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 228V

2024

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $254 less on MSRP ($295 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 87.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 57.5 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($295 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 180W, a 163W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (16,829 vs 16,955).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.7 vs 57.5 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $295 MSRP).
❌958.8% higher power demand at 180W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 228V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 228V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 5 228V

2024

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $254 less on MSRP ($295 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 87.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 57.5 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($295 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 180W, a 163W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (16,829 vs 16,955).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.7 vs 57.5 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $295 MSRP).
❌958.8% higher power demand at 180W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 228V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 228V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 228V better than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 228V is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 228V is the better fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core Ultra 5 228V is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 5 228V is $254 cheaper on MSRP at $295 MSRP versus $549 MSRP, and it gives you 0.7% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 18.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 87.5% better value on MSRP (57.5 vs 30.7 PassMark/$), 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?

Core Ultra 5 228V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2017), a healthier platform with FCBGA2833 and DDR5 instead of SP3r2, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/16. 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 228V Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	180 FPS	227 FPS
medium	145 FPS	198 FPS
high	117 FPS	163 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	118 FPS
1440p
low	148 FPS	183 FPS
medium	117 FPS	152 FPS
high	95 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	87 FPS
4K
low	83 FPS	71 FPS
medium	71 FPS	63 FPS
high	57 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 228V Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	212 FPS	421 FPS
medium	176 FPS	401 FPS
high	158 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	139 FPS	280 FPS
1440p
low	181 FPS	392 FPS
medium	154 FPS	353 FPS
high	142 FPS	301 FPS
ultra	122 FPS	245 FPS
4K
low	137 FPS	253 FPS
medium	122 FPS	228 FPS
high	115 FPS	206 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 228V Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	424 FPS	421 FPS
medium	424 FPS	421 FPS
high	424 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	424 FPS	421 FPS
medium	424 FPS	421 FPS
high	424 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	399 FPS
4K
low	424 FPS	421 FPS
medium	384 FPS	362 FPS
high	343 FPS	324 FPS
ultra	272 FPS	270 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 228V Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	424 FPS	421 FPS
medium	424 FPS	421 FPS
high	424 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	424 FPS	421 FPS
medium	424 FPS	421 FPS
high	424 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	421 FPS
4K
low	424 FPS	421 FPS
medium	424 FPS	421 FPS
high	424 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	408 FPS	371 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 228V Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 228V and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Core Ultra 5 228V

The Core Ultra 5 228V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 16,955 points. Launch price was $299.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

The Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 31 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 16,829 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 228V packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 228V versus 4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 228V (base: 2.1 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 228V uses the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture (3 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 228V scores 16,955 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X's 16,829 — a 0.7% lead for the Core Ultra 5 228V. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 228V vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.5 GHz+13%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	3.8 GHz+81%
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	32 MB+300%
L2 Cache	2.5 MB (per core)+400%	512K (per core)
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Lunar Lake (2024)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	16,955	16,829
Cinebench R23 Multi	9,932	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,585	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	10,053	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 228V uses the FCBGA2833 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Socket	FCBGA2833	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR5X-8533	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: Yes (Core Ultra 5 228V) / not specified (Ryzen Threadripper 1900X). The Core Ultra 5 228V includes integrated graphics (Arc 130V), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X requires a dedicated GPU.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 228V	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Arc 130V	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	Yes	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 228V launched at $295 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X debuted at $549. On MSRP ($295 vs $549), the Core Ultra 5 228V is $254 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 5 228V delivers 57.5 pts/$ vs 30.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — making the Core Ultra 5 228V the 60.9% better value option.