AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX vs Intel Core i7-8650U Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is absolute: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins every head-to-head test recorded, with no test going to the Intel Core i7-8650U. The database shows 6 wins for the AMD part and 0 for the Intel part. This is not a close contest where one chip takes single-thread and the other takes multi-thread; the Threadripper PRO leads by roughly 551% in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core.

The most decisive gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD part scores 34,204 against the Intel part's 5,253. That is a 551.1% advantage. For single-core in the same test, the AMD part scores 4,828 versus 741, a 551.6% delta. The pattern repeats across R15, R20, and R23: the deltas cluster tightly between 551.1% and 551.8%. This consistency suggests the performance difference is structural, not workload-specific. The AMD processor is faster in every measured category, and the margin is nearly identical regardless of test generation.

The Intel Core i7-8650U does have recorded wins in its own benchmark suite that the AMD part does not have, specifically PassMark tests like data compression (78,936), data encryption (2,067), extended instructions (5,042), find prime numbers (22), floating point math (13,299), integer math (22,007), multithread (6,193), physics (472), random string sorting (10,485), and single thread (2,103). However, these tests are not present in the head-to-head comparison, so they cannot be used to claim a win over the Threadripper PRO. The only comparable tests are Cinebench, and the AMD part wins all of them.

For use-case analysis, the data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX is the performance leader across every workload the database measured. The Intel Core i7-8650U, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is in a different performance class entirely. Its 15 W TDP and mobile BGA 1356 socket indicate it was designed for power-constrained portable systems, not for competitive rendering throughput. The Threadripper PRO's 280 W TDP and AMD Socket WRX8 place it firmly in the workstation segment, and the benchmark results confirm that positioning.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX for any workload where Cinebench scores matter, which is to say any workload that stresses CPU rendering or compute. The data shows a 551% advantage across the board. The Intel Core i7-8650U is not competitive in any measured category. If the task is multi-threaded rendering, the Threadripper PRO delivers 34,204 in Cinebench R23 multi-core; the i7-8650U delivers 5,253. If the task is single-threaded, the Threadripper PRO delivers 4,828 versus 741. There is no test where the Intel part closes the gap.

The practical verdict: the AMD part is for workstations, servers, and any system that can accommodate a 280 W processor with eight-channel DDR4 memory and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Intel part is for ultraportable laptops, where its 15 W TDP and integrated UHD 620 graphics make it a viable low-power option, but it will not compete in rendering benchmarks. The database percentile shows both chips at 65th percentile versus all CPUs, but that percentile is calculated against very different comparison pools. The Threadripper PRO's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 (average score 9,406, delta -0.6%), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X (average score 9,284, delta 0.7%), the Intel Atom x7835RE (average score 9,430, delta -0.9%), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M (average score 9,260, delta 1%). The i7-8650U's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 6330 (average score 8,939, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-8350U (average score 8,998, delta -0.7%), the Intel Core i5-1135G7 (average score 9,053, delta -1.3%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 (average score 9,155, delta -2.4%). The Threadripper PRO's average benchmark score is 9,348, while the i7-8650U's is 8,932. The raw averages are closer than the Cinebench deltas suggest, but the head-to-head tests are unequivocal.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Cinebench R15 multi-core: AMD 3,447, Intel 529, delta 551.6%. The AMD part is 6.5 times faster. Cinebench R15 single-core: AMD 486, Intel 74, delta 556.8%. This is the largest single-core delta in the entire comparison.

Cinebench R20 multi-core: AMD 14,365, Intel 2,206, delta 551.2%. The margin remains above 550%. Cinebench R20 single-core: AMD 2,027, Intel 311, delta 551.8%. This is the largest delta recorded in any test.

Cinebench R23 multi-core: AMD 34,204, Intel 5,253, delta 551.1%. This is the smallest delta in the set, but still a 5.5x advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core: AMD 4,828, Intel 741, delta 551.6%.

The deltas are remarkably stable. Every test falls within a 0.7 percentage point range, from 551.1% to 551.8%. This uniformity indicates that the performance gap is not sensitive to workload characteristics. The AMD processor is faster by a consistent factor regardless of whether the test uses one core or all cores, and regardless of which Cinebench version runs. The architectural differences between Zen 3 and Kaby Lake, combined with the huge core count and thread count disparity, produce a predictable and repeatable result.

For context, the AMD part's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 34,204 is more than six times the Intel part's 5,253. The single-core score of 4,828 versus 741 is also a sixfold difference. No test shows the Intel part within even 15% of the AMD part. The closest margin is still a 551.1% gap, which is not a contest.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX scores 34,204 versus the Intel Core i7-8650U's 5,253, a 551.1% advantage for AMD.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-8650U faster in any head-to-head test?

A: No. The database records 6 head-to-head tests, all won by the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX. The Intel part has 0 wins.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The AMD part scores 2,027 and the Intel part scores 311, giving AMD a 551.8% lead, the largest delta in the comparison.

Q: How do the two processors compare in core count?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i7-8650U has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD part has an average benchmark score of 9,348, while the Intel part has 8,932. The AMD part is ahead by roughly 4.7%.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX has a TDP of 280 W, while the Intel Core i7-8650U has a TDP of 15 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX is built on Zen 3 architecture with the codename Chagall PRO, part of the 5000 series and the Ryzen Threadripper generation. It uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 16,600 million transistors spread across a die size of 4x 81 mm². The Intel Core i7-8650U is built on Kaby Lake architecture with the codename Kaby Lake-R, part of the Core i7 Kaby Lake-U Refresh generation. It uses a 14 nm process from Intel, with a die size of 123 mm². The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which contributes to the AMD part's ability to pack 12 cores into a workstation socket.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's L3 cache is eight times larger, which is consistent with its workstation positioning.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, plus ECC memory support. The Intel part supports DDR4 but has no recorded memory bus width, no recorded memory bandwidth, and no ECC support. The AMD part also has PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part has no recorded PCIe configuration.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD 620. The AMD part has no integrated graphics, relying on discrete GPUs. This is a notable difference for systems that need a display output without a separate graphics card.

The AMD part's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Intel part is Mobile. The AMD part uses AMD Socket WRX8, and the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1356. The AMD part is unlocked in terms of multiplier? No, the multiplier is not unlocked for either part. Both are locked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field recorded. Core count: 12 versus 4. Thread count: 24 versus 8. Base clock: 4.10 GHz versus 1900.00 MHz (the Intel part's base clock is recorded as 1900.00, which is 1.9 GHz). Boost clock: 4.50 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. TDP: 280 W versus 15 W. Socket: AMD Socket WRX8 versus Intel BGA 1356.

Architecture: Zen 3 versus Kaby Lake. Codename: Chagall PRO versus Kaby Lake-R. Generation: Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 3 (Chagall)) versus Core i7 (Kaby Lake-U Refresh). Process node: 7 nm versus 14 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 16,600 million versus null (no data). Die size: 4x 81 mm² versus 123 mm².

Cache: L1 is identical at 64 KB per core. L2 differs: 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core. L3 differs: 64 MB versus 8 MB (shared). Memory support: both DDR4, but the AMD part has an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part has no recorded bus width or bandwidth. ECC: true for AMD, false for Intel. PCIe: Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) for AMD, null for Intel. Integrated graphics: null for AMD, UHD 620 for Intel. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Release date: 2022-03-07 versus 2017-08-20. Part number: 100-000000448 versus SR3L8. Both have locked multipliers.

The release date gap is nearly five years, with the AMD part launching in March 2022 and the Intel part in August 2017. That gap explains the architectural and process node differences, but the benchmark data shows the performance gap is far larger than the age gap alone would suggest. The AMD part is not just newer; it is in a completely different performance tier, designed for a different market segment with different power and thermal envelopes.