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
HikariWS - Thursday, February 13, 2020 - link
Still, I'm worried with AMD.Increase clock has been much harder than increase core count. AMD is very aggressive on core count, yes, but has been struggling on clock.
9900KS is Intel's top notch on this regard. I can assure from personal tests how awesome it is. It idles @ 45º in a Noctua D15S. With Prime95, goes to 80º and holds 5GHz All Core for a few minutes before dropping to 4GHz and holds that undefinitely.
In real world use, specially gaming and 4K playback, it's able to hold 5GHz undefinitely, I haven't seen its Turbo juice depleat not even once! For anybody who doesn't need more than 8C/16T and benefits more from serial processing, it's the best of the best, and I doubt Comet Lake will bring a competitor to it.
Intel has been increasing cores in response to Intel, and with exceptions they have been winning in overall performance against AMD CPUs with more core count.
In the future years we'll face algorithms struggle to scale in parallelism. Most softwares don't benefit from more than 4 or 8 threads, and be allocated to a virtual HT core just reduces opportunity to perform better. When we reach software optimization limits, increasing core count won't benefit users anymore, and we'll face increased demand for serial power.
Then we go for microarchitecture. AMD are on their brand new one, while litography issues is holding Intel from widely distribute their Sunny Cove, and they are close to finishing their Willow Cove. When Intel finish their 7nm, they will have 2 more powerful microarchitectures to bring to desktop and server market, while AMD is working on their future one.
Summing that up, I believe in a few years Intel will have consistent performance growth over their generations, while AMD will start struggling.
kuraegomon - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - link
Oh dear. Intel shill confirmed. What makes me so confident? "Most softwares don't benefit from more than 4 or 8 threads" - anyone who makes that statement in 2020 with the implication that it's a forward-looking statement is clearly being disingenuous.Logic28 - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link
This statement...Increase clock has been much harder than increase core count. AMD is very aggressive on core count, yes, but has been struggling on clock.
Frankly is flat out wrong. Yea, a year and half ago you would be fine to say this. But along the entire consumer and pro-sumer line up, AMD destroys Intel, and the Ryzen 3950x has destroyed the single thread count speeds across the entire internet, except I guess in some fan boy universe where they still want to bow down and befriend the Goliath even when it is clearly getting beaten badly by David.
Look at the actually stats, at each price point AMD cpus are beating intel's at single core, multicore, benchmarks on games, video editing, rendering, bloody compiling, they just are.
So your statement is flat out a fabrication...
clsmithj - Thursday, February 13, 2020 - link
Should added Linux to the benchmark graph comparisonalysdexia - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link
Stop sayan performance when you mean speed.won't -> shan't
alysdexia - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link
128 cores -> 128 threadsalysdexia - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link
data has -> datum hasalysdexia - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link
balance -> proportion; fast:free -> swift:slow; will -> shall; issues -> problems; shouldn't -> ouhtn't; more cores -> feler coresAMDsucksFor3Drendering - Thursday, December 31, 2020 - link
OMG amd and microsoft are hurting 3d users who bought this useless procesor. I have two 3990x procesor trying to work with 3ds max and vray and I cannot use the whole proccesor. Where is the solution to this problem?