AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX vs Intel Xeon Gold 5320 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX and Intel Xeon Gold 5320 are both active server/workstation processors aimed at similar multi-threaded workloads, yet the benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the AMD part. Across every head-to-head Cinebench test, the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX posts a lead of approximately 7% over the Xeon Gold 5320. Both processors sit at the 65th percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 9348 for the AMD and 9234 for the Intel, placing them in the same performance tier despite their different core configurations.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX compare to the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD leads in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 34204 versus 31924 for the Intel, a 7.1% advantage. The same 7.1% delta appears in Cinebench R20 (14365 vs 13408) and Cinebench R15 (3447 vs 3217).

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins all single-core tests. It scores 4828 in Cinebench R23 single-core against 4506 for the Intel, 2027 versus 1892 in R20, and 486 versus 454 in R15. The margin is consistently 7% in the R20 and R23 tests.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: The AMD has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 has 26 cores and 52 threads. The Intel part has more than double the cores, yet it trails in the benchmark results.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX has an average benchmark score of 9348, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 averages 9234. This puts the AMD 1.2% higher in average score.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory and eight-channel memory buses?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory and use an eight-channel memory bus. The AMD has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel has 191.6 GB/s.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each CPU?

A: The AMD uses AMD Socket WRX8, while the Intel uses Intel Socket 4189. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for users prioritizing raw Cinebench throughput: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its margins are uniform at 7.1% in multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) and 7% to 7.1% in single-core tests. This consistency makes it the safer pick for rendering, simulation, or any workload that scales with Cinebench scores. The Intel Xeon Gold 5320, despite having 26 cores versus 12, cannot convert its core advantage into a performance lead, likely due to lower clock speeds (2.20 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost versus 4.10 GHz and 4.50 GHz for the AMD).

However, the verdict is not one-sided in all contexts. The Intel part draws 185 W TDP versus 280 W for the AMD, which could matter in dense server deployments where thermal and power budgets are tight. The Intel also offers more cores (26 vs 12) and threads (52 vs 24), which may be relevant for workloads that are heavily parallel but not well-represented by the Cinebench suite. For users who rely on Cinebench as a proxy for their applications, the AMD is the winner. For those who need more physical cores and lower power draw, the Intel has structural advantages, even if the benchmarks do not reflect them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX dominates the benchmark comparison with six wins out of six. The largest wins come in multi-core tests, where the AMD leads by 7.1% across the board. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 34204 against 31924 for the Intel, a difference of 2280 points. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 (14365 vs 13408) and Cinebench R15 (3447 vs 3217). The lead is not just in multi-core; single-core results show nearly identical margins. The AMD scores 4828 in R23 single-core versus 4506, 2027 versus 1892 in R20, and 486 versus 454 in R15.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5320 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its closest performance is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 454 against the AMD's 486, a 7% deficit. The Intel's multi-core scores are also consistently 7.1% behind, meaning the gap does not widen or narrow with different Cinebench versions. This uniformity suggests a fundamental clock-speed or architectural advantage for the AMD rather than a workload-specific effect. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the AMD's 9348 average is 1.2% higher than the Intel's 9234, though both sit at the 65th percentile of all CPUs.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is core count: the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. This is a 14-core and 28-thread gap in the Intel's favor. Clock speeds reverse the picture. The AMD runs at a 4.10 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost, versus 2.20 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost for the Intel. The AMD's clocks are substantially higher, which explains its benchmark wins despite fewer cores.

Power consumption also differs: the AMD has a 280 W TDP, while the Intel is rated at 185 W. The process nodes differ as well, with the AMD built on a 7 nm process from TSMC and the Intel on a 10 nm process from Intel. Cache configurations are another distinguishing factor. The AMD has 64 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel has 39 MB of shared L3. Per-core L2 cache is 512 KB for the AMD and 1 MB for the Intel. Both use DDR4 memory with eight-channel buses, but the AMD has higher peak bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s versus 191.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes also differ: the AMD offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Intel provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes. The AMD uses AMD Socket WRX8, the Intel uses Intel Socket 4189. Both lack integrated graphics and have no unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX is built on Zen 3 architecture with the codename Chagall PRO, part of the 5000 series. It uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC, with 16,600 million transistors and a die size of 4x 81 mm². The Intel Xeon Gold 5320 uses Ice Lake architecture with the codename Ice Lake-SP, on a 10 nm process from Intel. The AMD's Zen 3 design delivers higher instructions-per-clock, which combines with its higher clocks to overcome the Intel's core-count lead. The AMD's L3 cache is 64 MB versus 39 MB shared on the Intel, providing a larger on-die cache for data reuse. The Intel's L2 cache is larger per core at 1 MB versus 512 KB, but the AMD's total cache footprint favors its performance profile. The AMD's process node advantage (7 nm vs 10 nm) contributes to its higher clock speeds and lower power-per-core, though its total TDP is higher due to the 280 W rating. Both processors are designed for server or workstation segments and support ECC memory, but the AMD's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes significantly exceed the Intel's 64 lanes, which affects expansion capability in multi-GPU or high-storage configurations.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins in every benchmark category tracked here. Its 7.1% multi-core advantage in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 makes it the preferred choice for workloads that are heavily dependent on multi-threaded rendering or computation, as represented by Cinebench scores. Its single-core lead of 7% to 7.1% suggests better performance in lightly threaded tasks such as application responsiveness or legacy software that uses one or two threads. The AMD also has a higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s vs 191.6 GB/s) and more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64), which benefits memory-bound or expansion-heavy systems. Its higher L3 cache (64 MB vs 39 MB) can improve performance in workloads with large working sets that fit in cache.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5320 does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks, but it has structural advantages that may matter in specific deployments. Its 26 cores and 52 threads provide more parallel hardware, which could be beneficial in workloads that are not well-served by Cinebench's scaling behavior, such as certain database or virtualization scenarios. Its 185 W TDP is significantly lower than the AMD's 280 W, making it a better fit for power-constrained environments or systems with limited cooling. The Intel's larger per-core L2 cache (1 MB vs 512 KB) could help in workloads with high per-thread cache demands. For users who prioritize raw Cinebench scores, the AMD is the clear winner. For those who need more cores or lower power draw, the Intel offers a different trade-off, even though the benchmark data does not show it winning any tests.