OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£980PassMark multi-core score:66554N. of physical cores:24CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:sWRX8TDP (Thermal design power):280 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX
7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

40%

7.9

Technical score

25%

7.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 84% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

5.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
7.9

Technical score

Technical score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 85% of models
Score components

60%

8.4

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

8.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 85%
7.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 55% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 55%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5965wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5965wx
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Technical score
Technical score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 85% of models
Score components:

60%

8.4

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

8.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.9
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

5.3

Price

7.0
Processor type
workstation
This processor belongs to the workstation processor class, which is more advanced than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU socket
sWRX8
This processor uses the sWRX8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 93% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
WRX80
This processor supports WRX80 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 76.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
24
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 24 CPU cores, which is more than 96.3% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
CPU threads
48
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 48 CPU threads, which is more than 98.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
24x 3.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 24x3.8 GHz which is higher than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
66,554
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 66,554 in PassMark, which is higher than 98.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
128 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 128 MB which is larger than that of 98% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
L2 cache
12 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L1 cache
1,536 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,536 KB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
2 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 2 TB of memory, which is more than 98.4% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
280 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 280 W which is higher than that of 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
280 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 280 W which is higher than that of 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.8x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (66,554 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    66,554 vs 11,469
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 2.91x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,152 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,152 vs 5,209
  • 20 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (24 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    24 vs 4
  • 40 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (48 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    48 vs 8
  • 14.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (128 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    128 MB vs 9 MB
  • 112 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (128 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    128 vs 16
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (24x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    24x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sWRX8 vs FP5).
    sWRX8 vs FP5
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 5.8x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (66,554 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    66,554 vs 11,469
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 2.91x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,152 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,152 vs 5,209
  • 20 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (24 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    24 vs 4
  • 40 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (48 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    48 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (24x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    24x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 30.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,339 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,339 vs 2,558
  • 31.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2023 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,023 vs 1,535
  • 66.6% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (663.2 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    663.21 vs 398.015
  • 81.1% faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (615.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    615.74 vs 340.075
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • 14.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (128 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    128 MB vs 9 MB
  • 4x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    12 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2.88x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (5.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    5.33 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 4x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,536 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,536 KB vs 384 KB
  • 54.2% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (81 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    81 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 3.35x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (16.6 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    16.6 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 112 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (128 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    128 vs 16
  • 32x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (2 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    2 TB vs 64 GB
  • 4.37x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (204.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    204.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake).
    Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake
  • 6.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 6.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 3.92x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is more expensive than the average processor (£980 vs £250).
    £980 vs £250
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • 3.92x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is more expensive than the average processor (£980 vs £250).
    £980 vs £250
  • 4.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.97 vs 7.3).
    6.97 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake).
    Chagall PRO vs Kaby Lake
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 6.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 6.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
23/07/2023
Comparison · workstation CPU verdict for creators
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a niche pick: strong for workloads that need many PCIe lanes and GPUs, less so for general creator work.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
08/08/2022
Hands-on review · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a 24-core Zen 3 workstation chip that peaks at 4.5GHz, but it needs WRX80 boards and all eight memory channels filled.
9.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
23/06/2022
Software test · Content creation
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a sensible 24-core pick, close to the 32-core model in most tests, but its best results need a high-power Windows profile.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance for workstation tasks like 3D rendering and 8K video exporting
  • Huge platform expandability with support for up to 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes
  • High memory capacity supporting 8-channel DDR4 RAM up to 2TB
  • Noticeable IPC and speed improvements over the previous generation (Zen 2) Threadripper Pro models
  • Robust security features including AMD Shadow Stack and Memory Guard
  • Solid reliability and stability reported for professional and home server use cases

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

  • High cost makes it less accessible compared to high-end consumer CPUs like the Ryzen 9 or Core i9
  • Does not include a thermal solution/cooler, adding to the total build cost
  • Lacks integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU
  • High power consumption (280W TDP) necessitating high-end cooling and power supplies
  • Minimal performance gains in certain applications like Adobe Premiere live playback compared to cheaper high-core alternatives
  • Latency-sensitive workloads (like some games) may not fully utilize the massive core count and bandwidth

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a professional-grade workstation processor featuring 24 cores and 48 threads based on the 7nm Zen 3 architecture. It operates at a base clock of 3.8 GHz with a max boost frequency of up to 4.5 GHz, supported by 128MB of L3 cache and a 280W TDP for the sWRX8 socket platform. Key pros include its massive expandability with 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, support for up to 2TB of 8-channel DDR4-3200 ECC memory, and enterprise-level AMD PRO security features, making it a powerhouse for 3D rendering and scientific data analysis. Notable cons include its high power consumption, the requirement for expensive WRX80 motherboards, and a high entry price compared to mainstream desktop alternatives.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and other processors

No results found