The 64 core Threadripper 3990X CPU review: in the midst of chaos, AMD seeks opportunity

In our tests here (more in our benchmark database), AMD’s 3990X would get the crown over Intel’s dual socket offerings. The only thing really keeping me back from giving it is the same reason there was hesitation on the previous page: it doesn’t do enough to differentiate itself from AMD’s own 32-core CPU. Where AMD does win is in that ‘money is less of an issue scenario’, where using a single socket 64 core CPU can help consolidate systems, save power, and save money. Intel’s CPUs have a TDP of 205W each (more if you decide to use the turbo, which we did here), which totals 410W, while AMD maxed out at 280W in our tests. Technically Intel’s 2P has access to more PCIe lanes, but AMD’s PCIe lanes are PCIe 4.0, not PCIe 3.0, and with the right switch can power many more than Intel (if you’re saving 16k, then a switch is peanuts).

We acknowledge that our tests here aren’t in any way a comprehensive test of server level workloads, but for the user base that AMD is aiming for, we’d take the 64 core (or even the 32 core) in most circumstances over two Intel 28 core CPUs, and spend the extra money on memory, storage, or a couple of big fat GPUs.

Aside from the artificial maximum memory limitation – which AMD put in place to protect its own Epyc processors – the 3990X is simply a masterpiece. To be able to get 64 cores and 128 threads for a relatively mere $3990 is nothing short of stunning, and while few of us actually need a processor like that, the 3990X shines like the halo product that it is.

27 Comments

  1. 2020-02-08 2:00 am
  2. 2020-02-08 3:16 am
    • 2020-02-08 5:01 am
      • 2020-02-08 7:24 am
        • 2020-02-08 3:55 pm
      • 2020-02-08 9:18 am
        • 2020-02-08 12:34 pm
          • 2020-02-10 4:43 pm
        • 2020-02-08 5:43 pm
          • 2020-02-08 6:08 pm
          • 2020-02-10 4:57 pm
          • 2020-02-10 9:34 pm
          • 2020-02-11 12:54 pm
          • 2020-02-11 5:03 pm
    • 2020-02-10 4:33 pm
      • 2020-02-10 11:35 pm
        • 2020-02-11 1:11 pm
          • 2020-02-11 4:37 pm
      • 2020-02-11 3:55 pm
        • 2020-02-11 9:58 pm
          • 2020-02-12 5:52 am
          • 2020-02-12 9:34 am
          • 2020-02-12 12:24 pm
          • 2020-02-12 9:43 pm
  3. 2020-02-09 12:53 am
  4. 2020-02-12 4:29 pm

Leave a Reply