Table of Contents
One month ago, AMD announced the latest Ryzen Threadripper 7000 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series processors. These processors replace the previous generation AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series workstation processors and the 2019 Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series HEDT processors. They offer a large generational improvement over their predecessors, with AMD’s proven Zen 4 architecture supporting DDR5 memory, additional L2 cache, higher clock speeds, and, for the first time, a 96-core variant.
For the last few years, AMD has provided the highest multi-core performance with their Threadripper line of processors (both PRO and not) and dominated the HEDT and professional workstation space. Intel Xeon W-3400 has its benefits, but they are often more niche, and outside of content creation.
We typically recommend AMD Threadripper CPUs for heavily multi-threaded uses like CPU rendering, code compilation, or heavy MFR use in After Effects. Additionally, Threadripper CPUs offer copious amounts of PCI-e connectivity and RAM support, making them ideal for multi-GPU setups or memory-intensive applications. While we don’t expect any of that to change with this release, it is possible that the single-threaded performance gains could make the Threaripper CPUs competitive in workloads for photography, video editing, and motion graphics.
Today, we want to look specifically at the new Threadripper 7000 series of processors in various content creation workflows. Testing for the higher-end Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series is also coming, but a complete lack of motherboard availability means that it will likely be at least several weeks before we are able to provide comprehensive testing results.
If you are interested in how these CPUs compare to the relevant competition from Intel and AMD’s last-gen Threadripper PRO processors, we have that information below. For more information on these processors, you can visit AMD’s Threadripper landing page and the Intel Xeon W Ark pages.
|CPU Model||~MSRP||Cores||Base / Boost |
|TDP (W)||Memory||L2 / L3 |
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
|$6,500||64||2.7 / 4.5||280||DDR4 3200 Mbps||32 / 256||March 8, 2022|
|Intel Xeon w9-3495X||$5,900||56||1.9 / 4.8||350 / 420||DDR5 4800 Mbps||112 / 105||Feb. 15, 2023|
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X||$5,000||64||3.2 / 5.1||350||DDR5 5200 Mbps||64 / 256||Nov. 21, 2023|
|Intel Xeon w9-3475X||$3,740||36||2.2 / 4.8||300 / 360||DDR5 4800 Mbps||72 / 82.5||Feb. 15, 2023|
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
|$3,300||32||3.6 / 4.5||280||DDR4 3200 Mbps||16 / 128||March 8, 2022|
|Intel Xeon w7-3465X||$2,900||28||2.5 / 4.8||300 / 360||DDR5 4800 Mbps||56 / 75||Feb. 15, 2023|
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7970X||$2,500||32||4.0 / 5.3||350||DDR5 5200 Mbps||32 / 128||Nov. 21, 2023|
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
|$2,400||24||3.8 / 4.5||280||DDR4 3200 Mbps||12 / 128||March 8, 2022|
|Intel Xeon w7-2495X||$2,200||24||2.5 / 4.8||225 / 270||DDR5 4800 Mbps||48 / 45||Feb. 15, 2023|
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7960X||$1,500||24||4.2 / 5.3||350||DDR5 5200 Mbps||24 / 128||Nov. 21, 2023|
One important consideration when examining the above processors’ MSRP is that they do not share the same motherboard costs. Although the price will vary by manufacturer and features, there are some ballpark figures that are generally representative. A W790 motherboard for the Xeon W-3400 CPUs will typically cost around $1,200, while a WRX80 motherboard for the Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series will run around $1,500. A new TRX50 motherboard for the new Threadripper 7000 CPUs, on the other hand, should cost around $900. When comparing prices, then, you should also factor in the fact a Threadripper 7000 motherboard will be around $600 less expensive than a Threadripper PRO 5000WX board, or $300 cheaper than Xeon W-3400.
Even with the platform price adjustments, many of the CPUs do not directly compare easily. The 24-core Threadripper 7000 CPU would cost nearly $1,000 less than the nearest Xeon W competitor core-wise, while the 36-core Threadripper 7000 is most closely oriented to the 28-core Xeon. In general, however, the new Threadripper CPUs are cheaper than the Xeon or 5000 WX-Series Threadripper PRO CPUs on a per-core basis.
In terms of specifications, the new Threadripper 7000 processors feature a large clock increase over the 5000 WX-Series of 500 MHz. This, alongside IPC improvements from the Zen 4 architecture, should result in a large per-core performance improvement. Compared to the last-gen CPUs, they also feature twice the L2 cache and 70 W higher TDPs—in line with the base power draw of the top-end Xeon W CPUs. Finally, as mentioned earlier, they also support DDR5 ECC Registered memory up to 5200 Mbps.
AMD TRX50 Platform
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X 64-Core
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7970X 32-Core
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7960X 24-Core
|CPU Cooler: Asetek 836S-M1A 360mm|
|Motherboard: Gigabyte TRX50 AERO D|
BIOS version: F1
|RAM: 4x DDR5-5600 32GB (128 GB total)|
Running at 5200 Mbps
|Power Profile: Balanced|
Intel W790 Platform
AMD WRX80 Platform
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX 64-Core
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 32-Core
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX 24-Core
|CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U14S TR4-SP3|
|Motherboard: ASUS Pro WS WRX80E-SAGE SE WIFI|
BIOS Version: 1201
|RAM: 8x DDR4-3200 16GB (128 GB total)|
Running at 3200 Mbps
|Power Profile: Balanced|
Universal Platform Components
|Lightroom Classic 12.5 – PugetBench for Lightroom Classic 0.94|
|Photoshop 24.7.1 – PugetBench for Photoshop 0.93.6|
|Premiere Pro 23.6.0 – PugetBench for Premiere Pro 0.98.6|
|DaVinci Resolve 18.6 – PugetBench for DaVinci Resolve 0.93.2|
|After Effects 23.5 – PugetBench for After Effects 0.96|
|Unreal Engine 5.2|
To keep our testing relatively consistent, we try to standardize a base setup across our testbeds, replicating the configuration on many of our content creation workstations. We review hardware for content creation applications and configure our testing the same way we sell our systems, emphasizing stability and reliability. For example, we don’t clock our memory above the officially supported RAM speeds and we test with the coolers we sell.
However, this sometimes means more differences between our test platforms than we would prefer. In this article, the RAM and coolers are not identical across systems. For memory, the WRX80 system only supports DDR4, while the TRX50 and W790 platforms support DDR5. Further, the TRX50 platform uses 32 GB 5200 Mbps kits, which are dual rank, while the W790 platform uses 16 GB 4800 Mbps kits, which are single rank; this was necessary to configure the TRX50 board with DIMMs which would not operate under the maximum memory frequency. None of the benchmarks in this article scale with memory capacity beyond a minimum (which all systems have), and they are not sensitive to latency changes from single to dual rank. However, it is still a difference to bear in mind.
The coolers also vary. Due to thermal considerations, we have decided that the TRX50 and WRX90 systems we sell should be configured with an all-in-one liquid cooler (AIO) by default, so we have tested with one here. We did not have compatible AIOs for our WRX80 and W790 systems at the time of testing, so we used our standard Noctua air coolers for those platforms. However, we have done comparisons examining the performance differences with a 64-core CPU between the two types of coolers and found no difference, so the fact that we are not using an AIO for Threadripper 5000WX or Intel Xeon W should not impact our comparisons to a significant degree.
Finally, the Intel Xeon W processors were tested with the “High Performance” power plan, due to our findings from our initial review, which saw a 20% performance loss from the “Balanced” power plan. We have not observed this being an issue with either the Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series or Threadripper 7000 Series, so those were tested with our standard settings: the “Balanced” plan.
On the software side, we are using many of our “PugetBench” benchmarks – some of which were also used by AMD as a part of the official AMD Threadripper 7000 and Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series unveiling. We supplement them with several other real-world benchmarks – primarily for rendering packages like Blender and V-Ray. We will note that the Premiere Pro benchmark is using an as-yet released build that has different scoring calculations than what you may find in other Threadripper reviews. We did this so that the results would be comparable with Threadripper PRO 7000WX when we are able to test it.
Photography: Adobe Lightroom Classic
Lightroom Classic is interesting as the way it utilizes the hardware in your system is very different depending on the type of task. In addition to the Overall Score, our benchmark breaks down the tests into two groups: active and passive. Active tests (chart #2) look at things like switching modules, scrolling through images, and other tasks that individually take a short amount of time, but that you do hundreds or thousands of times a day. These tasks are typically lightly threaded, and performance is largely based on the per-core performance of your CPU.
On the other hand, passive tasks (chart #3) like importing, exporting, and generating previews are moderately threaded and can utilize CPUs with more cores—at least to a certain point. Lightroom Classic tends to start having issues when you have more than 32 cores (or, more accurately, 64 threads) due to how Windows divides a processor into multiple logical processor groups. Unless the application is programmed to consider these, it can result in a heavy performance penalty for very high core-count CPUs. And, in fact, this is true not only for the new Threadipper 7980X 64-core, but the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5995WX, as well as the Intel Xeon w9-3475X 35-core and w9-3495X 56-core.
Even with the higher multi-core performance for passive tasks, you will probably notice that the Intel Core i9-14900K is faster than any of the Threadripper or Xeon CPUs we tested. This is not a mistake—like many other lightly/moderately threaded applications, CPUs like Intel Core and AMD Ryzen are simply a better fit and can give you more performance at a significantly lower cost. Still, there are many use cases where a Lightroom Classic user may take that performance hit to get better performance in other aspects of their workflow. For example, this is a common situation for those who do both photography and photogrammetry.
In situations where a higher core count CPU makes sense, the new AMD Threadripper 7000 series are terrific, with the 7960X 24-core and 7970X 32-core in particular, coming in at 57% and 30% faster than the previous generation, respectively. For passive tasks, the improvement is even higher at 80–90%, or nearly two times faster.
This makes AMD Threadripp 7000 about 15–20% faster overall than Intel Xeon W-2400/3400, or about 20–30% faster for passive tasks.
Full performance analysis: Adobe Lightroom Classic: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
Graphic Design: Adobe Photoshop
While there are a few niche Photoshop workflows that will benefit from an HEDT or PRO-level processor, for the vast majority of Photoshop workflows, you would be better served by an Intel Core or AMD Ryzen CPU. Not only are they significantly less expensive, but they are also around 15% faster than even the new AMD Threadripper 7000 processors.
On the other hand, Photoshop is one of the most ubiquitous applications for Content Creation in general and is used to at least some degree by almost every profession. Because of this, it is still often important to have an understanding of how different processors will perform, even if it isn’t a primary performance consideration.
With that in mind, the big thing to be aware of is that similar to Lightroom Classic, CPUs with more than 32 cores incur a performance penalty in Photoshop. It isn’t quite as large with the new Threadripper 7980X as it was for the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5995WX, but if you use Photoshop as a part of a workflow that includes other more heavily threaded applications, you may want to lean more towards the 32-core 7970X.
In terms of performance, the new AMD Threadripper 7000 processors are around 7–17% faster than the previous generation AMD Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series. They do support fewer memory channels and PCI-e lanes (neither of which are very important for Photoshop), but in exchange, they are also about $650–1,000 less expensive. This gen-over-gen performance gain makes Threadripper 7000 about 20% faster than an equivalently-priced Intel Xeon W processor.
Full performance analysis: Adobe Photoshop: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
Motion Graphics: Adobe After Effects
After Effects has a number of different aspects and workflows that dictate how it uses the hardware in your system. It is CPU-bound in most cases, but whether it works best on a CPU with high per-core performance, a high number of cores, or a combination of the two depends on what you are doing.
Our benchmarks break up these workloads into various scores to try to give you an idea of how each CPU could perform for you. For most people, the Overall Score (chart #1) will be the best single number to look at, as it covers a wide range of projects. We will note that since a large portion of After Effects is only lightly threaded, the difference between CPUs of the same family tends to be relatively small. That doesn’t mean that the higher-end Threadripper CPUs can’t be worth it, but it will typically only come into play for extremely complex projects that can best take advantage of the multi-frame rendering feature. For this type of workload, the Multi-Core Score (chart #2) is the better metric to use.
Overall, the new AMD Threadripper 7000 processors do extremely well in After Effects, offering a gen-to-gen performance gain of 15–30% over the AMD Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-series, depending on the specific model and type of test. Even for the average project (which tends to be lightly threaded), this brings the performance in line with the Intel Core i9-14900K. While that may sound a bit underwhelming at first glance, it is actually terrific since it means that those who need larger amounts of RAM than what you can get on a consumer-class platform no longer have to suffer a performance penalty to do so. While more expensive, AMD Threadripper 7000 is a straight upgrade to the Intel Core or AMD Ryzen line in every sense.
This increase in performance also allows AMD to take a healthy lead over Intel’s Xeon W-2400/3400 line, performing on average about 25–40% faster at similar price points.
Full performance analysis: Adobe After Effects: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
Video Editing: Adobe Premiere Pro
Video Editing applications like Premiere Pro are among the more complex workflows we look at for CPU performance, as the best CPU depends on the type of media you are working with. LongGOP codecs like H.264 and HEVC (chart #2) are among the most commonly used and are a bit unique in that the hardware decoding and encoding capabilities of your system are often more important than the raw power of your CPU. Something as powerful as Threadripper can brute force its way through some things, but for specific flavors like HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit, there is no replacement for technology like Intel Quick Sync (found on the Intel Core family) that can be used for hardware decoding.
On the other hand, Intraframe codecs (chart #3) like ProRes and DNxHR are purely CPU-based. They are also among the easiest to work with, however, so a CPU that gives a lower benchmark score is often still well beyond the “good enough” level for most users. Lastly, RAW codecs (chart #4) like RED, ARRIRAW, and X-OCN are a mixed bag in how they use your system but often benefit from having both a powerful CPU and a powerful GPU.
In part because of how much of a mix Premiere Pro is in terms of hardware utilization, the gen-to-gen performance gain of new AMD Threadripper 7000 processors is less than we see in other applications, coming in at about 10% faster than the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5000WX. The only exception is the Threadripper 7980X 64-core, which is 15% faster than the 5995WX, although that CPU is only a few percent faster than the 7970X 32-core, so it is unlikely to be a very popular choice.
Even though the performance gains are fairly modest in Premiere Pro, it still makes the Threadripper 7000 processors solidly faster than any Intel Xeon W CPU currently on the market. Based on Xeon CPUs of a similar MSRP, the new Threadripper 7000 models are around 20% faster overall. Xeon can almost keep up with RAW codecs that utilize the GPU heavily; otherwise, AMD has a very firm lead.
It is worth noting that even though Threadripper 7000 does well in Premiere Pro, it doesn’t mean that it is the best choice for every workflow. These processors will likely be our go-to recommendation for those working with RAW codecs in particular, but if you primarily use H.264 or HEVC codecs, an Intel Core 14th Gen processor is likely to be the better choice due to the hardware decoding capabilities of Intel Quick Sync.
But if you need raw computing power, Threadripper 7000 is the best we have tested to date. Threadripper PRO 7000WX may be able to push the performance even further, but we have to wait until WRX90 motherboards become available before we can test the PRO models to find out.
Full performance analysis: Adobe Premiere Pro: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
Video Editing / Motion Graphics: DaVinci Resolve Studio
Like Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve Studio is a complex application to examine due to the different types of codecs. Resolve tends to scale a bit better with higher-end hardware, however, so you often get a larger benefit from investing in a higher core count CPU, or a more powerful GPU.
DaVinci Resolve is also unique in that it also includes Fusion (chart #5), which is used for motion graphics and VFX. Unlike the rest of Resolve, Fusion is primarily single-threaded, which typically makes an Intel Core or AMD Ryzen CPU better in terms of raw performance than Threadripper or Xeon.
Overall, we found that the new AMD Threadripper 7000 processors in DaVinci Resolve Studio are around 15% faster than the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5000WX. The gain is larger in specific workflows like RAW and Fusion, where they are closer to 20% faster, and smaller in others like LongGOP, where the difference is closer to 10%.
This is a decent performance gain from a single generation and makes AMD solidly faster than any Intel Xeon W CPU currently on the market—to the tune of about 20% overall, or a much larger 40% for Intraframe and RAW codecs. Given that RAW codecs, in particular, tend to be one of the main reasons to invest in this class of CPU, that gives AMD a very healthy lead over Intel at this level.
Again like Premiere Pro, even though Threadripper 7000 does very well in DaVinci Resolve, it doesn’t mean that it is the best choice for every workflow. These processors give an ever larger benefit to those working with RAW codecs in particular, but if you primarily use H.264 or HEVC codecs, an Intel Core 14th Gen processor is likely to be the better choice due to the hardware decoding capabilities of Intel Quick Sync.
But if you need raw compute power to churn through heavy codecs like RAW or the additional PCIe lanes for a dual GPU setup, Threadripper 7000 is the best we have tested to date. Threadripper PRO 7000WX may be able to push the performance even further and will allow for 3–4 GPU configurations, but we have to wait until WRX90 motherboards become available before we can test the PRO models to find out for sure.
Full performance analysis: DaVinci Resolve: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
Game Dev / Virtual Production: Unreal Engine
Unreal Engine has a very wide variety of users in different industries, and most of the heavy lifting in Unreal Engine is GPU-bound. Regarding CPU-specific tasks, we look at shader compilation (which everyone experiences from time to time, at the very least), light baking, and code compilation in Visual Studio. Light baking is quickly falling out of favor with the adoption of Lumen and GPU Lightmass, but some users may still prefer it.
The new Threadripper 7000 series sees an average of around 20–25% improvement over the previous generation, with a notable exception. The 64-core 7980X stumbled in the shader compile test during our testing. Most of the runs were in the same 450-second range, but we did see a single score of 285 seconds while doing some cooler testing. We suspect this is just a Windows processor group scheduling issue, as we’ve seen with other CPUs in previous testing.
In light baking, Intel’s 56-core Xeon w9-3495X appears to fall victim to the same problem the 7980X had in the previous test, dropping to last place. Here, AMD’s 7980X returned to the top spot, followed closely by the other two Threadripper CPUs. Lastly, in source code compiling in Visual Studio 2022, all CPUs fall into their expected places, with the new Threadripper 7980X taking the top spot.
Full performance analysis: Unreal Engine: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
CPU Rendering: Cinebench 2024
CPU rendering is a very straightforward task for CPUs. While Cinema 4D’s default renderer is now Redshift, and most users will be turning to GPU rendering, there is still some call for CPU rendering. AMD already held a strong lead in CPU rendering, and these new CPUs further that quite a bit.
Comparing the top CPUs from AMD and Intel, the new 64-core Threadripper 7980X takes a commanding 78% lead over the 56-core Intel w9-3495X. Even the 32-core Threadripper 7970X outperforms Intel’s top CPU, while costing half as much. At AMD’s lower end, the 24-core 7960X topples not only the similarly specced 24-core w7-2495, but also the 28 and 36-core CPUs from Intel and gets close to its flagship.
Full performance analysis: Cinema 4D: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
CPU Rendering: V-Ray
V-Ray has a lot in common with Cinema 4D now that the latter uses Redshift for both CPU and GPU rendering. Much like C4D, V-Ray has both CPU and GPU modes. But many more V-Ray users still rely on CPU. Plus, it serves as an analog to Chaos Group’s other renderer, Corona, which is only available on CPU.
Just as we saw before, the new 64-core Threadripper 7980X takes a commanding 75% lead over the 56-core Intel w9-3495X. And once again, even the 32-core Threadripper 7970X outperforms Intel’s top CPU, while costing half as much. At AMD’s lower end, the 24-core 7960X scores higher than the similarly specced 24-core w7-2495X, the 28-core w7-3465X, and the 36-core w9-3475X CPUs from Intel.
Full performance analysis: V-Ray: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
CPU Rendering: Blender
Once again, AMD holds a commanding lead in CPU rendering in Blender. Like V-Ray and Cinema 4D, Blender offers CPU and GPU rendering options. In our testing, the new Threadripper 7000-series holds up to a 75% lead in rendering in Blender. There is not a tier where Intel is competitive in this situation. For CPU-based rendering, there is no better choice than the new Threadripper CPUs.
Full performance analysis: Blender: AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Intel Xeon W-3400
How good are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 Series processors for content creation?
Overall, the new AMD Threadripper 7000 processors offer a significant performance increase over the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series – and at a significantly lower cost to boot. The exact gen-over-gen performance gain varies based on the workload, but ranges from a decent ~10% increase in Photoshop and Premiere Pro, to a larger 20–30% in DaVinci Resolve and After Effects, to an incredible 35–45% in heavily threaded applications like CPU Rendering.
Compared to the Intel Xeon W-3400 processor family, this firmly places AMD in the lead for every single application we tested. Again, the exact amount varies based on the workload and exactly which CPUs you are comparing, but Threadripper 7000 ranges from 20% faster in lightly threaded tasks like Photoshop, to 25–40% in moderately threaded applications like DaVinci Resolve and After Effects. And for heavily threaded workloads like CPU Rendering, the higher core count of Threadripper versus Xeon W-3400, along with their higher per-core performance, can make them anywhere from 70% to nearly two times faster!
It is worth keeping in mind that the new Threadripper 7000 Series does have a few drawbacks compared to Threadripper PRO 5000WX and Intel Xeon W-3400. Namely, they support half the number of memory channels and have fewer PCIe lanes. However, the memory channel difference shouldn’t impact the majority of workflows we tested in this article, and they still have 48 Gen5 PCIe lanes, which is enough to handle 2–3 GPUs for applications like DaVinci Resolve that can benefit from multiple GPUs. Of course, that depends on finding a motherboard with the right slot layout, but from a pure capability standpoint, Threadripper 7000 should be more than enough for most users.
In other words, while Threadripper 7000 might not be a direct replacement for Threadripper PRO 5000WX and Intel Xeon W-3400 in all situations, we anticipate it will take over for most of them. In the cases where you do need more memory channels or PCIe lanes, AMD has also released the Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-series in addition to Threadripper 7000. It is significantly more expensive but also offers a 96-core CPU, which should be able to provide incredible performance for workloads like CPU rendering. A lack of motherboard availability prevents us from having results for the Threadripper PRO 7000WX processors today, but we hope to have testing results for those CPUs in the near future!
Finding the perfect workstation doesn’t have to be complicated. Explore our solutions page for a curated selection of recommended systems for a multitude of applications and workflows, or visit our custom configuration page if you already know the ideal hardware for your needs. If you need assistance with tailoring a system to a unique workflow or have any other questions, we encourage you to reach out to our dedicated technology consultants.