AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX vs Intel Core i7-10700F Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and the Intel Core i7-10700F occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum. The Threadripper PRO is a 64-core workstation monster built for massive parallel workloads, while the Core i7-10700F is a mainstream desktop chip with 8 cores aimed at conventional consumer tasks. The recorded benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the AMD part across all tested applications, with the only point of contention being the scale of those victories. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, ranging from a 25.2% lead in single-core Geekbench to a 493.3% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Intel part, by contrast, manages to stay competitive only in the context of its own market segment, where it ranks near the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, just one point below the Threadripper PRO's 74th percentile.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two processors designed for entirely different workloads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is the definitive choice for anyone whose work scales with core count: rendering, simulation, code compilation, or any heavily threaded professional application. Its 64 cores and 128 threads deliver raw throughput that the 8-core, 16-thread Intel Core i7-10700F cannot approach. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 81175 against 13689 for the Intel chip, a 493% advantage. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in compute capacity.

The Intel Core i7-10700F, however, should not be dismissed outright. It is a desktop part with a 65 TDP and a dual-channel memory bus, designed for systems where power efficiency and platform cost matter more than absolute core counts. Its benchmark results place it in the same average score neighborhood as the Threadripper PRO, 19499 versus 19928, but that average is skewed by the fact that the Intel part has many more benchmark entries, including 3DMark and PassMark tests that the AMD part lacks. In the shared Cinebench and Geekbench tests, the Intel chip is consistently behind, but its single-thread performance in Geekbench, 1555, is respectable for a 2020 desktop processor.

For buyers, the decision is straightforward. If the workload is multi-threaded and the budget allows for a workstation platform, the Threadripper PRO 5995WX is the only choice in this comparison. If the use case is everyday desktop computing, gaming, or light productivity, the Core i7-10700F offers adequate performance at a fraction of the platform cost, though the data does not include any pricing information to quantify that difference. The Threadripper PRO has a launch MSRP of $6499, which the database records, but no such figure exists for the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the magnitude of those wins varies significantly by test type. In multi-core workloads, the advantage is overwhelming. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 493.3% lead, Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 493%, and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 493%. The Geekbench multi-core test shows a smaller but still dominant 111% lead, with scores of 16598 versus 7867. These results reflect the 64-core design's ability to sustain massive parallel throughput.

The single-core results are more nuanced. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Threadripper PRO leads by 495.4%, which is surprising given that single-core tests typically favor higher clock speeds. The Intel part has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz for the AMD part, yet the AMD chip still wins decisively. In Geekbench single-core, the lead shrinks to 25.2%, with scores of 1947 versus 1555. This suggests that the Zen 3 architecture's instruction-level efficiency compensates for the lower boost clock in some tests, while the Geekbench result indicates a more modest advantage.

The Intel Core i7-10700F has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison, but its profile includes tests not run on the AMD part. In PassMark tests, it scores 62579 in integer math, 38578 in floating point math, and 253358 in data compression. These numbers provide context for its desktop role but do not change the outcome of the direct comparison. The Intel chip also shows a 73rd percentile ranking, just one point below the AMD part's 74th, indicating that in the broader CPU landscape, both processors are similarly positioned relative to their peers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial and explains the benchmark results. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is built on TSMC's 7 nm process node and uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Chagall PRO. It belongs to the 5000 series and the Ryzen Threadripper generation. The processor packages 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies, each 81 mm², and fits into the AMD Socket WRX8. The Intel Core i7-10700F, by contrast, uses Intel's 14 nm process with the Comet Lake architecture, belongs to the Core 10th Gen series, and fits into Intel Socket 1200. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size, reflecting the less public data for that chip.

Core and cache configurations diverge sharply. The Threadripper PRO has 64 cores and 128 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of L3 cache. The Core i7-10700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference alone, 256 MB versus 16 MB, is a 16x gap that heavily influences multi-threaded performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support also differs fundamentally. The Threadripper PRO supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, yielding a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Core i7-10700F also supports DDR4 but over a dual-channel bus, with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. That is a 4.4x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts data-heavy workloads. PCIe connectivity follows the same pattern: the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. ECC memory is supported on the Threadripper PRO but not on the Core i7-10700F.

The Threadripper PRO has a TDP of 280 watts, a base clock of 2.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core i7-10700F has a TDP of 65 watts, a base clock of 2.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither includes integrated graphics. The AMD part targets the server and workstation segment, while the Intel part is aimed at desktop users. The release dates are also far apart: the Threadripper PRO was released in 2022, while the Core i7-10700F appeared in 2020.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Core i7-10700F has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Core i7-10700F supports dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO wins all single-core tests in the database. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 1947 versus 1555, a 25.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 11460 versus 1932, a 493.2% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-10700F support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX.

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

A: The Threadripper PRO has an average benchmark score of 19928, while the Core i7-10700F has an average score of 19499.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-10700F has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX wins all 8 recorded comparisons, with the Intel Core i7-10700F recording 0 wins. The most striking results come from the Cinebench suite, where the AMD part demonstrates a consistent lead of approximately 493% across all three versions, R15, R20, and R23, for both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 8182 versus 1379, a 493.3% difference. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 34093 versus 5749, a 493% difference. In R23 multi-core, the scores are 81175 versus 13689, also a 493% difference. The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the Threadripper PRO leading by 495.4% in R15, 493.5% in R20, and 493.2% in R23.

The Geekbench results offer a more varied picture. In Geekbench multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 16598 against 7867, a 111% lead. This is a large advantage but considerably smaller than the Cinebench margins, which suggests that the Geekbench workload does not scale as well with core count or that the Intel part's higher boost clock helps narrow the gap in certain operations. In Geekbench single-core, the lead shrinks to 25.2%, with scores of 1947 versus 1555. This is the closest result in the entire comparison, and it reflects the Intel chip's 4.80 GHz boost clock partially offsetting the architectural efficiency of the Zen 3 design.

The Intel Core i7-10700F has additional benchmark data from 3DMark and PassMark tests that were not run on the AMD part. In 3DMark, it scores 6476 in the 16-thread test, 6679 in the max-threads test, and 793 in the single-thread test. In PassMark, it shows strong results in integer math, 62579, floating point math, 38578, and data compression, 253358. These scores are not comparable to the Threadripper PRO because the AMD part lacks corresponding entries, but they provide a baseline for understanding the Intel chip's performance in its own right. The Intel part also has a percentile rank of 73 versus 74 for the AMD part, indicating that in the broader database, both processors sit at nearly the same performance level relative to all other CPUs.

The nearest rivals for the Threadripper PRO, as recorded in the database, are the Intel Core i7-11600H with an average score of 19921 and a 0% delta, the Intel Core i7-11800H with 19998 and a -0.3% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7713P with 20024 and a -0.5% delta. The nearest rivals for the Core i7-10700F are the Intel Core i5-1345U with 19411 and a 0.5% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 with 19593 and a -0.5% delta, and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 with 19617 and a -0.6% delta. These rival comparisons show that the average benchmark score of the two processors is quite close, despite the massive difference in core counts and the complete sweep in head-to-head tests. That discrepancy arises because the Intel part's average includes many additional benchmark entries that the AMD part does not have, which dilutes the impact of the Cinebench and Geekbench losses.

The production status of both processors is listed as active, meaning both are still available in the market. The Threadripper PRO carries part number 100-000000444, while the Core i7-10700F carries part number SRH70. The Threadripper PRO has a launch MSRP of $6499, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel part. Both processors are multiplier-locked, so overclocking headroom is limited on either platform. The data shows no integrated graphics for either chip, meaning both require a discrete GPU for display output.