The 64 Core Threadripper 3990X CPU Review: In The Midst Of Chaos, AMD Seeks Opportunity
by Dr. Ian Cutress & Gavin Bonshor on February 7, 2020 9:00 AM ESTAMD 3990X Against $20k Enterprise CPUs
For those looking at a server replacement CPU, AMD’s big discussion point here is that in order to get 64 cores on Intel hardware is relatively hard. The best way to get there is with a dual socket system, featuring two of its 28-core dies at a hefty $10k a piece. AMD’s argument is that users can consolidate down to a single socket, but also have better memory support, PCIe 4.0, and no cross-memory domain issues.
| AMD 3990X Enterprise Competition | |||
| AnandTech | AMD 3990X |
AMD 7702P |
Intel 2x8280 |
| SEP | $3990 | $4450 | $20018 |
| Cores/Threads | 64 / 128 | 64 / 128 | 56 / 112 |
| Base Frequency | 2900 | 2000 | 2700 |
| Turbo Frequency | 4300 | 3350 | 4000 |
| PCIe | 4.0 x64 | 4.0 x128 | 3.0 x96 |
| DDR4 Frequency | 4x 3200 | 8x 3200 | 12x 2933 |
| Max DDR4 Capacity | 512 GB | 2 TB | 3 TB |
| TDP | 280 W | 200 W | 410 W |
Unfortunately I was unable to get ahold of our Rome CPUs from Johan in time for this review, however I do have data from several dual Intel Xeon setups that I did a few months ago, including the $20k system.
This time with Corona the competition is hot on the heels of AMD's 64-core CPUs, but even $20k of hardware can't match it.
The non-AVX verson of 3DPM puts the Zen 2 hardware out front, with everything else waiting in the wings.
When we add in the AVX-512 hand tuned code, the situation flips: Intel's 56 cores get almost 2.5x the score of AMD, despite having fewer cores.
Blender doesn't seem to like the additional access latency from the 2P systems.
For AES encoding, as the benchmark takes places from memory, it appears that none of Intel's CPUs can match AMD here.
For the 7-zip combined test, there's little difference between AMD's 32-core and 64-core, but there are sizable jumps above Intel hardware.
Verdict
In our tests here (more in our benchmark database), AMD's 3990X would get the crown over Intel's dual socket offerings. The only thing really keeping me back from giving it is the same reason there was hesitation on the previous page: it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself from AMD's own 32-core CPU. Where AMD does win is in that 'money is less of an issue scenario', where using a single socket 64 core CPU can help consolidate systems, save power, and save money. Intel's CPUs have a TDP of 205W each (more if you decide to use the turbo, which we did here), which totals 410W, while AMD maxed out at 280W in our tests. Technically Intel's 2P has access to more PCIe lanes, but AMD's PCIe lanes are PCIe 4.0, not PCIe 3.0, and with the right switch can power many more than Intel (if you're saving 16k, then a switch is peanuts).
We acknowledge that our tests here aren't in any way a comprehensive test of server level workloads, but for the user base that AMD is aiming for, we'd take the 64 core (or even the 32 core) in most circumstances over two Intel 28 core CPUs, and spend the extra money on memory, storage, or a couple of big fat GPUs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
279 Comments
View All Comments
ZoZo - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
If not for Intel, they would probably also cost at least $1000. It takes 2 for competition.eva02langley - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
Once again software developers are late to the game. MS really needs to upper their game with their OS division because one day, they will lose that monopoly for good. If it was not for the gaming industry, Windows would probably not be where it is today.extide - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
I mean you can clearly see that Windows supports it just fine -- you just have to go for the Workstation/Enterprise version. It's not like Windows itself is totally behind the times.Kevin G - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
The hard work is indeed done but not configured for the more mundane version of Windows where this certainly fits into the established licensing models: this is a single socket system and NUMA is not necessary here. A simple patch would fix things here.Then again as this article points out, MS didn't fix that a Xeon Phi 72xx with up 288 threads would appear as a five socket system. I would imagine that such a workstation too would have benefited from applications recognizing that it could have a single NUMA node (this was configurable in hardware).
drothgery - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
And some quick googling shows Win 10 Pro Worksation is less than 10% of the cost of this CPU alone, so it's not like it'd be a big deal to anyone who actually bought one.Thanny - Saturday, February 8, 2020 - link
The Windows kernel is still badly broken when it comes to complicated NUMA scheduling. That's why the 2970WX, 2990WX, and all first-gen EPYC chips (with four dies) perform relatively badly under Windows, but quite well under Linux.The 64-thread limitation is quite mild compared to that problem.
FunBunny2 - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
"If it was not for the gaming industry, Windows would probably not be where it is today."not in corporate, it's Office.
Makaveli - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
Was just going to post this. I know everyone is all over Gaming and RGB. however that means nothing in the enterprise market.Microsoft get more revenue from office alone than probably the whole Xbox division and anything they get on the PC gaming side.
duvjones - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
To be fair, a chip like this is not something that Mircosoft could predict coming in the x64 space. Which is what it giving Linux (and really any POSIX system) it's advantage, this kind of power and core count use to be reserved for the academic corners of high-end computing about 15-20 years ago.... Where Windows simply doesn't apply.They manage now, but... Mircosoft's is only making do with a workaround. They will have to address it at some point, the question is when.
Whiteknight2020 - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
Yeah, because Windows server only supports 64 sockets and unlimited cores.....