AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX vs Intel Xeon 658X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a decisive overall advantage for the Intel Xeon 658X, which wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX claims only two wins, but they are substantial in their specific domains.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel part leads across every generation of the test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 6296 against 5685, a 10.7% margin. The single-core result mirrors this exactly, with 888 versus 802, also a 10.7% delta. Cinebench R20 widens the multicore gap slightly to 10.8% (26235 versus 23688), and the single-core test shows 3703 against 3344, again 10.7%. Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern: the Xeon posts 62466 multicore against 56400, a 10.8% edge, and 8818 single-core against 7962, another 10.8% delta. The consistency of these margins across all three Cinebench versions indicates a stable performance advantage rather than a workload-specific artifact.

The Passmark suite reveals where each processor excels. The Xeon dominates in floating-point math, scoring 210480 against 157708, a commanding 33.5% lead. It also wins extended instructions by 25.7% (84626 versus 67300) and prime number finding by 24.1% (649 versus 523). The physics test shows the largest single delta of the entire comparison: the Xeon scores 6470 versus 4251, a 52.2% advantage. Data compression favors the Xeon more modestly at 5.1% (1062062 versus 1010067), and random string sorting shows a 3.8% edge (103028 versus 99287). Multithread performance lands at 73490 versus 66353, a 10.8% lead for Intel.

The AMD part fights back in two areas. Data encryption is its clearest victory: 63113 versus 52357, a 17% margin in favor of the Threadripper. Integer math also goes to AMD, with 281247 versus 263995, a 6.1% delta. These are meaningful wins, but they sit in a minority of the benchmark suite. The overall benchmark average reflects this split: the Xeon averages 116060 across all tests, while the Threadripper averages 98504. That is a difference of roughly 17.8% in the aggregate, though the per-test deltas vary widely from the 52.2% physics blowout to the 3.8% sorting margin.

Both processors sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which places them in the same performance tier overall. The Xeon's nearest rivals in average score include the AMD EPYC 9255 at 116388 (a 0.3% gap) and the Intel Xeon w7-3565X at 118307 (a 1.9% gap). The Threadripper's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D at 97453 (a 1.1% gap) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX at 101041 (a 2.5% gap). These nearby scores suggest that both parts sit within a competitive cluster, but the Xeon's cluster sits at a higher absolute level.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 658X wins in rendering and general compute workloads. Every Cinebench test, from R15 through R23, goes to Intel, covering both multicore and single-core scenarios. This means the Xeon is the stronger choice for applications that scale with CPU rendering performance, whether they use one thread or many. The Passmark multithread score of 73490 confirms that the Xeon handles heavy parallel workloads better than the Threadripper's 66353.

The Xeon also wins in scientific and mathematical workloads. Floating-point math, extended instructions, and prime number finding all favor Intel by margins from 24.1% to 33.5%. The physics test, which often correlates with simulation and computational physics, shows the largest gap at 52.2%. Data compression and random string sorting, both common in data processing pipelines, also go to Intel, though by narrower margins of 5.1% and 3.8% respectively.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX wins in encryption tasks. The data encryption score of 63113 versus 52357 represents a 17% advantage, which is substantial for workloads that rely heavily on cryptographic operations. Integer math also favors AMD at 281247 versus 263995, a 6.1% edge. This suggests the Threadripper is better suited for integer-heavy code paths and certain security-related processing.

For users deciding between the two, the split is clear. The Xeon is the stronger all-round performer, winning the majority of tests across rendering, floating-point, physics, and multithreaded workloads. The Threadripper is the specialist, offering a distinct advantage in encryption and a smaller edge in integer math. The single-thread tests also favor Intel by 11.7% (3728 versus 3337 in Passmark single-thread, and consistent margins across Cinebench single-core tests), so even lightly threaded applications lean toward the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel Xeon 658X uses Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process built by Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX uses Zen 3 architecture under the Chagall PRO codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process with 16,600 million transistors across 4x 81 mm² dies. The node difference is significant: Intel's 5 nm process is two generations ahead of AMD's 7 nm node in the database's terms.

Both parts offer 24 cores and 48 threads, but the cache layouts differ markedly. The Xeon provides 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3. The Xeon's L3 is 16 MB larger overall, and its per-core L2 is four times larger. The Xeon also has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus the Threadripper's 4.50 GHz, though the Threadripper has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. The Xeon carries a 250 W TDP, while the Threadripper is rated at 280 W.

Memory support diverges completely. The Xeon uses DDR5 with eight-channel memory and a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The Threadripper uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, exactly half the Xeon's memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server and workstation parts. The Xeon also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Threadripper provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The generation difference in PCIe bandwidth is substantial for storage and accelerator connectivity.

The platform sockets differ as well: Intel uses Socket 4710, AMD uses Socket WRX8. The Xeon is listed with a launch MSRP of $1699, while the Threadripper launched at $2399. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, while the Threadripper does not. The Xeon was released in 2026, the Threadripper in 2022, a gap of roughly four years that explains the architectural advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The Intel Xeon 658X wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23, it scores 8818 versus 7962, a 10.8% margin. Passmark single-thread shows 3728 versus 3337, an 11.7% edge.

Q: Is the AMD processor better at any task?

A: Yes. The Threadripper wins data encryption by 17% (63113 versus 52357) and integer math by 6.1% (281247 versus 263995).

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The Xeon supports DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s. Both use eight-channel memory buses and support ECC.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: Both processors have 24 cores and 48 threads, but the Xeon has 144 MB of L3 cache versus the Threadripper's 128 MB.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Threadripper boosts to 4.50 GHz. The Threadripper has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz.

Q: What is the overall benchmark average for each?

A: The Xeon averages 116060 across all tests, while the Threadripper averages 98504. Both sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Xeon 658X as the stronger processor for the majority of workloads. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test, all single-thread tests, and the Passmark multithread, floating-point, extended instructions, prime number, physics, data compression, and random string sorting benchmarks. Its margins range from 3.8% to 52.2%, with the largest advantage in physics and the smallest in sorting. The average benchmark score of 116060 versus 98504 reinforces its overall lead.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX remains the better choice for encryption-heavy workloads, where its 17% advantage is decisive. It also wins integer math by 6.1%, making it suitable for code that depends on integer throughput. Users whose primary tasks involve cryptographic operations or integer-heavy processing should favor the Threadripper. For everything else, the Xeon's consistent wins across rendering, floating-point, physics, and general multithreaded work make it the safer pick.

The Xeon's architectural advantages, including a 5 nm process, higher boost clock, larger caches, DDR5 memory with double the bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5, align with its benchmark dominance. The Threadripper is not obsolete, but its Zen 3 design from 2022 lags in most measured areas. The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Xeon is the better all-around processor, and the Threadripper is the specialist for encryption and integer tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 658X | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX |

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

| Cores | 24 | 24 |

| Threads | 48 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 280 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket WRX8 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Chagall PRO |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 2x 598 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 144 MB (shared) | 128 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

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

| Launch MSRP | $1699 | $2399 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2026-02-01 | 2022-03-07 |

| Transistors | Not listed | 16,600 million |