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
Reflex - Saturday, February 8, 2020 - link
That's not really the main bottleneck these days, I can fully saturate all 8 cores/16 threads on my existing Ryzen with jobs in Handbrake. That means the CPU is still the main bottleneck. That still seems to be the case even at 64/128, so again it's not I/O or disk although those do need improvement for other tasks.PCIe 5 is on the way and will help. Faster forms of storage memory are coming, Optane and so on even if its happening in fits and starts. Intel and AMD don't own that, and can only take responsibility for the parts they do own, primarily the CPU and chipset, and both are doing well there (especially AMD lately).
HStewart - Sunday, February 9, 2020 - link
Still even with PCIe 5, I believe the application has single access to storage device.Handbrake is pure example of this one you missing the IO of reading the Optical drive in that case.
A simple search on Internet including Handbreak forums shows that Handle does not handle more 6 cores correctly.
Reflex - Sunday, February 9, 2020 - link
Uh, again I'm saturating all 8 cores and 16 threads. I have friends using Threadrippers to saturate far more cores than that. Handbrake goes beyond six cores easily.And who gives a damn about the IO of an optical drive? Who is using optical drives for this type of work? Do you even know how this software works and what its for? I'm working on large encoded files sitting on SSD's and encoding them in a target format. There is literally no I/O bottleneck there, most of the work is on the CPU, not the drive itself where I simply need to be able to read the start state and write the results as fast as the CPU can do the encoding.
Seriously, there are a ton of workloads that aren't I/O limited, in fact most are not.
Korguz - Monday, February 10, 2020 - link
reflex.. just give up.. hstewart will keep trying to argue his point has being right, while not having any tangible proof other then his own words.HStewart - Saturday, February 8, 2020 - link
This question is not in specific response to this cpu - but in general when more cores are added to system.Korguz - Saturday, February 8, 2020 - link
so that would also include intel systems, right ? hstewart ?Xyler94 - Monday, February 10, 2020 - link
No, Intel has the ultra super special *Insert random CPU extension* that mitigates any and all bad from adding more cores. Gosh, can't you tell?DannyH246 - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
So a 4k chip absolutely obliterates 20k's worth of chips from Intel, yet apparently it's overpriced. LOLOLOL Intel and their fanboys are funny.dwade123 - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
This tard is a good example of what a blind fanboy looks like. Only hyping and not buying, whereas actual potential TR buyers got priced out of the game by AMD. X399 owners are forced to migrate to peasant AM4 due to high prices lolIrata - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
It appears you made a typo when you tried to post on wccftech.