel's transistor count is not recorded.

Memory support diverges completely. AMD runs DDR4 with eight-channel support and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel runs DDR5 with eight-channel support and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The newer DDR5 standard gives the Xeon a 50% raw bandwidth advantage, which matters for memory-bound applications. Both support ECC memory. PCIe also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), Intel offers Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only). Intel's newer PCIe generation doubles per-lane bandwidth, while AMD has more total lanes.

Specification Differences

The measurable differences between the two processors are as follows. AMD has 64 cores and 128 threads, Intel has 44 cores and 88 threads. AMD's base clock is 2.70 GHz, Intel's is 2.20 GHz. AMD's boost clock is 4.20 GHz, Intel's is 4.80 GHz. TDP differs, with AMD at 280 and Intel at 340. Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket WRX8, Intel uses Socket 4677. Process node is 7 nm for AMD, 10 nm for Intel. AMD's L3 cache is 256 MB, Intel's is 97.5 MB. AMD supports DDR4, Intel supports DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for AMD, 307.2 GB/s for Intel. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes for AMD, Gen 5 with 112 lanes for Intel. AMD has no integrated graphics, Intel lists integrated graphics as N/A. AMD's multiplier is locked, Intel's is unlocked. Release dates differ: AMD launched in July 2020, Intel in August 2024. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $3789, while AMD's is $5489. Both are marked as Active in production status. AMD's market segment is Desktop, Intel's is Server/Workstation.

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 w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads.

Q: Which chip is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X wins the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 3672 against AMD's 2595, a 29.3% advantage.

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD scores 71338 and the Intel scores 70837, giving AMD a 0.7% edge. The result is effectively a tie.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X supports DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD supports DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel has a 50% higher recorded bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX offers 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 4. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X offers 112 lanes of PCIe Gen 5.

Q: Is either processor's multiplier unlocked?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX does not.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a straightforward recommendation based on workload profile. If your tasks are dominated by data encryption, compression, integer math, random string sorting, or any heavily parallel operation that scales with core count, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the better choice. Its 11 wins out of 16 head-to-head tests, including crushing leads of 99.9% in encryption and 64.3% in integer math, make it the clear throughput king. The 256 MB L3 cache and 64-core configuration align perfectly with these workloads.

If your tasks are dominated by single-thread execution, physics simulation, prime number finding, or anything that benefits from higher boost clocks, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the stronger pick. Its 29.3% single-thread lead and 19.6% physics advantage are decisive. The unlocked multiplier also allows for manual frequency tuning, which the database shows is not possible on the AMD part.

For rendering workloads, the Cinebench results show both chips are within 0.7% of each other, so either platform would deliver essentially identical performance. For memory-bandwidth-heavy tasks, the Intel's DDR5 support with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth provides a structural advantage over AMD's DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s.

The average benchmark scores in the database put AMD at 171748 against Intel's 144323, a notable gap, though this average is heavily influenced by AMD's massive wins in the integer and encryption tests. Both processors sit at the 98th percentile of all CPUs. The choice is not about which is generally better, but which algorithm patterns your software actually uses. Pick AMD for maximum parallel integer throughput, pick Intel for maximum single-thread responsiveness and physics performance.