Core Ultra 5 135H vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950

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.

Core Ultra 5 135H

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.1% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2049 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
❌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

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 135H across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,077 vs 22,116).
❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while Core Ultra 5 135H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 135H moves to FCBGA2049 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 5 135H

2023

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.1% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2049 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
❌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 Core Ultra 5 135H across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,077 vs 22,116).
❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while Core Ultra 5 135H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 135H moves to FCBGA2049 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 135H 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 Core Ultra 5 135H 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, Core Ultra 5 135H is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 15.1% more average FPS across 48 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 135H is the better fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 14 cores and 18 threads.

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

Core Ultra 5 135H is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen Threadripper 1950 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 5 135H is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $999 MSRP, and it gives you a 15.1% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 5 135H is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2017), a healthier platform with FCBGA2049 and DDR5 instead of SP3r2, and more multi-core headroom with 14 cores / 18 threads instead of 16/32. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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.

Core Ultra 5 135H Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 135H	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	193 FPS	173 FPS
medium	154 FPS	153 FPS
high	126 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	102 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	156 FPS	139 FPS
medium	122 FPS	117 FPS
high	98 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	86 FPS	65 FPS
medium	73 FPS	59 FPS
high	59 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 135H Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 135H	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	553 FPS	336 FPS
medium	521 FPS	304 FPS
high	422 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	378 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	549 FPS	287 FPS
medium	457 FPS	264 FPS
high	379 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	324 FPS	182 FPS
4K
low	337 FPS	184 FPS
medium	283 FPS	169 FPS
high	258 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	226 FPS	115 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 135H Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 135H	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	553 FPS	552 FPS
medium	553 FPS	505 FPS
high	553 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	553 FPS	407 FPS
1440p
low	553 FPS	531 FPS
medium	553 FPS	439 FPS
high	553 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	494 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	548 FPS	401 FPS
medium	441 FPS	318 FPS
high	400 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	321 FPS	234 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 135H Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 135H	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	553 FPS	552 FPS
medium	553 FPS	552 FPS
high	553 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	553 FPS	487 FPS
1440p
low	553 FPS	552 FPS
medium	553 FPS	535 FPS
high	553 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	553 FPS	391 FPS
4K
low	553 FPS	416 FPS
medium	524 FPS	382 FPS
high	473 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	413 FPS	295 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 135H Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 135H and Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Core Ultra 5 135H

The Core Ultra 5 135H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 December 2023 (1 year ago). It is based on the Meteor Lake-H (2023) architecture. It features 14 cores and 18 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): + 18 MB. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 22,116 points. Launch price was $342.

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 Core Ultra 5 135H packs 14 cores / 18 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 135H versus 3.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — a 35.9% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 135H (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 135H uses the Meteor Lake-H (2023) architecture (7 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 135H scores 22,116 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950's 22,077 — a 0.2% lead for the Core Ultra 5 135H. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 135H vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 135H	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Cores / Threads	14 / 18	16 / 32+14%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+44%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+12%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	18 MB (total)	32 MB+78%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)+300%	512 kB (per core)
Process	7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Meteor Lake-H (2023)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	22,116	22,077
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	18,780
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,961
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	10,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 135H uses the FCBGA2049 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 135H	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Socket	FCBGA2049	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	—	128 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Ultra 5 135H) / AMD-V (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Primary use case: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 rivals Core i9-7960X.