The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and 3970X Review: 24 and 32 Cores on 7nm
by Dr. Ian Cutress, Andrei Frumusanu & Gavin Bonshor on November 25, 2019 9:05 AM ESTConclusion: History is Written By The Victors
I have never used the word ‘bloodbath’ in a review before. It seems messy, violent, and a little bit gruesome. But when we look at the results from the new AMD Threadripper processors, it seems more than appropriate.
When collating the data together from our testing, I found it amusing that when we start comparing the high-end desktop processors, any part that was mightily impressive in the consumer space suddenly sits somewhere in the middle or back, holding its lunch money tightly. While the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X and the 8-core Intel i9-9900KS enjoy a lot fun in the consumer space, when Threadripper rolls up, they are decidedly outclassed in performance.
AMD has scored wins across almost all of our benchmark suite. In anything embarrassingly parallel it rules the roost by a large margin (except for our one AVX-512 benchmark). Single threaded performance trails the high-frequency mainstream parts, but it is still very close. Even in memory sensitive workloads, an issue for the previous generation Threadripper parts, the new chiplet design has pushed performance to the next level. These new Threadripper processors win on core count, on high IPC, on high frequency, and on fast memory.
Is the HEDT Market Price Sensitive?
There are two areas where AMD will be questioned upon. First is the power, and why 280 W for the TDP? Truth be told, these are some of the most efficient desktop cores we have seen; it's just that AMD has piled a lot of them into a single processor. The other question is price.
Where Intel has retreated from the $2000 market, pushing its 18-core CPU back to $979, AMD has leapfrogged into that $1999 space with the 32-core and $1399 with the 24-core. This is the sort of price competition we have desperately needed in this space, although I have seen some commentary that AMD’s pricing is too high. The same criticism was leveled at Intel for the past couple of generations as well.
Now the HEDT market is a tricky one to judge. As one might expect, overall sales numbers aren’t on the level of the standard consumer volumes. Still, Intel has reported that the workstation market has a potential $10B a year addressable market, so it is still worth pursuing. While I have no direct quotes or data, I remember being told for several generations that Intel’s best-selling HEDT processors were always the highest core count, highest performance parts that money could buy. These users wanted off-the-shelf hardware, and were willing to pay for it – they just weren’t willing to pay for enterprise features. I was told that this didn’t necessarily follow when Intel pushed for 10 cores to $1979, when 8 cores were $999, but when $1979 became 18 cores, a segment of the market pushed for it. Now that we can get better performance at $1999 with 32 cores, assuming AMD can keep stock of the hardware, it stands to reason that this market will pick up interest again.
There is the issue of the new chipset, and TRX40 motherboards. Ultimately it is a slight negative that AMD has had to change chipsets and there’s no backwards compatibility. For that restriction though, we see an effective quadrupling of CPU-to-chipset bandwidth, and we’re going to see a wide range of motherboards with different controllers and support. There seems to be a good variation, even in the initial 12 motherboards coming to the market, with the potential for some of these companies to offer something off-the-wall and different. Motherboard pricing is likely to be high, with the most expensive initial motherboard, the GIGABYTE TRX40 Aorus Extreme, to be $849. Filling it up with memory afterwards won’t be cheap, either. But this does give a wide range of variation.
One of the key messages I’ve been saying this year is that AMD wants to attack the workstation market en mass. These new Threadripper processors do just that.
The Final Word
If you had told me three years ago that AMD were going to be ruling the roost in the HEDT market with high-performance 32-core processors on a leading-edge manufacturing node, I would have told you to lay off the heavy stuff. But here we are, and AMD isn’t done yet, teasing a 64-core version for next year. This is a crazy time we live in, and I’m glad to be a part of it.
AMD Third Generation Ryzen Threadripper
Price no object, the new Threadripper processors are breathing new life into the high-end desktop market. AMD is going to have to work hard to top this one. Intel is going to have to have a shift its design strategy to compete.
Many thanks to Gavin Bonshor for running the benchmarks, and Andrei Frumusanu for the memory analysis.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
245 Comments
View All Comments
mkaibear - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel had revenue of 19.2bn last quarter. The highest it's ever been for them.https://www.anandtech.com/show/15030/intel-announc...
Claiming that Intel is destroyed is laughable.
They're hurting at the moment, but then they were hurting in the Athlon era as well... and that didn't go so badly for them in the end.
For reference, AMDs revenue for the same period was 1.8bn. yes, Intel, despite all their problems, earned *ten times* what AMD did.
(Reference: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15045/amd-q3-fy-201...
Claiming Intel are destroyed is just fanboyism at its worst.
Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Unless Intel can get something out sooner rather than later, people are migrating to AMD because they are pushing things forward. 64 cores of Epyc fury is hitting them in the Server Space, which is where Intel is most scared of. They don't care that you or I buy an Intel chip or an AMD one, they care if Microsoft or Apple buys either or.Intel isn't destroyed, but they will be hurting for a while, as AMD is showing no signs of slowing down, and Intel has to beat what AMD makes next, not AMD today.
mkaibear - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Again, Intel have record earnings this last quarter. As in over the last 3 months. As in after two years of AMD kicking their backside in the server space they're still making record amounts of revenue.Intel aren't stupid, they're one of the most ruthless companies in the sector. They can throw five times as much as AMD's *total profit* in R&D and still make five times as much profit as AMD does.
Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Record breaking earnings mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.For as much as you gloat about Intel's RND, AMD is the one who's on top in 2 of the 4 markets (Laptops, Desktops, HEDT and Servers), some would argue 3. Doesn't matter how much money you can throw at a problem, it matters if you can solve it. AMD solved the problem, Intel hasn't, and it's a frantic state at Intel to make something happen, either get 10nm working better or changing their uArch in 14nm.
Right now, the only reason to consider a XEON over an Epyc would be for AVX-512 only workloads. Because otherwise, ServerTheHome has shown that Epyc dominates, especially the 7742 64 core part.
SwackandSwalls - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Those record breaking earnings (i.e. capital) mean a lot, and saying otherwise displays a large and intentional ignorance on how important capital is to the microprocessor industry. Intel can use that money to hire more both hardware and software talent, fund more research, build more fabs, outspend AMD in marketing, and on and on. If Intel had huge cash reserves but was putting up large losses every quarter then I'd be on board with your "grand scheme of things" comment. In reality they are massively profitable, selling more 14nm chips than they can produce, and have enough cash to not only learn from AMD's successes but also invest in following suit.Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Again, Hire all you want, throw as much money as you want. That doesn't matter if there's no results.AMD with literally tenths of Intel's funding can beat them, and have found better ways to make processors to increase core counts without sacrificing efficiency. Intel also needs to spend a lot of money on researching the node itself, AMD doesn't, so not all of Intel's RnD goes to making the CPU, lots of it goes into making the node itself.
So while Intel may make more, they have to spend way more, especially since CPUs aren't the only thing Intel makes (They make flash chips, 3D XPoint, Networking chipsets, and many other products, all vying for that sweet RND cash)
So while Intel makes more, they also spend more. Revenue is a great figure to look at on paper, but it doesn't amount to anything unless the spending is done wisely. AMD surely has shown that it doesn't take Intel levels of cash to become a market leader and capitalize on someone who's grown complacent.
milkywayer - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
"record breaking numbers mean a lot".So what happened then, why is AMDs offering more power and cost efficient at a much much lower price?
Korguz - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
mkaibear/SwackandSwalls, and point is ?? intel has all that money, yet.. been milking the SAME architecture for how many years ? as Xyler94 already said.. to keep throwing money at a problem, and it STILL doesnt get fixed, is NOT a good thing. AMD may not have the money that your beloved intel does, but guess what, they have been able to do MORE with what they do have, so tell me who is spending wiser ?? also.. how much of that 19.2 billion has intel had to dump into their fabs??imaheadcase - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I really hope you are not comparing Intell vs amd based on a just a CPU..that is illogical.TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel isn't "hurting" now... Desktop processors are not what most people want.