Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 3960X outperforms Xeon E5-2640 v3 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is 1904 days newer than Xeon E5-2640 v3.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3
- Consumes up to 68% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X - 90 vs 280 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
- Performs up to 4% better in Dead Space than Xeon E5-2640 v3 - 154 vs 148 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 - 48 vs 16 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Nov 25th, 2019
FPS
154
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$10.84/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$1670
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for CA$1,670 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2850 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Desktop • Nov 25th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X |
---|---|---|
Sep 8th, 2014 | Release Date | Nov 25th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Haswell-E/EP, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX | Codename | Castle Peak |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket TRX4 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 24 |
16 | Threads | 48 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
90 W | TDP | 280 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |