In Control, the Core i7-950 is slightly slower than the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $819 cheaper!
Core i7-950
- Up to 96% cheaper – $31.00 vs $850.00
- Up to 96% cheaper
- Up to 97% better value in Control – $0.12 vs $3.44/FPS
- Up to 97% better value in Control
- Consumes up to 28% less energy – 130 vs 180 Watts
- Consumes up to 28% less energy
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
- Up to 1% faster in Control – 247 vs 245 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Control
- Is 8 years and 2 months newer – Aug 10, 2017 vs Jun 02, 2009
- Is 8 years and 2 months newer
Control FPS Calculator
Core i7-950 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X: Comparison of performance and price
Core i7-950
Jun 2nd, 2009
Average FPS
245 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
99%
Price, $
$31
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.12/FPS
100%
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Aug 10th, 2017
Average FPS
247 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
162 FPS
100%
Price, $
$850
3%
Value, $/FPS
$3.44/FPS
3%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-950 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-950 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-950
Jun 2nd, 2009
Cores
4-core
25%
L3 Cache
8 MB
25%
Base Frequency
3.066 GHz
90%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
83%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Aug 10th, 2017
Cores
16-core
100%
L3 Cache
32 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-950 Jun 2nd, 2009 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Aug 10th, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 2nd, 2009 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
| – | MSRP | $999.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | SP3r2 |
130W | Power Consumption | 180W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
