AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum. The Threadripper PRO 9955WX is a desktop-class 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 part with a 350 W TDP, while the Core Ultra X9 388H is a mobile 16-core, 16-thread Panther Lake chip with a 25 W TDP. Benchmark records show the AMD processor wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, often by massive margins. The single Intel victory comes in a prime-number test. The average benchmark score for the Threadripper PRO 9955WX is 101041, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra X9 388H averages 44466, sitting in the 88th percentile. These results indicate two distinct design goals: raw compute density versus mobile efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX dominates every multithreaded and heavily parallel workload in the recorded data. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 59494 is more than triple the Intel chip's 18911, a 214.6% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a 159.8% lead (236120 vs 90882), and data compression delivers a 154.6% gap (920954 vs 361763). Extended instruction performance favors AMD by 155% (76363 vs 29943). The Threadripper also leads in floating-point math by 38.8% (156215 vs 112550) and in multithread throughput by 82.1% (67035 vs 36811). These wins cover rendering, encoding, scientific simulation, and database workloads. The AMD part’s 32 threads, eight-channel memory bus, and 64 MB L3 cache clearly drive the majority of its benchmark dominance.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins exactly one test: PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 358 versus AMD’s 337, a 5.9% margin. This single-threaded integer loop benefits from the Intel chip’s higher per-core L1 cache (192 KB per core) and 3 MB L2 per core, which likely reduce memory stalls in tight loops. Outside that narrow case, the Intel processor never outraces the AMD part. Even in single-threaded PassMark, the Threadripper PRO 9955WX scores 4530 versus 4280, a 5.8% advantage. The Intel chip’s only competitive area is efficiency: its 25 W TDP versus 350 W, and its integrated Arc B390 graphics, which the AMD part lacks entirely. For mobile platforms, the Core Ultra X9 388H provides a balanced feature set, but in raw performance benchmarks, it trails in nearly every category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die layout with each die measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses Panther Lake architecture on Intel’s own 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size not recorded in the database. AMD’s chip comes from the Ryzen Threadripper generation (Zen 4 Storm Peak lineage), while Intel’s belongs to the Ultra X9 series (Panther Lake-H).

Cache structures differ substantially. The AMD processor provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The Intel part offers 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and only 18 MB shared L3. Intel’s larger per-core caches help in latency-sensitive single-thread loops, as seen in the find prime numbers win. AMD’s much larger L3 pool (64 MB vs 18 MB) supports its multithreaded and data-heavy workloads. The Threadripper also supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses dual-channel LPDDR5X at 153.6 GB/s. That bandwidth gap explains the compression, encryption, and sorting disparities. ECC memory is available on AMD but not on Intel. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel chip integrates Arc B390 graphics; AMD has no integrated GPU. The Threadripper PRO 9955WX has an unlocked multiplier, the Intel part does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the most extreme separation. In R23 multicore, AMD scores 59494 against Intel’s 18911, a 214.6% lead. The R15 multicore test shows a 102.9% advantage (5996 vs 2955), and R20 multicore adds a 90.7% gap (24987 vs 13101). Single-core Cinebench results also favor AMD, though less dramatically. R23 single-core: 8399 vs 2200.5, a 281.7% delta, which is the largest single-test margin in the entire head-to-head set. R20 single-core: 3527 vs 1849, a 90.8% lead. R15 single-core: 846 vs 309.5, a 173.3% gap. These numbers indicate that AMD’s Zen 5 cores deliver far higher sustained single-thread performance at desktop power levels, while Intel’s mobile chip operates under a 25 W constraint.

PassMark integer math heavily favors AMD: 236120 vs 90882, a 159.8% delta. Floating-point math shows a smaller but still clear 38.8% margin (156215 vs 112550). Data compression: 920954 vs 361763, a 154.6% advantage. Extended instructions: 76363 vs 29943, a 155% lead. Random string sorting: 99813 vs 44010, a 126.8% edge. Data encryption: 44389 vs 28490, a 55.8% advantage. Multithread score: 67035 vs 36811, an 82.1% gap. Physics test: 4156 vs 3226, a 28.8% lead. The only Intel win is find prime numbers: 358 vs 337, a 5.9% margin. Single-thread PassMark shows AMD ahead by 5.8% (4530 vs 4280). The Threadripper PRO 9955WX’s average benchmark score of 101041 sits close to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7513, which averages 102244 (a 1.2% difference). The Core Ultra X9 388H’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573, a 0.2% gap, followed by the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 (0.3% behind).

The Verdict

The data directs a clear split. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is for workloads that demand maximum multithreaded throughput: rendering, scientific computing, data compression, encryption, and heavy compilation. Its 32 threads, 64 MB L3, eight-channel memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a server-grade desktop part. With a launch MSRP of $1649, it targets professional workstations. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, with a 25 W TDP and integrated Arc B390 graphics, suits mobile systems where power and space are limited. Its 16 threads and dual-channel memory cap its performance, but its per-core caches allow competitive single-thread efficiency in specific loops. The benchmark record shows no scenario where the Intel chip outruns the AMD part in large-scale parallel tasks; the 5.9% prime-number win is a narrow exception. Users needing maximum compute should select the Threadripper PRO 9955WX. Users prioritizing portability and battery life should consider the Core Ultra X9 388H, understanding it will trail in every multithreaded benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX has 32 threads (16 cores, 32 threads). The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 threads (16 cores, 16 threads).

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the AMD part scores 8399 versus Intel’s 2200.5, a 281.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins the PassMark find prime numbers test, scoring 358 versus AMD’s 337, a 5.9% margin.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The AMD processor uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel processor uses dual-channel LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H includes integrated Arc B390 graphics. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the L3 cache sizes?

A: The AMD part has 64 MB shared L3. The Intel part has 18 MB shared L3.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 16 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2026-01-04 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | 100-000000725 | SA4QWQ9EK |

| Average Benchmark Score | 101041 | 44466 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 97 | 88 |

The AMD part’s higher base and boost clocks, 32 threads, eight-channel memory, and 64 MB L3 explain its benchmark dominance. The Intel part’s smaller cache hierarchy and dual-channel memory limit its throughput, though its larger per-core L1 and L2 help in latency-sensitive tasks. The TDP difference of 350 W versus 25 W reflects the desktop versus mobile design targets. The Threadripper PRO 9955WX also offers ECC memory and an unlocked multiplier, features absent from the Core Ultra X9 388H. PCIe lane count differs by 124 lanes, making the AMD part far more suitable for multi-GPU or high-density storage systems. The integrated Arc B390 graphics on the Intel chip is the only feature the AMD part cannot match, though the Threadripper’s 128 PCIe lanes can host discrete GPUs. The release dates show AMD shipping earlier (2025-07-22) versus Intel’s 2026-01-04, and only AMD has a recorded launch MSRP of $1649.