AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX vs Intel Xeon w7-3565X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX and Intel Xeon w7-3565X are both 32-core, 64-thread workstation processors aimed at the same high-end market segment, yet the benchmark data shows they are not interchangeable. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the AMD part wins 13 while the Intel part wins 4, with the AMD’s victories often being decisive in specific workloads. The Xeon counters with wins in floating-point math, extended instruction throughput, and single-threaded PassMark tests, but the overall picture is one of an AMD processor that dominates the majority of measured scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX establishes its lead in nearly every multi-threaded rendering and general compute benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 64,021 against the Xeon’s 60,045, a 6.6% advantage that repeats across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 variants. This consistency indicates a broad architectural edge in sustained all-core workloads. The AMD chip also wins PassMark’s multithread test (75,319 vs 70,642, +6.6%) and integer math by a massive 29% (360,156 vs 279,202), making it the clear choice for code compilation, data processing, and other integer-heavy tasks.

The AMD’s most dramatic wins come in data-focused tests. PassMark data encryption shows a 47.1% lead (80,453 vs 54,676), and data compression is 20.3% ahead (1,293,784 vs 1,075,602). These results point to a decisive advantage in security, archiving, and database workloads that rely on cryptographic operations and compression algorithms. Random string sorting also favors AMD by 11.4% (123,527 vs 110,848), reinforcing its strength in sorting and text-processing pipelines.

The Intel Xeon w7-3565X takes a different set of benchmarks. Its most notable victory is in PassMark floating-point math, where it scores 218,720 against AMD’s 202,363, a 7.5% edge. This suggests the Xeon is better suited for scientific simulation, financial modeling, and other workloads dominated by floating-point arithmetic. The Xeon also wins PassMark extended instructions (85,856 vs 82,850, +3.5%), indicating an advantage in workloads that leverage newer and specialized instruction set extensions. Finally, the Xeon edges out the AMD in PassMark single-threaded tests (3,407 vs 3,323, +2.5%), making it marginally better for lightly threaded tasks where per-core performance is paramount.

Architecture Differences

The two processors take fundamentally different approaches to achieving their 32-core, 64-thread configurations. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process node using a chiplet design, with a die size of 4x 81 mm² and a total of 16,600 million transistors. It is based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Chagall PRO, and operates within a 280 W TDP. The processor’s base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. It supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU alone.

The Intel Xeon w7-3565X uses a more conventional monolithic-like approach on Intel’s 10 nm process, with a much larger die size of 4x 477 mm². It is based on the Sapphire Rapids architecture and has a higher TDP of 335 W. Its base clock is lower at 2.50 GHz, but the boost clock reaches 4.80 GHz, which is 0.30 GHz higher than the AMD’s maximum boost. The Xeon supports DDR5 memory on an eight-channel bus, nearly doubling memory bandwidth to 307.2 GB/s, and offers 112 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The cache hierarchy differs significantly: the AMD has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a large 128 MB L3 cache. The Intel has 80 KB of L1 and a much larger 2 MB of L2 per core, but its L3 cache is smaller at 82.5 MB. The AMD is not multiplier unlocked, while the Intel is unlocked. The AMD’s integrated graphics are not present, and the Intel’s are listed as N/A. Both support ECC memory and target the server/workstation segment.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of labor. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the superior processor for the majority of workstation tasks, particularly those involving heavy integer math, data encryption and compression, and multi-threaded rendering. Its 29% lead in integer math and 47.1% lead in data encryption are not marginal differences; they represent a substantial performance gap that would be immediately noticeable in any workload that stresses these areas. For Cinebench-style rendering, the 6.6% consistent advantage across all versions makes it the default choice for 3D artists and video editors.

The Intel Xeon w7-3565X is the better option for a narrower set of workloads. Its 7.5% lead in floating-point math makes it the pick for scientific computing and engineering simulation that rely on double-precision arithmetic. The 3.5% edge in extended instructions suggests better support for AVX-512 and other modern instruction sets, which could matter for specific HPC applications. The 2.5% single-threaded PassMark win is small but real, giving the Xeon a slight edge in legacy or single-threaded applications. For users whose primary workloads fall into these categories, the Xeon’s higher boost clock and newer memory technology (DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth) may justify its selection. However, for general-purpose workstation use, the AMD’s 13 out of 17 benchmark wins make it the more versatile and higher-performing choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX scores 64,021 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 6.6% higher than the Intel Xeon w7-3565X’s score of 60,045.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon w7-3565X win any benchmark by a significant margin?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark floating-point math with a score of 218,720, which is 7.5% higher than the AMD’s 202,363. It also wins PassMark extended instructions (85,856 vs 82,850, +3.5%) and PassMark single-threaded tests (3,407 vs 3,323, +2.5%).

Q: How large is the AMD’s advantage in data encryption?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX scores 80,453 in PassMark data encryption, which is 47.1% higher than the Intel’s 54,676. This is the largest single-benchmark delta between the two processors.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two processors?

A: The AMD supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel supports DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is 50% higher. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3565X has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz, compared to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s 4.50 GHz. However, the AMD has a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus the Intel’s 2.50 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 128 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon w7-3565X has 82.5 MB. The Intel has a larger L2 cache per core at 2 MB versus 512 KB for the AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX dominates the Cinebench suite with uniform 6.6% wins across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 6,453 against the Intel’s 6,052; in single-core, 910 vs 854. The pattern holds in R20 (26,888 vs 25,218 multi-core; 3,795 vs 3,560 single-core) and R23 (64,021 vs 60,045 multi-core; 9,038 vs 8,477 single-core). This consistency of exactly 6.6% across every Cinebench test suggests a fundamental per-core performance advantage that scales perfectly with the 32-core count.

The PassMark suite reveals where the AMD truly separates itself. Data encryption shows the biggest gap: 80,453 vs 54,676, a 47.1% advantage. This is followed by integer math, where the AMD scores 360,156 against the Intel’s 279,202, a 29% lead. Data compression is also heavily in AMD’s favor (1,293,784 vs 1,075,602, +20.3%), as is random string sorting (123,527 vs 110,848, +11.4%). Prime number finding goes to AMD by 10.1% (438 vs 398), and the multithread test shows a 6.6% win (75,319 vs 70,642). Physics favors AMD by a smaller 2.5% margin (4,360 vs 4,254).

The Intel Xeon w7-3565X’s wins are concentrated in three areas. Its largest victory is in floating-point math, scoring 218,720 against AMD’s 202,363, a 7.5% edge. It also wins extended instructions with 85,856 vs 82,850, a 3.5% advantage. The final win is in the single-threaded PassMark tests, where it scores 3,407 against AMD’s 3,323, a 2.5% difference. Notably, the Intel’s total wins account for only 4 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and none of its victories approach the magnitude of AMD’s 47.1% encryption win or 29% integer math win.