AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX vs Intel Core i5-11600KF Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Intel Core i5-11600KF occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet benchmark results show a clear, though not entirely uniform, hierarchy. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX dominates in every head-to-head comparison recorded, but the margin of victory varies wildly depending on the workload. The data shows a 64-core workstation monster against a 6-core desktop part, and the numbers reflect that chasm in multi-threaded tasks, while single-threaded performance tells a much closer story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX come in multi-core rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 81,175 against Intel’s 16,503, a delta of 391.9%. This pattern repeats across the Cinebench suite: R20 multi-core shows a 391.9% advantage (34,093 vs 6,931), and R15 multi-core shows a 392% lead (8,182 vs 1,663). These results are not incremental; they represent a four-fold performance gap that no amount of overclocking on the Intel side can close.

The single-core Cinebench results are equally lopsided, but with an important caveat. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX scores 11,460 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the i5-11600KF scores 2,329 — a 392.1% delta. The same pattern appears in R20 (4,813 vs 978, a 392.1% delta) and R15 (1,155 vs 234, a 393.6% delta). These figures are surprising because the Intel chip has a higher boost clock, but the benchmark data does not lie; the Zen 3 architecture delivers far superior per-thread performance in this specific test.

Geekbench results provide a more nuanced picture. In Geekbench multi-core, the AMD chip wins 16,598 to 8,688, a 91% advantage. This is still a massive win, but the gap is smaller than in Cinebench, suggesting the workload scales differently. In Geekbench single-core, the race tightens dramatically: the Threadripper PRO 5995WX scores 1,947 versus the i5-11600KF’s 1,904, a mere 2.3% delta. This is the only benchmark where the two processors are genuinely close, and it highlights that for lightly-threaded tasks, the Intel part is not far behind.

The Intel Core i5-11600KF has zero wins in the head-to-head set, but its benchmark suite includes additional tests not run on the AMD part, such as 3DMark and Passmark scores. In 3DMark, the i5-11600KF scores 6,237 for 16 threads, 1,861 for 2 threads, 3,492 for 4 threads, 5,238 for 8 threads, 6,240 for max threads, and 962 for single thread. In Passmark, it shows strong results in integer math (64,195), floating point math (38,129), and data compression (242,730). These figures provide context for the Intel chip’s capabilities, but they do not change the outcome of any comparison where both CPUs were tested.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference is core count and process node. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX uses 64 cores and 128 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core i5-11600KF uses 6 cores and 12 threads based on Rocket Lake, manufactured on a 14 nm process by Intel. This 58-core difference explains the multi-core benchmark deltas almost entirely.

Cache configurations reinforce the gap. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX has 256 MB of L3 cache, while the i5-11600KF has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 512 KB of L2 per core, and the AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core versus Intel’s 80 KB per core. The AMD chip’s massive L3 pool is critical for server and workstation workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory support is another major divider. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The i5-11600KF also supports DDR4, but over a dual-channel bus, yielding 51.2 GB/s. That is a four-fold difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts multi-threaded performance. The AMD part also supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

PCIe lanes differ substantially: the Threadripper PRO 5995WX provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the i5-11600KF provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. This makes the AMD part suitable for multiple GPUs and NVMe arrays, while the Intel part is limited to a more modest expansion setup. The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking; the AMD chip does not. The AMD part is a server/workstation segment product with active production status, while the Intel part is a desktop product marked as end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX wins every benchmark it shares with the Intel Core i5-11600KF. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 19,928, versus 19,723 for the Intel part, a trivial 1% difference in aggregate. However, this average obscures the workload-specific reality. In Cinebench multi-core, the AMD part is roughly 392% faster. In Geekbench single-core, it is only 2.3% faster.

Who should pick the Threadripper PRO 5995WX? Anyone running heavily threaded workloads — 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, or virtual machine hosting — where the 64 cores and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth translate directly into shorter completion times. The 74th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the 8-0 head-to-head win record support this choice.

Who should pick the i5-11600KF? The data shows it is competitive only in single-threaded Geekbench, where it trails by 2.3%. For a desktop user doing light productivity, web browsing, or gaming, the i5-11600KF’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient, and its lower TDP of 125 watts versus the AMD part’s 280 watts suggests simpler cooling requirements. The i5-11600KF’s 73rd percentile ranking is nearly identical to the AMD part’s 74th, indicating that for typical desktop use, the performance gap is not as stark as the core count suggests.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11600KF has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How big is the multi-core Cinebench R23 performance gap?

A: The AMD chip scores 81,175 versus the Intel chip’s 16,503, giving the AMD part a 391.9% advantage.

Q: Is the Intel chip better at single-threaded tasks?

A: No. In Geekbench single-core, the AMD chip wins 1,947 to 1,904, a 2.3% margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD chip wins 11,460 to 2,329, a 392.1% margin.

Q: Does the Intel chip support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory support is false for the Intel Core i5-11600KF, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD chip has 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel bus, while the Intel chip has 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-11600KF has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX wins in every scenario where the workload scales with core count and memory bandwidth. This includes Cinebench rendering (all versions), Geekbench multi-core, and any professional application that can use more than 12 threads. The 391.9% delta in Cinebench R23 multi-core means a task taking one hour on the Intel part would take roughly 15 minutes on the AMD part. The 91% advantage in Geekbench multi-core indicates similar but less extreme scaling. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX also wins in single-threaded Cinebench by a massive margin, which is unusual and suggests the Zen 3 core is more efficient per clock than Rocket Lake in this specific workload.

The Intel Core i5-11600KF wins in scenarios where the workload fits within 6 cores and 12 threads, and where its 4.90 GHz boost clock can be leveraged. The 2.3% Geekbench single-core deficit is small enough that real-world differences would be negligible for most desktop users. The Intel chip also has the advantage of being an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking to potentially close the single-threaded gap further. Its 125 watt TDP makes it easier to cool in a standard desktop case, and its end-of-life status does not change its current benchmark performance. For gaming, where single-threaded performance is often the bottleneck, the i5-11600KF’s scores — such as 962 in 3DMark single-thread and 3,327 in Passmark single-thread — are competitive for a desktop part.

Specification Differences

Cores: 64 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)

Threads: 128 (AMD) vs 12 (Intel)

Base Clock: 2.70 GHz (AMD) vs 3.90 GHz (Intel)

Boost Clock: 4.50 GHz (AMD) vs 4.90 GHz (Intel)

TDP: 280 watts (AMD) vs 125 watts (Intel)

Process Node: 7 nm (AMD) vs 14 nm (Intel)

L3 Cache: 256 MB (AMD) vs 12 MB (Intel)

Memory Bus: Eight-channel (AMD) vs Dual-channel (Intel)

Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s (AMD) vs 51.2 GB/s (Intel)

PCIe Lanes: 128 Gen 4 (AMD) vs 20 Gen 4 (Intel)

ECC Memory: Supported (AMD) vs Not supported (Intel)

Multiplier Unlocked: No (AMD) vs Yes (Intel)

Market Segment: Server/Workstation (AMD) vs Desktop (Intel)

Production Status: Active (AMD) vs End-of-life (Intel)

Release Date: 2022-03-07 (AMD) vs 2021-03-15 (Intel)

Launch MSRP: $6499 (AMD) vs $237 (Intel)