OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i9 7940X Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£1,060PassMark benchmark result:25407N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA2066TDP (Thermal design power):165 W

Intel Core i9 7940X Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.2

▲Better than 74% of processors

7.1

▲Better than 72% of processors

8.2

▲Better than 82% of processors

4.7
Gaming
Gaming
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
4.5
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
4.1
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
5.8
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.8
L3 cache
8.0%
8.7
N. of physical cores
7.8
Video editing
Video editing
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
8.1
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
8.7
N. of physical cores
20.0%
10
CPU threads
15.0%
2.8
L3 cache

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

#32inBest workstation CPUs

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9 7940X

7.2

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.9

Show more

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Show more

Performance

7.6

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Show more

Cache & Architecture

6.4

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

7.3

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated Graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

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

Power & Thermal

4.5

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

?

Configurable TDP

Show more

Intel Core i9 7940X vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i9 7940X better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

2.4x higher PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
25,407
▲ Better than 82% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,407 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
25,407 vs 10,572.5
8 more CPU cores
N. of physical cores
14
▲ Better than 87% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
14 vs 6
20 more CPU threads
CPU threads
28
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (28 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
28 vs 8
2.05x higher multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
9,918
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,918 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
9,918 vs 4,829
5.6x larger L2 cache
L2 cache
14 MB
▲ Better than 88% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
14 MB vs 2.5 MB
28 more PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
44
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (44 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
44 vs 16
Higher base clock
CPU base clock speed
14 x 3.1 GHz
★ Better than 93% of models
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (14x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
14x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
Unlocked for overclocking
Unlocked multiplier
yes
▲ Better than 78% of models
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.

3.88x more popular
Intel Core i9 7940X is more popular than the average processor (3.88 vs 1).
3.88 vs 1
2% higher user score
User score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i9 7940X
the average processor
Intel Core i9 7940X has a higher user score than the average processor (8.16 vs 8.000).
8.16 vs 8

Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
LGA2066
▲ Better than 75% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA2066 vs FP4).
LGA2066 vs FP4
Higher-end processor class
Processor type
workstation
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
workstation vs mobile

2.4x higher PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
25,407
▲ Better than 82% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,407 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
25,407 vs 10,572.5
8 more CPU cores
N. of physical cores
14
▲ Better than 87% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
14 vs 6
20 more CPU threads
CPU threads
28
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (28 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
28 vs 8
2.05x higher multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
9,918
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,918 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
9,918 vs 4,829
Higher base clock
CPU base clock speed
14 x 3.1 GHz
★ Better than 93% of models
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (14x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
14x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
Unlocked for overclocking
Unlocked multiplier
yes
▲ Better than 78% of models
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
Supports Turbo Core
Turbo Core version
3.0
▲ Better than 85% of models
This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3
3.0 vs 2.0

5.6x larger L2 cache
L2 cache
14 MB
▲ Better than 88% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
14 MB vs 2.5 MB
2.33x larger L1 cache
L1 cache
896 KB
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (896 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
896 KB vs 384 KB
2x more L2 per core
L2 per core
1 MB/core
▲ Better than 63% of models
Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
2.41x larger L3 cache
L3 cache
19.25 MB
▲ Better than 79% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (19.3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
19.25 MB vs 8 MB

28 more PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
44
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (44 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
44 vs 16
85.6% higher memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
85 GB/s
▲ Better than 79% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (85 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
85 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
Supports memory overclocking
Memory overclocking
yes
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
2x more memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
▲ Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
128 GB vs 64 GB

2 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
102 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (102 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
102 °C vs 100 °C

Why is Intel Core i9 7940X worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
3.67x higher base power
Base power (PL1)
165 W
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
165 W vs 45 W
2.73x larger die size
Die size
484 mm²
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (484 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
484 mm² vs 177 mm²
16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
19.8% less L3 per core
L3 per core
1.375 MB/core
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
1.375 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
3.67x higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
165 W
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
165 W vs 45 W
4.24x more expensive
Intel Core i9 7940X is more expensive than the average processor (£1,060 vs £250).
£1,060 vs £250
No integrated graphics
Integrated graphics
no
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.

4.24x more expensive
Intel Core i9 7940X is more expensive than the average processor (£1,060 vs £250).
£1,060 vs £250

No crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES vs AES, SHA
3 years older release date
Release date
2017
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
September 2017
2017 vs 2020
Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
▼ Worse than 60% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA

7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,368
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,368 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,368 vs 1,471

2.73x larger die size
Die size
484 mm²
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (484 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
484 mm² vs 177 mm²
16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
19.8% less L3 per core
L3 per core
1.375 MB/core
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
1.375 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
Less advanced microarchitecture
Microarchitecture codename
Skylake
▼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
Skylake vs Kaby Lake

2 fewer memory channels
Memory channels
4
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <1 – >6
This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
4 vs 2
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
▼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
9.1% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
▼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
2,666 MHz vs 2,933 MHz

No integrated graphics
Integrated graphics
no
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
3.67x higher base power
Base power (PL1)
165 W
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
165 W vs 45 W
3.67x higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
165 W
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
165 W vs 45 W
2 °C higher CPU temperature
CPU temperature
102 °C
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (102 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
102 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

pugetsystems.com

25/09/2017

Summary of the review

Premiere Pro CC 2017.1.2 CPU Performance: Core i9 7940X, 7960X, & 7980XE(www.pugetsystems.com) | September 25, 2017 | After Effects CC 2017.3 CPU Perf...

This Puget Systems review identifies the Intel Core i9 7940X (14 cores) as the optimal CPU for Premiere Pro CC 2017.1.2, offering superior live playback and performance over higher core-count models. While the i9 7960X and 7980XE provide more cores, diminishing returns are observed due to software scaling limits. The 14-core model delivers the best balance of speed, price, and performance for editing tasks. Puget SystemsPros include a roughly 7% faster export/render speed with the i9 7940X compared to the 10-core i9 7900X, making it excellent for 4K to 8K workflows. The higher-end CPUs excel in specialized, heavily parallel tasks like simultaneous multi-clip Warp Stabilizer analysis, where they show a 10% improvement. Puget SystemsCons are highlighted by the poor price-to-performance ratio of the 16 and 18-core models, which may perform similarly to or slower than the 14-core option due to software limitations. Furthermore, the i9 7980XE exhibited performance regressions in specific tests and struggles with single-clip tasks due to Turbo Boost 3.0 issues. Puget Systems

wccftech.com

25/09/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Core-X, Core i9-7980XE, Core i9-7960X and 7940X Launch Review

The Intel Core-X series, highlighted by the 18-core i9-7980XE, 16-core i9-7960X, and 14-core i9-7940X, represents a major push into the high-end desktop market, with the 7980XE designed for heavy, multi-threaded content creation. The lineup offers superior multi-threaded performance, with the i9-7980XE showing strong gains over competitors in productivity benchmarks, complemented by 44 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory support. However, significant drawbacks include the steep $1,999 price point for the flagship, extreme power consumption, high thermal output requiring robust cooling, and limited advantages in gaming applications, making it specialized hardware rather than a general-purpose CPU. Copy

chip.de

25/04/2018

Summary of the review

Intel Core i9-7940X Review

The Intel Core i9-7940X is a 14-core, 28-thread Skylake-X HEDT processor that, according to CHIP.de, delivers massive multi-threaded performance for applications like 4K editing and 3D rendering. Operating at 3.1 GHz to 4.4 GHz, it offers superior processing efficiency over its contemporaries, bolstered by a significant L2 cache, yet requires high-end water cooling to manage its high thermal output. While offering elite performance for workstations, the CPU is expensive, requires an X299 motherboard, and is unnecessary for gaming, serving primarily as a powerhouse for professional users. For more details, visit CHIP.de.

tomshw.it

20/06/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Core i9-7900X Review: Skylake-X Is Here

The Tom’s Hardware review highlights the Intel Core i9-7900X as a high-performance, 10-core/20-thread Skylake-X processor designed to counter AMD Ryzen, featuring Turbo Boost Max 3.0 up to 4.5 GHz. While delivering 15-25% better multi-threaded performance than its predecessor, the new mesh topology can introduce latency issues. The CPU excels in rendering and video encoding, though it suffers from inconsistent gaming performance at 1080p and high power consumption. Thermal management is a significant issue due to the use of thermal paste, requiring heavy-duty cooling, particularly when overclocking.

pugetsystems.com

25/09/2017

Summary of the review

Premiere Pro CC 2017.1.2 CPU Performance: Core i9 7940X (Specific Video Workflow Test)

Puget Systems' review of Premiere Pro CC 2017.1.2 indicates that while high core-count CPUs improve performance, there is a diminishing return, with the Core i9-7940X (14 cores) offering the best balance of live playback and export speed. The 16 and 18-core processors (i9-7960X/7980XE) failed to provide proportional performance gains, often showing negligible improvements or, in some cases, worse performance than lower-core models. Key benefits of these CPUs include improved 4K/8K playback, faster 16-clip stabilization, and significant advantages for users who also utilize heavy 3D rendering tasks. Puget SystemsHowever, the primary drawback is that Premiere Pro performance efficiency largely plateaus beyond 14 cores, making the higher-end, more expensive processors poor value for pure editing workstations. Lower base clock speeds on top-tier models like the i9-7980XE can even hinder single-threaded performance. Ultimately, the Core i9-7940X is recommended as the optimal choice for this specific version of Premiere Pro, as the extreme core counts did not demonstrate effective scaling. Copy

tweakers.net

25/09/2017

Summary of the review

Core i9-7960X and 7980XE Review (Including i9-7940X benchmarks)

The Intel Core i9-7980XE and 16-core i9-7960X mark a major shift in the HEDT market, using a 14nm Skylake-X architecture with a new mesh network and revised cache, specifically designed for extreme multi-threaded workloads. These processors offer unmatched performance in rendering and video editing, often outperforming AMD alternatives by 15-20%, with the 7960X appearing as the performance-to-price "sweet spot" for many creators. However, the chips require heavy-duty cooling to manage substantial power draw, which can reach excessive levels under load. While technically superior, they are criticized for their high energy consumption and steep pricing, making them suitable only for professionals where time savings justify the high cost of entry.

tweakers.net

22/11/2018

Summary of the review

Intel Core i9-9980XE Review (Including benchmarks vs i9-7940X)

The Intel Core i9-9980XE, reviewed by Tweakers.net, is a 14nm++ "refresh" of the i9-7980XE, offering a 7-10% performance boost through higher clock speeds and soldered thermal interface material (STIM), while acting as a "power-hungry beast" consuming over 340W at stock. It excels in multi-threaded tasks like 3D rendering (Blender) and video encoding, outperforming AMD's 2990WX by around 42% in specific Adobe Premiere tests. However, the 18-core chip suffers from a poor value proposition, with a $2,000 price point and high cooling demands that make it less competitive than AMD’s Threadripper lineup. Pros and Cons Summary: Pros: Excellent multi-threaded performance, improved thermal transfer with soldered TIM.Cons: Very high power consumption, limited overclocking headroom, and high cost. Copy

Third-party reviews

Based on 8 buyer reviews from online shops.

Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i9 7940X

Exceptional multi-threaded performance with 14 cores and 28 threads, ideal for heavy workloads like 3D rendering and video editing
Excellent live playback performance in professional software like Adobe Premiere Pro compared to other high-core-count CPUs
High overclocking potential, with many users successfully reaching speeds of 4.4 GHz to 4.6 GHz on multiple cores
Robust platform features including 44 PCIe lanes for multi-GPU setups and support for quad-channel memory up to 128GB
Effective Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 that prioritizes the two best-performing cores for single-threaded tasks

What we don't like about Intel Core i9 7940X

Extremely high power consumption, often exceeding its 165W TDP under heavy or overclocked loads
Runs very hot, requiring high-end custom water cooling or a 360mm AIO for stable operation
High initial launch price made it a difficult value proposition compared to AMD's Threadripper alternatives at the time
Dependency on the expensive X299 motherboard platform, which had early stability and VRM heating issues
Poor performance-per-dollar for pure gaming, as many titles cannot effectively utilize all 14 cores

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-7940X is a high-performance desktop processor from the Skylake-X series, featuring 14 cores and 28 threads with a base clock speed of 3.10 GHz and a max turbo frequency of 4.30 GHz (up to 4.40 GHz via Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0). Built on a 14nm process for the LGA 2066 socket, it includes 19.25 MB of L3 cache, 44 PCIe lanes, and support for quad-channel DDR4-2666 memory. Its main pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance for professional content creation, such as 4K video editing and 3D rendering, along with individual core overclocking capabilities. However, its significant cons are a high 165W TDP that requires robust cooling solutions and a premium price point compared to mainstream alternatives.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9965WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9985WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7900

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7985WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9955WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9900X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i9 7940X with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i9 7940X and other processors

No results found