AMD Threadripper 3990X Review: Absolute Madness!

[Adi6293]

The 2080Ti accounts for less than 2% of all registered STEAM users.

Even tho I have one, the reality is the bulk of the market doesn't.

Tell me what the difference looks like when you're using a GTX 1060.

There will be no difference so that's why R5 > i5

 

[Lew Zealand]

Yeah, the 3800X versus the 9900K tells you all you need to know about gaming when you match them up core for core and thread for thread, The Ryzen gets beat pretty badly, you'll need the 3900X just to match the 9900K. That being said and while Intel has 1st and 2nd place for gaming CPU's with the 9900K and 9700K, it's nice to see AMD atleast hanging in there now and in a well deserved 3rd place, even if the value isn't there for gaming only purposes unless your getting something like the 3600.

If you buy a computer for cost-no-object gaming only, then Intel is a good value as you need a very expensive GPU to extract that last 6.6% from the 9700K or 9900K. Which makes the relative cost of those processors pretty good. Funny to make the value argument with a $1000 GPU but that's today's gaming.

But for everything else with the same cost AMD CPU, either you won't notice the difference in mainstream GPU gaming and casual use (web, office, etc.), or the AMD CPU will deliver clearly better performance (content creation). And AMD's scale of choice from an $85 6C12T CPU to a $4K 64C128T CPU is of course unmatched by Intel for any of those uses.

 

[Evernessince]

Am I the only one who doesn't like that these days a system with a 280W CPU consumes 452W? These power consumptions are crazy. AMD usually just throws die at it, and it works, it's performant, but wasteful AF.

TDP is not power consumption. It's estimated thermal output. The 9900K has a TDP of 95w and an actual power consumption of around 285w at load. That's even more of a disparity then here.

FYI, with the power consumption of the 3990X you are getting 400 to 500% more performance then the best Intel HEDT processor. I've got a strong feeling that it is actually much more power efficient when multi-threading when it only consumes 35%ish more power.

 

[Evernessince]

Yeah, the 3800X versus the 9900K tells you all you need to know about gaming when you match them up core for core and thread for thread, The Ryzen gets beat pretty badly, you'll need the 3900X just to match the 9900K. That being said and while Intel has 1st and 2nd place for gaming CPU's with the 9900K and 9700K, it's nice to see AMD atleast hanging in there now and in a well deserved 3rd place, even if the value isn't there for gaming only purposes unless your getting something like the 3600.

Will be interesting to see if they make a Comet Lake KS processor that will hit 5.3GHz or so on all cores. Good review and same o'l same o'l, happy to see AMD pushing Intel, its been 10 years so it was bound to happen sooner or later.

And specifically that would be:

- Intel wins by 4.2% at 1080p with an RTX 2080 Ti
- Difference is nill if you have a lower end GPU
- Difference is worthless if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor.

That's just for gaming of course. If you take a similar core count AMD processor and a similar core count Intel processor, the AMD processor will win in multi-threading and has lower power consumption. Not to mention equal core count AMD parts are cheaper and run on a superior platform. If you are doing anything drive intensive, you are getting double the performance on PCIe 4.0, which you can only get with X570.

 

[dirtyferret]

Will this futureproof my Nvidia GT 710 to play Half Life 3 or do you think the game will be bottlenecked by the CPU?

 

[Lew Zealand]

Will this futureproof my Nvidia GT 710 to play Half Life 3 or do you think the game will be bottlenecked by the CPU?

You'll need 3 more GT 710s in SLI to take full advantage of the TR3990:

 

[Markoni35]

To be fair, it should be now clear that Crysis was just really badly coded, given some parts *still* struggle.

Nope. Crysis was amazingly coded, considering the number of triangles, the size of the map VISIBLE from the hill, and the amount of trees and high-quality foilage, with REAL-TIME soft shadows.

If you wanna see a poorly-coded game, check out PUBG, which renders slowly even though it looks 10x worse than Crysis (which is now 13 years old). Never saw worse game programming than PUBG. It's as if the entire rendering engine was written in Python.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Intel vs AMD is not an argument even worth having.

Intel names their processors 'Kaby Lake' and 'Sky Lake' and the like. AMD's is called 'Threadripper'

What do you want your CPU named after? An Ivy League chess club or a super hero?

You buy an Intel it probably comes with a sweater vest and I'd bet AMD ships their CPUs with a mask and cape.

 

[JimboJoneson]

As new PC buyers come of age (read: get a job and start burning their paychecks on PC parts), whatever the current newly released hardware is becomes the "must have".

The 8700k became the 9900k and will become the 10900k and will become the 11900k.

My thing is: These CPU are ridiculously overpowerewed for gamers. Most games nowadays are GPU intensive and will run fine on even a Core i3 with any RTX card or any new AMD card.

We don't have any "Crysis moments" where you get a game that threatens to melt your computer.

These ridiculous core counts are for workstations. The same entities who buy a new Mac Pro and don't blink.

These AMD processors look fantastic if I was doing work, but in gaming Intel is blowing their socks off.

I find it amusing how the dialogue for some posters always has to end with things like "in gaming Intel is blowing their socks off!" or "Absolutely destroying AMD in gaming!" (I'll spare the all caps, bolded, underlined font), or "16% Market share!" regardless of what the product review is about or concludes.

If a 4% Advantage for Intel in one area - gaming - in one artificially induced scenario (full CPU bottlneck) that no near one plays with or even could, (given they don't have a 2080ti), is "blowing their socks their off", then what would be an appropriate verbalization of a 200% advantage of AMD HEDT vs Intel's in HEDT workloads?

What choice words aptly apply, considering 4% vs >200% .... ?

But thanks for the chuckles ... made my day

 

[JimboJoneson]

Am I the only one who doesn't like that these days a system with a 280W CPU consumes 452W? These power consumptions are crazy. AMD usually just throws die at it, and it works, it's performant, but wasteful AF.

I guess you haven't seen how much power 2P 8280 platinum Xeon CPUs / system use.

The TR3990X is still outperforming 2 of Intel's fastest socketed server chips in most scenarios, particularly rendering - the market that Xeon used to hold that this part is aiming at.

If anything, this shows the bulk of what you are referring to as "waste" is had on going with Intel, not AMD.

 

[amstech]

And specifically that would be:

The 9900K spanks the 3800X across the board, from 720p, 1080p, 1440p to 4K, using both Radeons and GTX/RTX's.
It's not even close when you compare them core for core and thread for thread, like how the 8700K beats the 3600 across the board.
This has already been proven and Techspot is full of data, your comment about 4% and 4K resolutions does nothing to dispute my 8/16 remark, so just let it go man.
PC Gamer gave Ryzen 3rd place in gaming CPU's behind the 9900K and 9700K, because the 9700K keeps up with Ryzens best in gaming for much less. AMD is deserving of 3rd place, and your constant AMD fanboyism and whimpering with selective data doesn't in anyway shape or form counter anything I've said.

Intel Core i9-9900KS Review

Intel launched today the "new" Core i9-9900KS processor which appears to be a pointless release, similar to the Core i7-8086K that we never bothered to look at....

www.techspot.com

Look at the 3800X against the 9900K in 1080p, its 15-25 FPS slower at 1080p across the board, even when its close in a few examples it still loses. Zip it with your bias, its annoying and your comments are becoming so biased your opinion is turning into something that's worthless, look at things neutrally and without bias, or continue to look like a fool and lose credibility.
Those results are not up for debate.

 

[Evernessince]

The 9900K spanks the 3800X across the board, from 720p, 1080p, 1440p to 4K, using both Radeons and GTX/RTX's.
It's not even close when you compare them core for core and thread for thread, like how the 8700K beats the 3600 across the board.
This has already been proven and Techspot is full of data, your comment about 4% and 4K resolutions does nothing to dispute my 8/16 remark, so just let it go man.
PC Gamer gave Ryzen 3rd place in gaming CPU's behind the 9900K and 9700K, because the 9700K keeps up with Ryzens best in gaming for much less. AMD is deserving of 3rd place, and your constant AMD fanboyism and whimpering with selective data doesn't in anyway shape or form counter anything I've said.

Intel Core i9-9900KS Review

Intel launched today the "new" Core i9-9900KS processor which appears to be a pointless release, similar to the Core i7-8086K that we never bothered to look at....

www.techspot.com

Look at the 3800X against the 9900K in 1080p, its 15-25 FPS slower at 1080p across the board, even when its close in a few examples it still loses. Zip it with your bias, its annoying and your comments are becoming so biased your opinion is turning into something that's worthless, look at things neutrally and without bias, or continue to look like a fool and lose credibility.
Those results are not up for debate.

Are you even reading the same review? That's not a spanking, it's nearly margin of error at 1080p, let alone 2k or 4k

Every other website on the net echo's the same sentiment: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/15.html

I'm just going to quote steve here:

"If you can spot the difference between the Ryzen 9 3900X and Core i9-9900K with an RTX 2080 Ti @ 4K or even 1440p, I'll eat a TRX40 motherboard. "

Enough said.

 

[dirtyferret]

You'll need 3 more GT 710s in SLI to take full advantage of the TR3990:

Thanks mate, luckily my Liteon 280w power supply provides plenty of power for a SLI setup

 

[umbala]

but in gaming Intel is blowing their socks off.

So tired of you Intel shills... Yeah, 3-5% advantage in gaming is BLOWING THEIR SOCKS OFF!! *roll eyes*

 

[cliffordcooley]

So tired of you Intel shills...

That is no different than the AMD shills were for over 10 years. I may be getting tired of it as well. But I'm glad the shoe is on the other foot for a change.

 

[Evernessince]

That is no different than the AMD shills were for over 10 years. I may be getting tired of it as well. But I'm glad the shoe is on the other foot for a change.

I don't think many people where shilling for the FX series. You pretty much had to go Intel for gaming or anything performance intensive. The only thing I saw was a lot of people wishing someone would bring competition. TBH I would have never bet on AMD coming back within the decade.

 

[amstech]

Are you even reading the same review?

I spoke about the review, and also specifically talked about 8/16's, making it quite obvious which CPU's I was comparing. You the one that brought up something I wasn't referring too, to once again redirect the theme, cause your biased towards AMD and don't like what I have to say, which is in-arguable.

 

[madboyv1]

I remember when Supreme Commander came out and was melting CPUs left and right back in 2007, fun times. Incidentally this processor could in theory run 32 copies of the game (the game ran off of two main threads but the "sweet spot" was 4 cores) without even batting an eyelash. Sweet Baby Jesus in Heaven.

 

[Lionvibez]

I spoke about the review, and also specifically talked about 8/16's, making it quite obvious which CPU's I was comparing. You the one that brought up something I wasn't referring too, to once again redirect the theme, cause your biased towards AMD and don't like what I have to say, which is in-arguable.

What does anything of the review of this processor have to do with gaming?

Some of you seem to keep injecting this to support your argument in every review and it gets tiring.

And its seems to be the same 3 people every review of an AMD processor.

How about sticking to the topic of the review?

 

[Lew Zealand]

What does anything of the review of this processor have to do with gaming?

Some of you seem to keep injecting this to support your argument in every review and it gets tiring.

And its seems to be the same 3 people every review of an AMD processor.

How about sticking to the topic of the review?

No effing chance of that. As you said, some people need to post the same tired opinion about gaming in every single CPU review. If TS ever reviews the Raspberry Pi or a Chromebook, I fully expect the ten thousandth instance of the same gaming copy&paste.

 

[Dimitrios]

That's not even the case at 1080p with an RTX 2080 Ti. If you can spot the difference between the Ryzen 9 3900X and Core i9-9900K with an RTX 2080 Ti @ 4K or even 1440p, I'll eat a TRX40 motherboard.

Best comeback comment ever lol. Well played sir, well played.

 

[loki1944]

As new PC buyers come of age (read: get a job and start burning their paychecks on PC parts), whatever the current newly released hardware is becomes the "must have".

The 8700k became the 9900k and will become the 10900k and will become the 11900k.

My thing is: These CPU are ridiculously overpowerewed for gamers. Most games nowadays are GPU intensive and will run fine on even a Core i3 with any RTX card or any new AMD card.

We don't have any "Crysis moments" where you get a game that threatens to melt your computer.

These ridiculous core counts are for workstations. The same entities who buy a new Mac Pro and don't blink.

These AMD processors look fantastic if I was doing work, but in gaming Intel is blowing their socks off.

They'll run fine on plenty of GPUs from 2015 onward.

 

[Squid Surprise]

So can this CPU actually be purchased? Can't find a link anywhere... how many are they making? It's all well and good to have the best CPU on the planet - but if you don't have any to sell, who cares?

 

[Irata]

I don't think many people where shilling for the FX series. You pretty much had to go Intel for gaming or anything performance intensive. The only thing I saw was a lot of people wishing someone would bring competition. TBH I would have never bet on AMD coming back within the decade.

The reason why I supported AMD was that their CPU were cheap, I did not want them to go under and I stopped doing anything that needed serious CPU horsepower. Gaming was playing CIV 3 conquest

Bought my previous PC (HP Elitedesk 705 G1) *new* for € 140 and that came with an SSD and Win 10 pro. Hard to beat that. I was never under the illusion that it was better at anything but the iGPU but did not need more than that at the time. Now with my kid being into gaming, I am happy Ryzen is around.

 

[Irata]

So can this CPU actually be purchased? Can't find a link anywhere... how many are they making? It's all well and good to have the best CPU on the planet - but if you don't have any to sell, who cares?

Just checked Newegg and they have it in stock. Limit one per customer though.