AMD Threadripper Pro Review: An Upgrade Over Regular Threadripper?
by Dr. Ian Cutress on July 14, 2021 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- ThreadRipper
- Threadripper Pro
- 3995WX
Conclusion
Threadripper Pro is designed to fill a niche in the workstation market. The workstation market has always been a little bit odd in that it wants the power and frequency of a high-end desktop, but the core count, memory support, and IO capabilities of servers. AMD blurred the lines by moving its mainstream desktop platform to 16 cores, but failed to meet memory and IO requirements – Threadripper got part of the way there, going up to 32 cores and then 64 cores with more memory and IO, but it was still limiting in support for things like ECC. That’s where Threadripper Pro comes in.
The whole point of Threadripper Pro is to appeal to those that need the features of EPYC but none of the downsides of potentially lower performance or extended service contracts. EPYC, by and large, has been sold only at the system level, whereas Threadripper Pro can be purchased at retail, and the goal of the product is to be ISV verified for standard workstation applications. In a world without Threadripper Pro, users who want the platform can either get a Threadripper and lament the reduced memory performance and IO, or they could get an EPYC and lament the reduced core performance. Speaking with OEMs, there are some verticals (like visual effects) that requested versions of Threadripper with Pro features, such as remote management, or remote access when WFH with a proper admin security stack. Even though TR Pro fills a niche, it’s still a niche.
In our testing today, we benchmarked all three retail versions of Threadripper Pro in a retail motherboard, and compared them to the Threadripper 3000 series.
AMD Comparison | |||||||
AnandTech | Cores | Base Freq |
Turbo Freq |
Chips | L3 Cache |
TDP | Price SEP |
AMD EPYC (Zen 3, 128 PCIe 4.0, 8 channel DDR4 ECC) | |||||||
7763 (2P) | 64 / 128 | 2450 | 3500 | 8 + 1 | 256 MB | 280 W | $7890 |
7713P | 64 / 128 | 2000 | 3675 | 8 + 1 | 256 MB | 225 W | $5010 |
7543P | 32 / 64 | 2800 | 3700 | 8 + 1 | 256 MB | 225 W | $2730 |
7443P | 24 / 48 | 2850 | 4000 | 4 + 1 | 128 MB | 200 W | $1337 |
7313P | 16 / 32 | 3000 | 3700 | 4 + 1 | 128 MB | 155 W | $913 |
AMD Threadripper Pro (Zen 2, 128 PCIe 4.0, 8 channel DDR4-ECC) | |||||||
3995WX | 64 / 128 | 2700 | 4200 | 8 + 1 | 256 MB | 280 W | $5490 |
3975WX | 32 / 64 | 3500 | 4200 | 4 + 1 | 128 MB | 280 W | $2750 |
3955WX | 16 / 32 | 3900 | 4300 | 2 + 1 | 64 MB | 280 W | $1150 |
3945WX | 12 / 24 | 4000 | 4300 | 2 + 1 | 64 MB | 280 W | OEM |
AMD Threadripper (Zen 2, 64 PCIe 4.0, 4 channel DDR) | |||||||
3990X | 64 / 128 | 2900 | 4300 | 8 + 1 | 256 MB | 280 W | $3990 |
3970X | 32 / 64 | 3700 | 4500 | 4 + 1 | 128 MB | 280 W | $1999 |
3960X | 24 / 48 | 3800 | 4500 | 4 + 1 | 128 MB | 280 W | $1399 |
AMD Ryzen (Zen 3, 20 PCIe 4.0, 2 channel DDR) | |||||||
R9 5950X | 16 / 32 | 3400 | 4900 | 2 + 1 | 64 MB | 105 W | $799 |
Performance between Threadripper Pro and Threadripper came in three stages. Either (a) the results between similar processors was practically identical, (b) Threadripper beat TR Pro by a small margin due to slightly higher frequencies, or (c) TR Pro thrashed Threadripper due to memory bandwidth availability. That last point, (c), only really kicks in for the 32c and 64c processors it should be noted. Our 16c TR Pro had the same memory bandwidth results as TR, most likely due to only having two chiplets in its design.
In the end, that’s what TR Pro is there for – features that Threadripper doesn’t have. If you absolutely need up to 2 TB of eight-channel memory over 256 GB, you need TR Pro. If you absolutely need memory with ECC, then TR Pro has validated support. If you absolutely need 128 lanes of PCIe 4.0 rather than 64, then TR Pro has it. If you absolutely need Pro features, then TR Pro has it.
The price you pay for these Threadripper Pro features is an extra 37.5% over Threadripper. The corollary is that TR Pro is also more expensive than 1P EPYC processors because it has the full 280 W frequency profile, while EPYC 1P is only at 225W/240W. EPYC does have 280 W processors for dual-socket platforms, such as the 7763, but they cost more than TR Pro.
The benefit to EPYC right now is that EPYC Milan uses Zen 3 cores, while Threadripper Pro is using Zen 2 cores. We are patiently waiting for AMD to launch Threadripper versions with Zen 3 – we hoped it would have been at Computex in June, but now we’re not sure exactly when. Even if AMD does launch Threadripper with Zen 3 this year, Threadripper Pro variants might take longer to arrive.
98 Comments
View All Comments
Mikewind Dale - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link
Error reporting is not the same thing as error correction.Error correction without error reporting is still better than most mainstream platforms, which don't even support error correction, let alone reporting.
Mikewind Dale - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link
I just tested ECC error reporting. It worked. Using my motherboard's EZ Overclock utility, I overclocked my DDR4-2666 to 3600. Then, I ran Memtest86 Pro.Within the first 27 seconds, Memtest86 Pro reported 17 "ECC Correctable Errors."
My motherboard is a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi.
My CPU is a Ryzen 7 2700X, non-Pro.
Evidently, ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.
mode_13h - Friday, July 16, 2021 - link
> ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.Definitely not on the non-pro APUs, however.
vegemeister - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link
Since when does non-pro Threadripper lack ECC memory support? ASRock lists ECC support and several ECC kits in the QVL for thier TRX40 Creator motherboard.Perhaps you meant registered memory support?
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link
Is regular TR officially qualified by AMD for ECC? That might matter to some bureaucracies.drAgonear - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link
Yes, that ECC support is validated and advertised is one of the differences between regular Ryzen and "regular TR". The article is just wrong. scroll down a little bit on https://www.amd.com/en/products/ryzen-threadripperMikewind Dale - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link
Also, a lot of Ryzen motherboards support ECC. For example, my Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi says it supports ECC. I have a Ryzen 7 2700X non-Pro with Kingston DDR4-2933 ECC UDIMM, and whenever I query Windows ("wmic memphysical get memoryerrorcorrection") or other programs (e.g. AIDA64, Memtest86, etc.), they all say that I have ECC.Threska - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link
I think "verified" is the important part.Mikewind Dale - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link
I just tested ECC error reporting. It worked. Using my motherboard's EZ Overclock utility, I overclocked my DDR4-2666 to 3600. Then, I ran Memtest86 Pro.Within the first 27 seconds, Memtest86 Pro reported 17 "ECC Correctable Errors."
My motherboard is a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi.
My CPU is a Ryzen 7 2700X, non-Pro.
Evidently, ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.
mode_13h - Friday, July 16, 2021 - link
> ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.Definitely not on the non-pro APUs, however.
(and you can just refer to your above post, rather than repeat the whole thing)