PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $670 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 208.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 22.1 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 3700X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,077 vs 22,430).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.1 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($999 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $670 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 208.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 22.1 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 3700X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,077 vs 22,430).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.1 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($999 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 3700X better than Ryzen Threadripper 1950?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 3700X is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 7 3700X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 23.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 7 3700X is the better fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Ryzen 7 3700X is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 3700X is $670 cheaper on MSRP at $329 MSRP versus $999 MSRP, and it gives you a 23.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 208.5% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 22.1 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen 7 3700X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2017) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 16/32. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Ryzen 7 3700X Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	200 FPS	173 FPS
medium	163 FPS	153 FPS
high	137 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	156 FPS	139 FPS
medium	121 FPS	117 FPS
high	100 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	84 FPS	65 FPS
medium	71 FPS	59 FPS
high	56 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	36 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	561 FPS	336 FPS
medium	525 FPS	304 FPS
high	428 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	383 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	545 FPS	287 FPS
medium	471 FPS	264 FPS
high	394 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	182 FPS
4K
low	350 FPS	184 FPS
medium	304 FPS	169 FPS
high	274 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	115 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	561 FPS	552 FPS
medium	561 FPS	505 FPS
high	561 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	407 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	531 FPS
medium	561 FPS	439 FPS
high	538 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	470 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	401 FPS
medium	394 FPS	318 FPS
high	343 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	275 FPS	234 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	561 FPS	552 FPS
medium	561 FPS	552 FPS
high	561 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	487 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	552 FPS
medium	561 FPS	535 FPS
high	561 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	391 FPS
4K
low	561 FPS	416 FPS
medium	501 FPS	382 FPS
high	447 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	295 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Ryzen 7 3700X

The Ryzen 7 3700X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 July 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,430 points. Launch price was $329.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,077 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 3700X packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus 3.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — a 31.6% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 3700X (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 3700X scores 22,430 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950's 22,077 — a 1.6% lead for the Ryzen 7 3700X. Both processors carry 32 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	16 / 32+100%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+38%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+12%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB	32 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB (per core)
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	22,430+2%	22,077
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	18,780
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,961
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	10,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950) — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 500 series,AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 7 3700X) and X399 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Socket	AM4	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	64+167%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Ryzen 7 3700X) / AMD-V (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Primary use case: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 rivals Core i9-7960X.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	Yes
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	AMD-V
Target Use	—	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 3700X launched at $329 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 debuted at $999. On MSRP ($329 vs $999), the Ryzen 7 3700X is $670 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 3700X delivers 68.2 pts/$ vs 22.1 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 102.1% better value option.