Hands-on with AMD’s 32-core, 64-thread Threadripper 3970x

  • This is AMD’s Threadripper 3970x, mounted on an ASUS ROG Zenith II Extreme board, with an NZXT Kraken X62 fluid cooler and Corsair Dominator Platinum RAM.
    Jim Salter
  • As soon as the Threadripper 3970x system powers on, 280mm of cooling fans spin up to “leafblower mode.”
    Jim Salter
  • If you like bling, Asus’ ROG Zenith II Extreme is the board for you. Pictured here: an on-mobo display that usually shows you the CPU temperature. (It rotates through “ROG,” “ZENITH II,” and “EXTREME” when the system power is off.)
    Jim Salter
  • This is what our TR3970x test system looks like in a dark room… when it’s powered off.
    Jim Salter
  • We aren’t big fans of bling, but we have to admit to getting some guilty pleasure out of watching the Kraken x62’s LED rings slowly spinning around.
    Jim Salter

AMD’s new 32-core/64-thread Threadripper 3970x continues AMD’s 2019 trend of sweeping the field in desktop and server processors. In recent weeks, Ars has tested Threadripper head to head versus Intel’s top-of-the-line i9-10980XE High End Desktop (HEDT) CPU, as well as its i9-9900KS gaming CPU. To nobody’s surprise, the Threadripper is faster—a lot faster—than either, although with some caveats.

Power

When comparing the rest of the Ryzen 3000 line to Intel’s 2019 desktop CPU lineup, one of the standout metrics is thermal design power (TDP). Non-threadripper Ryzen 3000 CPUs meet or beat the Intel desktop lineup on performance and TDP, which means quieter, cooler systems that don’t cost as much to keep running. All that changes once you leave the “normal” desktop line and go Threadripper. With Threadripper, AMD is clearly far more concerned with raw power than niceties like running quiet or cool.

  • Threadripper 3970x is a big, hungry beast. If you don’t have system loads that demand that much power, you’re pouring money into the power company’s pocket.
    Jim Salter
  • The difference between Precision Boost Overdrive and default clock settings is almost nonexistent in this Cinebench R20 screenshot—but the power draw shot up from 403W to 472W, just like it did under Passmark.
    Jim Salter
  • We weren’t kidding about the power draw with Precision Boost Overdrive enabled. Read it and weep—or gleefully warm your hands over it. We won’t judge.
    Jim Salter

The above chart shows the whole system power draw as measured by a Kill-a-Watt power meter. Power draw was tested at minimum shown idling for one minute at the Windows 10 desktop and maximum during Passmark all-core CPU benchmarking.

Just for fun, we also did a little testing of the Threadripper with Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) automatic overclocking enabled. The difference between default and PBO boosted clocks is more clear at the power meter than it is in the benchmarks themselves. Maximum power draw shoots up by about 20-25% with PBO enabled, but the actual performance hardly changed in most benchmarks.

Performance

  • Threadripper vs Intel on Passmark all-cores testing is a mismatch—like taking your Camaro SS to the 1/4 mile strip and pulling up next to a funnycar.
    Jim Salter
  • In Cinebench R20 tests, the Threadripper 3970x doesn’t just beat HEDT parts—it eked out a win vs Intel’s $7,200 24c/48t Xeon Platinum 8168, too.
    Jim Salter
  • The value proposition for Threadripper 3970x is clear in this chart, where we divide the R20 score by the cost of each CPU in US dollars.
    Jim Salter
  • Threadripper 3970x narrowly loses out to Intel’s high-end gaming CPU, i9-9900KS—but still handily beats Intel’s i9-10980XE HEDT CPU.
    Jim Salter

Listing image by Jim Salter

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1623115