Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1920X outperforms the cheaper Core i3-3240 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i3-3240 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is 1802 days newer than the cheaper Core i3-3240.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-3240
- Up to 85% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - $41.0 vs $270.0
- Up to 83% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - $0.27 vs $1.6 per FPS
- Consumes up to 69% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 55 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
- Performs up to 10% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Core i3-3240 - 169 vs 154 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-3240 - 24 vs 4 threads
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $41 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 133 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
169
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.6/FPS
16%
Price, $
$270
15%
FPS Winner
Buy for $270 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 134 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-3240 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |
---|---|---|
Sep 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
Core i3 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 12 |
4 | Threads | 24 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 180 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Intel HD 2500 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |