Third-Gen Threadripper Lands: AMD Threadripper 3970X & 3960X Review

[Julio Franco]

The latest 32-core and 24-core high-end desktop CPUs from AMD have now landed. And yes, we've benchmarked the heck out of them. The Threadripper 3970X is a 32-core, 64-thread chip with a massive 128MB L3 cache, runs at 3.7 GHz and it's priced at $2,000 making it AMD's most expensive desktop CPU ever. If that's too rich, maybe the 3960X costs $1,400 for 24 cores and 48 threads.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1946-amd-threadripper-3970x-3960x/

 

[Dimitrios]

Sell that INTEL stock! Karma came back at INTEL and where are all the INTEL fanboys saying AMD will be bankrupt. I believe INTEL will stop giving out dividends sooner or later.


PCGAMER on Facebook had many many INTEL fanboys ripping on AMD owners and look at what just happened and now the crickets are out. Like I said about the tech industry no one stays #1 forever.

 

[neeyik]

For the cache benchmark results, I wonder if AIDA just aggregates the results per core - I.e. the L1 and L2 bandwidth values are essentially equal to the total number of cores times the result from one core or AIDA just runs multiple cache tests in parallel and accumulate each test result.

What got me thinking about this was how close the 3970X and 3900X cache results were, when you took into account the increase in core count:

3970X - 32 cores
3900X - 12 cores

So 32/12 = 2.666

Take the 3900X's results and multiply them by 2.666:

L1 cache
Write = 1608.9 x 2.666 = 4289
Read = 3199 x 2.666 = 8529

L2 cache
Write = 1475.3 x 2.666 = 3933
Read = 1594 x 2.666 = 4249

Now compare those to the 3970X:

L1 cache
Write = 4269
Read = 8087

L2 cache
Write = 4090
Read = 4227

Only with the L3 results do things go differently:

L3 3900X cache:
Write = 777 x 2.666 = 2071
Read = 1090 x 2.666 = 2899

L3 3970X cache:
Write = 2010
Read = 490

Now Zen 2, as we all know, consists of a chiplet design where there is one large I/O chip and then multiple smaller CCDs, with each one of these comprising 2x CCXs. Each CCD has one block of 16 MiB L3 cache shared between the two CCXs, whereas each core has it's own 512 kB of L2 cache, and 32 kb of L1 I/D cache.

So the L1 and L2 cache results make sense. The 3970X achieves higher results in the AIDA test because, accumulatively, there are more cores and thus more total cache bandwidth. The L3 results half make sense, half don't. The real puzzle is how, if it does at all, any of this helps out with the gaming benchmarks. Cores pretty much don't access each other's L1 and L2 cache, as the cycle penalty is enormous.

I wonder if it's down the new I/O chip having access to more memory controllers on the 3970X compared to the 3900X; the 2990WX, of course, has no such chip, relying entirely on each CCD having its own memory controller.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

What a powerhouse product.

 

[Udelh579]

Awesome! I love seeing 10980 with a 50% discount due to healthy market competition.

I hope AMD will create the same phenomenon with Nvidia in graphics department.

 

[m3tavision]

TRX40 is one sexy looking socket/board.
What an all-around great platform to buy into. Only going to get better from here on out.
RIP Intel..

 

[Irata]

This is just wow.

The cool thing is you can probably game with high fps while recording gameplay and converting the video at the same time with great results.

 

[amstech]

For gaming, Intel is still the way to go.
The $450 9900K is beating/matching these $1400 and $2000 CPU's, but for all other intents and purposes, I say again, hard to argue against Ryzen.

Edited:
Sorry didn't see the 18core intel, skipped over the article my bad.
Still not apples to apples by a long shot, but nice to see it there.
Intel need to lower their prices!

 

[pit1209]

Great review showing AMD's absolute best stuff and how it competes against Intel's average stuff.
These are extremely expensive CPU's at $1400 and $2000.

Your 9920X is the strongest Intel CPU you have competing, which is a $675 processor on Newegg as I write this sentence, and most importantly its only a 12/24. The 9960X is still only 16/32 CPU that costs $1300 and even while that would still be unfair, even that's not on this review.
So I'm going to have to be honest and say, this review is taking the best that AMD has to offer, and putting it up against Intel's basic high end so quite honestly, this hasn't cleared up anything. Until I see a 9960X or 9980XE compete unfortunately this reviews don't tell us much... even those (9960X/9980XE) have less cores then what AMD has in this review, albeit not AMD's fault here.
The $450 9900K (before its overclocked) beating and matching these AMD CPU's in gaming really shows you why for gaming builds, Intel is still the way to go.
For everything else though Intel's architecture seems to be showing its age, but unfortunately we still have yet to see an apples to apples comparison, so its hard to see where things line up. AMD's 'top shelf best it has to offer' stuff is strong, but until we see it compete against proper competition these reviews don't clear up anything.

It looks like you didn't even read the review, the most powerful Intel CPU shown on this review is the recently launched i9-10980XE an 18/36 and $1000 Intel HEDT CPU, that is a refresh of the last year i9-9980XE, a $2000 CPU, this is the best CPU Intel has on his X-series, this are apple to apple comparisons or maybe you want the review to show any Intel Xeon series CPUs? because then AMD has their EPYC line up for that and things are not pretty there.

 

[herpaderp]

Until I see a 9960X or 9980XE compete unfortunately this reviews don't tell us much...

You already saw the 9980XE's results in the form of the 10980XE. It's the exact same thing with only a 200MHz higher boost clock.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Amstech re-read the review. Look for:

Intel Core I9-10980XE

 

[hahahanoobs]

Impressive.
AMD has crammed a ton of course into a CPU, but I'm curious to see what happens next with Zen 3. Hopefully AMD can take mainstream market performance at that point.

I'm a gamer so if I were to build a rig right now (I haven't because games I play right now don't need it), it would be a 9700K. It's 8 physical cores, stable and very overclockable. A lower clocked 12T or 16T Ryzen part isn't going to age well in comparison.

As for HEDT, I'd like to see more real world tests instead of synthetics.

 

[Vrmithrax]

So I'm going to have to be honest and say, this review is taking the best that AMD has to offer, and putting it up against Intel's basic high end so quite honestly, this hasn't cleared up anything except for a little 'what performance you get for the money', which doesn't show up in gaming, only benchmarks 90% of folks will never care about. We know what having a bunch of cores does, it helps in multi-threaded benchmarks/multitasking, and in some cases the more the better. I get the money aspect of this, but $$ aside I would like to see a even core count comparison, or alteast a little closer then this.
IMHO AMD's CPU's having more cores/threads is an unfair advantage and not an apples to apples comparison, pricing factored in or not...not trying to be an Intel fanboy here.

While I usually agree with your logic, @amstech, I have to take exception to this one here. The Threadripper is not a general consumption processor, and the gamers out there are not their primary intended audience. This is a monster workhorse built for utility and number crunching, more for CREATING games than for playing them. So, for the people who this processor truly targets, those benchmarks would be more than relevant. The "I must have the most elite processor for my gaming rig" crowd is actually quite a small demographic of who would potentially buy a Threadripper. Most general consumers and gamers will go with the more consumer-oriented (and much more affordable) CPUs, not the expensive content creator and utility-oriented workhorses.

 

[Irata]

It looks like you didn't even read the review, the most powerful Intel CPU shown on this review is the recently launched i9-10980XE an 18/36 and $1000 Intel HEDT CPU, that is a refresh of the last year i9-9980XE, a $2000 CPU, this is the best CPU Intel has on his X-series, this are apple to apple comparisons or maybe you want the review to show any Intel Xeon series CPUs? because then AMD has their EPYC line up for that and things are not pretty there.

There are reviews that do include Xeon, both the USD 3,000 model that Intel launched to counter TR2 but also 2S systems.

Does not change the results.

 

[amstech]

I didn't see that 18 core in there, thanks guys.
That's still not an apples to apples comparison by far, but atleast it is closer

 

[Squid Surprise]

Loving these CPUs... any chance we'll see a more detailed gaming benchmark? Like at 1440 and 4K resolutions?

Would be curious to see how they perform at those levels - cause if you're gaming at 1080P with these CPUs, you're wasting a LOT of money!

Really curious to see the 3990 when it is released - will there be a 3980 as well?

Hurray for competition!

 

[Boshum]

Impressive.
AMD has crammed a ton of course into a CPU, but I'm curious to see what happens next with Zen 3. Hopefully AMD can take mainstream market performance at that point.

I'm a gamer so if I were to build a rig right now (I haven't because games I play right now don't need it), it would be a 9700K. It's 8 physical cores, stable and very overclockable. A lower clocked 12T or 16T Ryzen part isn't going to age well in comparison.

As for HEDT, I'd like to see more real world tests instead of synthetics.

You are so wrong. The 16-thread Ryzens are going to age much better than the 9700K.

 

[Irata]

I didn't see that 18 core in there, thanks guys.
That's still not an apples to apples comparison by far, but atleast it is closer

Anandtech also includes the 28 core Xeon W3175X but were talking a 3k CPU on a 1k+ mainboard here.

That said, it does not do that well.

The problem is that you can only compare to CPU that exist.

 

[amstech]

While I usually agree with your logic, @amstech, I have to take exception to this one here. The Threadripper is not a general consumption processor, and the gamers out there are not their primary intended audience. This is a monster workhorse built for utility and number crunching, more for CREATING games than for playing them. So, for the people who this processor truly targets, those benchmarks would be more than relevant.

Yeah these are expensive, but for the money, and compared to the current competition, just wow, Intel really need to adjust their pricing, and soon.

The "I must have the most elite processor for my gaming rig" crowd is actually quite a small demographic of who would potentially buy a Threadripper. Most general consumers and gamers will go with the more consumer-oriented (and much more affordable) CPUs, not the expensive content creator and utility-oriented workhorses.

Agreed, my comments about these CPU's not being able to game was not intended in anyway, shape or form to demean these CPU's, anyone spending that much on a gaming CPU needs a CT Scan.

 

[dualkelly]

Sell that INTEL stock! Karma came back at INTEL and where are all the INTEL fanboys saying AMD will be bankrupt. I believe INTEL will stop giving out dividends sooner or later.


PCGAMER on Facebook had many many INTEL fanboys ripping on AMD owners and look at what just happened and now the crickets are out. Like I said about the tech industry no one stays #1 forever.

I dont care one way or another as competion is good for everyone however you better read your graphs again man. A year old 18 core chip from intel either beats or in most cases a few % points away from a brand new 32core chip. I am not for bashing anyone but win 10 fanbois but intel clearly is still the winner. We can argue price points but their re-release 18 core chip releases tomorrow for sub 1g price. So as much as I like what I see from AMD intel still is the winner here.

 

[hahahanoobs]

You are so wrong. The 16-thread Ryzens are going to age much better than the 9700K.

Not in gaming and everyday scenarios. For Zen to age well, software devs have 3-5 years (the avg time consumers keep a computer) to boost MT performance to match or exceed Intel's much higher clock speeds down the road. That won't happen.

 

[Boshum]

Not in gaming and everyday scenarios. For Zen to age well, software devs have 3-5 years (the avg time consumers keep a computer) to boost MT performance to match or exceed Intel's much higher clock speeds down the road. That won't happen.

It will happen. The 16-thread Ryzens will start beating the 9700K in new games some time over the next few years.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Not in gaming and everyday scenarios. For Zen to age well, software devs have 3-5 years (the avg time consumers keep a computer) to boost MT performance to match or exceed Intel's much higher clock speeds down the road. That won't happen.

It's pretty likely games are going to want at least 12 threads in the next couple of years. If due to nothing more than having at least that many threads available for games running on next gen consoles which will be the baseline for games.

 

[hahahanoobs]

It's pretty likely games are going to want at least 12 threads in the next couple of years. If due to nothing more than having at least that many threads available for games running on next gen consoles which will be the baseline for games.

"Pretty likely....."
So at a time when a Ryzen 3600 with SMT off can beat a 3900X, you think more cores are where we're going next couple years?

 

[michaltimko]

I got 41s with 2990wx (stock) on Corona benchmark. Any idea why did you got 44s ?

https://I.gyazo.com/b61a09c2219eaa5c056a8a1be64ce763.jpg