Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X - 64 processor cores and 128 threads in one CPU package

Well these artificial categories, are not natural.. I still believe let say if threadripper system total cost is 6k of $, that you can buy something better from Intel than tested for $6 k, but i can be wrong.
You can argue that AMD just create whole new category of products.. server stuff packaged as consumer stuff.. Xeons is name for server line too, but losts people here have them.. in normal or dual socket workstations too.

I have to check Anandtech review, what is their point of view. I read that they found some nice Windows scheduler stuff..

 

There is nothing in intels lineup that would cost 6k and come anywhere close to this, not sure why you believe there would be.

Only reason i can come up with that you believe there would be is simply believing to believe and have literally done zero research.

There's a reason there's multiple slides from AMD like this:



Current generation Zen2 has better IPC then Intel 14nm parts

3990x is 64 core 128 thread 2.9Ghz base 4.3Ghz boost

8280 is 28 core 56 thread 2.7Ghz base 4.0Ghz boost

One 8280 processor cost more then one 3990x, let alone two. Even with two, it has less cores, less threads, lower base clock and lower boost clock, with less IPC. Plus, you're dealing with NUMA since there's two sockets, unlike the 3990x, which doesn't have to deal with that.

If $20,000 worth of Intel processors can't compete with the 3990x, how is it exactly you "believe" that something better from intel for 6K?

Here's Intels $6000 competitor

Xeon W-3275 - $4449.00
Motherboard that supports W-3275 - $350-800
Ram + storage + etc. = couple of hundred to possibly a thousand dollars depending on your ram setup and etc.

= Roughly $5000-7000 PC (server, rather)

What do you get CPU side for that price, compared to threadripper 3990x?

Xeon W-3275 28 core 56 thread 2.5Ghz base 4.4Ghz boost

Vs

3990x 64 core 128 thread 2.9Ghz base 4.3Ghz boost

Now, since the xeon W-3275 has a slightly higher boost, you could say it's possible it could be faster in very small, lightly threaded situations, but remember, W-3275 has a lower IPC then the 3990x, so i don't see that being true.

As much as many people don't really like Linus, he essentially already compared the W-3275 processor with a 3970 in his "Apple should have gone AMD", go watch it if you want to see results as i'm not going to link someone elses youtube channel in here. But to put that in perspective, the results you see are a 3970x and 3950x.....not even a 3990x or 3980x, and intels options just can't be justified for their price.

So please don't just "believe" something is there, do your research.

 

While that is true that there are dual CPU workstations with Xeons in them and yes there are Xeons in Workstation based machines. Intel's Xeon W line are for that. Also as @Aura89 has mentioned there is nothing in Intel's line up that can even match the 3990x. Also if you watch Linus' video on the 3990x they even mention Blair Studios who is behind the most recent Terminator movie they rendered it on 3rd gen Threadripper which allowed the editors to get home in time to tuck their children in at night rather than work into the wee hours of the morning. Intel isn't even close to that. Even if you had a dual CPU workstation with 2 of the best Intel xeon W CPUs in it can't even touch the 3990x.

 

@Hilbert Hagedoorn

You may want to test using Windows 10 Pro for Workstations or the Enterprise edition. Ian from Anandtech found a rather large performance difference between Windows 10 Pro and the enterprise edition.

 

@Hilbert Hagedoorn

You have a point but then a 3990X isn't relevant to the vast majority of this reader base in itself. I don't think many readers are paying 4K for a CPU to play games. Anyhow just wanted to let you know about what was found.

I have yet to see someone who has tested to show where the Windows 10 Pro for Workstations or the Enterprise editions pull ahead of the plain Windows 10 versions. I assume its somewhere above 16 cores but Ian certainly showed greater than 64 cores it makes a pretty large difference.

 

delete

 

Now TomsHarwdare is saying Anandtech was testing with an old version of Windows Pro. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-threadripper-3990x-performance-windows-10-enterprise

 

some nvidia users have noted that 18362 is significantly slower than 18363 in gaming for the 3970 and 3990, so thats something to keep in mind.

 

Significantly? like 3% or more?

 

i disagree about the 3990X not being relevant.
This is not a gaming - pc website, this has always been a tech enthusiast place and games are a large part of it.
Gaming is what moved and moves the pc industry a lot and so here is what we mostly talk about, the fact that mostly no one will spend 4k for a cpu does not matter much since most readers would not even spend 1500 on the latest geforce, but the review is always welcome.

With this logic in mind all the tests around web, data compression, rendering, would be not meaningful.

 

the difference between unplayable and performs where it should.

 

unplayable sounds like a big bug. Is that something related to nvidia only? or amd too? Maybe something related to their thread optimization in drivers?

 

AMD doesn't do multithreaded drivers, so probably nvidia only.

 

As far as the ram "limitation" i wouldn't say thats the case, its the offical maximum "supported" configuration ,and there are no 64gb udimm sticks yet afaik. As with many times in the past, the maximum is inline with what is available at the time, rather than what is physcially possible, Im sure we will see this change once higher density ics become available, would be nice if amd would support Rdimms, but it is a desktop plaform so not really unexpected.

 

aye, nahalem and westmere were specced to 24GB's max but go up to 48GB

 

That's what I run on my X58 Asus P6T 48GB of RAM with X5670 for while, previously I have run on X58 40GB of RAM

But back to 3990X, I wouldn't be surprised if someone can able to run more than 512GB

Great CPU for rendering for sure, would love to test this CPU in rendering in V-RAY or Corona

Hope this helps

Thanks, Jura

 

I think you misunderstood. Hilbert was arguing a $300 Microsoft OS "Windows 10 Pro for Workstations" was not relevant then Im saying a processor that cost 4K is also is not relevant by the same logic. Anyhow it's a mute point as Anandtech messed up there testing using an older version of Windows 10 Pro so It was not windows scheduler tweaks in higher sku OS'es but instead a failure to patch.