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

[Boshum]

"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?

Where is that beating a 3900X in a wide variety of new games? You can find exceptions for anything.

 

[Boshum]

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.

AMD won 10 out of 10 of the non-gaming benchmarks by a significant amount in most, and the gaming benchmarks vs the 10980XE by 6 to 1. Are all Intel fanboys this clueless?

 

[hahahanoobs]

Where is that beating a 3900X in a wide variety of new games? You can find exceptions for anything.

3600 and 3900X perform the same, when the 3600 isn't faster. This is not news.

 

[Vulcanproject]

"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?

I clearly said games are going to want at least 12 threads in the next couple of years.

Your reply started with the phrase 'at a time' which I assume you mean 'right this second'. I didn't say right this second. I said in a couple years.

Somehow you must have misunderstand the idea that a couple of years from now new consoles will be out with 8 core 16 thread Zen CPUs. Of which every new game will be designed to use at least 6 of those cores and 12 of those threads. Possibly more depending on what is reserved.

Bearing in mind that is the MINIMUM CPU resources that is going to be available for the equivalent of console level performance. One assumes the PC versions of those games will be capable of asking for more, just as they always have done.

This is a simple concept. Yes, better multithreading is definitely where we are going the next few years. Be it for most applications and especially for new games when new consoles hit.

 

[Markoni35]

But can it beat Zilog Z80 running not at 3.8, not even at 4.5, but... wait for it... 6.0... yes 6.0 MHz!! Hard to believe, but that's a GHz with an "M".

 

[Boshum]

3600 and 3900X perform the same, when the 3600 isn't faster. This is not news.

The 3900X is faster if only slightly. If I come across the 30+ games that Steve tested showing the average of 134 vs 130 or whatever it is, I'll let you know. Where does that leave the 9900K? All of that clock advantage and it's only 6% faster at 1080p gaming (on average). That's not much margin to make up for the 3900X which is 40% more powerful.

 

[Irata]

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.

Are you quoting a dfferent review ? Does not look like you are talking about this one where Intel's latest HEDT CPU that was released today loses very badly, sometimes scoring less than half. Never mind TR 3's far superior plaform features.

 

[hahahanoobs]

AMD won 10 out of 10 of the non-gaming benchmarks by a significant amount in most, and the gaming benchmarks vs the 10980XE by 6 to 1. Are all Intel fanboys this clueless?

I don't think anyone

The 3900X is faster if only slightly. If I come across the 30+ games that Steve tested showing the average of 134 vs 130 or whatever it is, I'll let you know. Where does that leave the 9900K? All of that clock advantage and it's only 6% faster at 1080p gaming (on average). That's not much margin to make up for the 3900X which is 40% more powerful.

10/10 tests
Synthetics
6/1 games
Only six games

Watch Gamers Nexus review to see more real world MT tests and scenarios and games that aren't picked that perform the same on all chips tested.

Some still prefer things like Quicksync and CUDA. It all boils down to what software and workload the user needs. I promise you that anyone considering TR will look well beyond the tests you've seen here if productivity is paramount.

Is TR awesome? Yes. But not in every scenario as the tests shown here would have you believe. These are best case scenarios using synthetic tests.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The 3900X is faster if only slightly. If I come across the 30+ games that Steve tested showing the average of 134 vs 130 or whatever it is, I'll let you know. Where does that leave the 9900K? All of that clock advantage and it's only 6% faster at 1080p gaming (on average). That's not much margin to make up for the 3900X which is 40% more powerful.

6% on average. Keyword is average. If you happen to play the games where Ryzen is 15%+ behind (they exist), that 6% average means nothing. All that average tells you is that that chip is competitive when frames don't matter the most to you.

 

[DSirius]

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!

It's Ok man, you made me smile reading your first comment, so now I am in the right mood to play some nice games.
Indeed Intel need to lower their price much more.

 

[DSirius]

Thank you for your honest and prompt review Steven.
I think that it's worth trying to contact Intel PR to pass them some proper advice because
Intel needs to lower their price much more and rebrand their processors like:
Core I8 instead of Core I9 HEDT - they don't deserve I9 name anymore when Ryzen 3950X is faster and cheaper than the best Intel HEDT processor;
Core I7 for those so called I9 9900K;
Core I5 instead of core I7;
and so on until the new Core i1.

 

[DSirius]

AMD won 10 out of 10 of the non-gaming benchmarks by a significant amount in most, and the gaming benchmarks vs the 10980XE by 6 to 1. Are all Intel fanboys this clueless?

Yes they are!

 

[checryan]

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

Just curious what you would want see in the comparison from Intel? I would also like too see an apple to Apple comparison here but from what I can see there isn't one. The 10980XE which is in this review is to my knowledge Intel's most powerful offering in the HEDT segment. To get a more powerful Intel chip to compare against you'd have to get a server/enterprise chip which is even less apple to Apple in my opinion. Bottom line is there is nothing in Intel's lineup that competes with these 3rd gen threadripper chips at the moment. I'm not saying Intel's chips don't have value at their price/core/competition points, but they have nothing to directly compete with these new threadripper chips.

 

[pit1209]

"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?

For sure, you must be blind to believe otherwise, I mean, are you really saying that those 4/8 CPUs are still as capable as 3-4 years ago? and next gen consoles have been confirmed to have 8/16 CPUs instead of the two 4 cores glued together we already have.

 

[Boshum]

6% on average. Keyword is average. If you happen to play the games where Ryzen is 15%+ behind (they exist), that 6% average means nothing. All that average tells you is that that chip is competitive when frames don't matter the most to you.

Sure..that goes with everything. If you have a particular all-important game that you know works much better with a particular CPU, go for that CPU. The main point is that 6% isn't very far from -6% with a few years of optimizations.

 

[pit1209]

I don't think anyone


10/10 tests
Synthetics
6/1 games
Only six games

Watch Gamers Nexus review to see more real world MT tests and scenarios and games that aren't picked that perform the same on all chips tested.

Some still prefer things like Quicksync and CUDA. It all boils down to what software and workload the user needs. I promise you that anyone considering TR will look well beyond the tests you've seen here if productivity is paramount.

Is TR awesome? Yes. But not in every scenario as the tests shown here would have you believe. These are best case scenarios using synthetic tests.

The same review where steve said that he doesn't recommend the 10980XE?

 

[Proposition Joe]

Wondering why you're still running 1080p gaming benchmarks. Would be nice to see how this CPU preforms at 1440p or even 4k

 

[krizby]

Lol..GG Intel, 10980XE made obsolete by 3950X and ridiculed by 3970X before it even releases. Hopefully this will be a wake up slap for Intel just like the AMD athlon X2 era.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Lol..GG Intel, 10980XE made obsolete by 3950X and ridiculed by 3970X before it even releases. Hopefully this will be a wake up slap for Intel just like the AMD athlon X2 era.

I don't see Intel able to compete at the highest end until their 7nm fabrication is ready.... which isn't for over a year... Will be interesting to see what their 12980 or whatever they name it will perform like...

 

[Boshum]

Yes they are!

Or devious? Maybe counting on people not checking for the truth?

 

[Boshum]

I hope Zen 3 takes the last talking point away from Intel and definitively beats them in gaming, and that AMD stays clearly on top for a few years. This will get them much healthier for a protracted battle. I suspect we only have 2 years at most from now until a competitive response from Intel though.

 

[amstech]

Just curious what you would want see in the comparison from Intel? Bottom line is there is nothing in Intel's lineup that competes with these 3rd gen threadripper chips at the moment. I'm not saying Intel's chips don't have value at their price/core/competition points, but they have nothing to directly compete with these new threadripper chips.

So, what I've been looking at is the AMD Ryzen 3800X 8/16 against the Intel 9900K 8/16, which seems to be pretty fair, albeit their architecture, IPC and varying parameters are not the same, its about as close as we are going to get right now for an apples to apples comparison. The 3800X runs about $400 or so and the 9900K runs about $470, but I feel Intel will drop that down sooner rather then later.
So lets do a quick run down.
In Cinebench R20, the 9900K and 3800X are dead even at 509.
In 7-Zip, the 3800X edges the 9900K, having a 67000 score compared to 58,500.
In the first Adobe Premiere 4X export, the 3800X takes 750 seconds to the 9900K's 802 seconds. In the Puget Systems standard test, they are almost identical, so 75.8 to 76.3. In V-Ray, the 9900K wins and clips the 3800X.
My point? Core for core, apples to apples, for the most part, its VERY CLOSE. Again in Corona the 3800X edges the 9900K, then back to Blender the 9900K edges the 3800X.
Gaming we all know the 9900K is going to be considerably quicker across the board.
But am I the only one that see's how close these chips are when your comparing apples to apples?
The reason I want to see how well a 18/36 Intel chip matches up with a 18/36 AMD chip is based on how well the 9900K does against the 3800X (not including gaming results). Also the 9900K has a little more headroom as I see lots of folks running it pretty safely @ 5.2GHz-5.3GHz, but we don't need to factor in that or gaming results however as a consumer chip it is worth mentioning.
I thought Intel had a consumer 20/40 chip but I think the 18/36 might be their top dog for something a consumer would buy. Regardless of price, it would be nice to see how well they match up, core for core but like I stated, its not AMD's fault they are doing so well right now and Intel has nothing above a 18/36. But maybe the comparison of the 8/16's gives a better idea then I first would have predicted.

 

[CharmsD]

GG Intel, 10980XE made obsolete

I guess it depends on how you define obsolete. A newly launched CPU doesn't become invalid or "obsoleted" because the companies, competitor has a CPU that's faster in some synthetic benchmarks. [charmsd] - not a member of the superlative tossing team.

and the gaming benchmarks vs the 10980XE by 6 to 1. Are all Intel fanboys this clueless?

There are "benchmarks" all over Ytube showing MARGIN OF ERROR results. I hoped this site had a minimum of 'fan clubbishness' but it turns out, no. At MSRP these CPU's are only marginally affordable.

 

[krizby]

I guess it depends on how you define obsolete. A newly launched CPU doesn't become invalid or "obsoleted" because the companies, competitor has a CPU that's faster in some synthetic benchmarks. [charmsd] - not a member of the superlative tossing team.

There are "benchmarks" all over Ytube showing MARGIN OF ERROR results. I hoped this site had a minimum of 'fan clubbishness' but it turns out, no. At MSRP these CPU's are only marginally affordable.

10980XE is just a refreshed 9980XE, which is also a refreshed 7980XE, yes it is an obsolete design by any standard.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The same review where steve said that he doesn't recommend the 10980XE?

When you can have a tech discussion without assuming every "hater" is a fanboy, we can talk. You should also work on replying with more than a single sentence...