AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall win for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX, which takes 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 9 273PQE manages three wins, but the margin of victory in those tests does not offset the breadth of AMD's advantage across the rest of the suite.

The most lopsided result in AMD's favor comes in PassMark data encryption, where the Threadripper scores 42,524 against Intel's 29,636, a 43.5% advantage. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. Random string sorting also heavily favors AMD, with a 31.4% lead (69,879 versus 53,167). Prime number finding shows a 25.3% edge for the Threadripper (248 versus 198), while extended instructions land at 21.2% ahead (46,952 versus 38,743). Data compression rounds out the double-digit wins at 18% (690,994 versus 585,752).

The Cinebench results are consistent but narrower. Across all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, the AMD chip wins by exactly 6.8%. That includes Cinebench R23 multi-core at 41,837 versus 39,190, and R23 single-core at 5,906 versus 5,532. The same 6.8% delta appears in R15 and R20, for both single and multi-threaded runs. PassMark multithread also shows a 6.8% edge (49,220 versus 46,107), and physics follows at 5.8% (2,913 versus 2,754). Integer math goes to AMD by 12.5% (185,168 versus 164,629).

Intel's three wins are concentrated in specific workloads. The single-thread PassMark result is the biggest, with the Core 9 scoring 4,573 against AMD's 3,324, a 27.3% advantage. Floating point math also goes Intel's way, 125,546 versus 104,377, a 16.9% lead. The third win is the same single-thread PassMark test listed under a duplicate name, so effectively Intel has two distinct benchmark victories. The data indicates that Intel's single-core strength is substantial, but it does not translate into broader multi-core dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the clear choice for heavily threaded, data-intensive work. Its wins in encryption, compression, random string sorting, and extended instructions point to strengths in server and workstation tasks where data transformation and cryptographic workloads are common. The 43.5% encryption lead and 31.4% sorting advantage are not marginal; they represent meaningful throughput differences for users running those operations regularly. The consistent 6.8% Cinebench edge across every test reinforces that the Threadripper's 16 cores and 32 threads deliver a uniform multi-core advantage over Intel's 12 cores and 24 threads.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins where raw single-core speed matters most. The 27.3% lead in PassMark single-thread is the largest margin in either direction, and the 16.9% floating point win suggests Intel's architecture handles math-heavy, scalar workloads better. This makes the Intel chip more appealing for applications that are lightly threaded or that rely on floating point calculations, such as certain simulation and scientific workloads. However, the data shows these wins are isolated: Intel does not carry that advantage into integer math, encryption, or any of the Cinebench tests.

For mixed workloads, the Threadripper's broader win profile is more versatile. It wins the multithread PassMark test by 6.8%, and its integer math lead of 12.5% shows it can handle general-purpose computing without sacrificing the multi-core throughput that defines its segment. The Intel chip, by contrast, is more specialized: it wins only where single-thread performance or floating point dominates. Users prioritizing peak single-core responsiveness over aggregate throughput would favor Intel, but the benchmark data suggests AMD's chip is the stronger all-rounder.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX scores 41,837 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190. AMD leads by 6.8%.

Q: How large is Intel's single-thread advantage?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 4,573 in PassMark single-thread, compared to AMD's 3,324. That is a 27.3% lead for Intel.

Q: Which chip is better for data encryption workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX dominates encryption, scoring 42,524 versus Intel's 29,636 in PassMark data encryption, a 43.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any floating point tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 9 273PQE wins PassMark floating point math with 125,546 against AMD's 104,377, a 16.9% lead.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 3, though two of those are the same single-thread PassMark test listed under different names.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench single-core tests?

A: AMD wins all three Cinebench single-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by 6.8% each. For example, R23 single-core scores 5,906 for AMD and 5,532 for Intel.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in core and thread counts. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 4.00 GHz for AMD and 3.40 GHz for Intel, but boost clocks reverse the order: AMD tops out at 4.50 GHz, while Intel reaches 5.90 GHz. Thermal design power also diverges sharply, with AMD rated at 280 W and Intel at 125 W.

Memory support marks another major difference. AMD uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but only with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, but the platform capabilities are not equivalent given the channel count disparity. PCIe connectivity is also split: AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Intel includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while AMD has no integrated graphics listed.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket WRX8, Intel uses Socket 1700. Market segments differ as well, with AMD classified as Server/Workstation and Intel as Desktop. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $589, while AMD's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database. The Intel part carries part number SA4Q9, and the AMD part is 100-000000447.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX 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 spread across a die size of 4x 81 mm². Cache is organized as 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses Bartlett Lake architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Its cache layout differs notably: 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

The transistor count and die size for the Intel chip are not recorded in the database, so a direct comparison on those metrics is not possible. The cache hierarchy tells a clear story, though: AMD's larger L3 pool (64 MB versus 36 MB) likely contributes to its multi-core and data-heavy workload wins, while Intel's larger per-core L2 (2 MB versus 512 KB) may help its single-thread and floating point performance. The process node difference also matters, with AMD on a smaller 7 nm process versus Intel's 10 nm, though the architecture generations are different as well.

Features also diverge in PCIe generation and graphics. AMD offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, which suits workstation expansion, while Intel moves to PCIe Gen 5 but with only 16 lanes, a more desktop-oriented configuration. Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 770 is present, whereas AMD has no integrated graphics, meaning the Threadripper requires a discrete GPU. Both processors are locked (multiplier unlocked is false for both), and both are listed as Active in production status. The release dates are close, with AMD recorded as 2022-03-07 and Intel as 2026-03-08, but the architecture differences are more consequential than the timing for performance analysis.