AMD Threadripper 3990X 64 core CPU reviews are out

Overkill for 99% of us, as most desktop apps simply cannot use >64 threads. The 32core is likely the best fit/value for non-server/non-virtual machine work.
 
I am very interested in the 3990X's I have a number of dual socket 2620's that need to go and these would crush it at a fraction of the cost. Just need to either convince accounting to let me custom build them or see who I need to blow at dell to get it in the workstation lineup faster.
 
i'm disappointed in the lack luster review kits for the 3990X. Really weak compared to the 2990WX



Meeho
 
Last edited:
Oh, it's only $4,000...cool cool...

EDIT: Before all the replies, I'm sure that's a good price for the performance or whatever...just not going to be something I'm interested in.
 
64c/128t being stuck with maximum of 256GB of memory really limits the options where 3990x could shine.
 
Hothardware got it to pull 953 Watts OC'd!
Full system pulled 416Watts at stock...That's 537 added wattage!
 
Isn't the limit 512GB?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review has it listed as 512GB max. I don't know if you can easily find 64GB modules yet though.

Since it doesn't support RDIMM or LRDIMM, 256GB is basically the maximum until 64GB sticks of UDIMM becomes available. But using a workload that demands 512GB or more RAM not using RDIMM is unthinkable.
AMD probably did that so it doesn't eat away potential EPYC sales, but it really limits 3990x on workloads where 64 cores really shine by handicapping maximum memory config.
 
Since it doesn't support RDIMM or LRDIMM, 256GB is basically the maximum until 64GB sticks of UDIMM becomes available. But using a workload that demands 512GB or more RAM not using RDIMM is unthinkable.
AMD probably did that so it doesn't eat away potential EPYC sales, but it really limits 3990x on workloads where 64 cores really shine by handicapping maximum memory config.
I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I remember X99 had unofficial support for RDIMMS. Depends on a case by case basis though. I remember some posts here of users getting some 64gb dimms and I believe even 128gb dimms working on Asrock boards.

I bet there are some boards that do support greater than 256gb DDR4. Would make for a fun project no doubt
 
I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I remember X99 had unofficial support for RDIMMS. Depends on a case by case basis though. I remember some posts here of users getting some 64gb dimms and I believe even 128gb dimms working on Asrock boards.

I bet there are some boards that do support greater than 256gb DDR4. Would make for a fun project no doubt
Nick at Asrock was using lrdimms on their X299 refresh board with a regular chip, I guess it depends on the bios at least for X299.
 
Windows 10 Pro is unable to handle more than 64 threads correctly, Win 10 Enterprise required to unlock full potential. 64/64 also, not surprisingly, fares much better for some programs:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review/3
114633.png
 
Isn't the limit 512GB?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review has it listed as 512GB max. I don't know if you can easily find 64GB modules yet though.

I've been wondering this myself. I've seen conflicting numbers in reviews and I noticed that AMD no longer lists the max RAM on their site. Makes me wonder if there's some fudgery going on.

A 256GB limit would be pretty disappointing as that brings it even to Intel. 512GB would be much better, but not if the system starts running into issues managing it (akin to LTT's issues with their 24-drive NVMe array).
 
I've been wondering this myself. I've seen conflicting numbers in reviews and I noticed that AMD no longer lists the max RAM on their site. Makes me wonder if there's some fudgery going on.

A 256GB limit would be pretty disappointing as that brings it even to Intel. 512GB would be much better, but not if the system starts running into issues managing it (akin to LTT's issues with their 24-drive NVMe array).
Apple did it lol
https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC...oJ33PLeSuWfbirhcqahoC2YcQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
 
I've been wondering this myself. I've seen conflicting numbers in reviews and I noticed that AMD no longer lists the max RAM on their site. Makes me wonder if there's some fudgery going on.

A 256GB limit would be pretty disappointing as that brings it even to Intel. 512GB would be much better, but not if the system starts running into issues managing it (akin to LTT's issues with their 24-drive NVMe array).

As far as I know, no 64gb udimms exist.

That said the factual limit is 256 (until 64gb udimms are released, if they get released) unless amd releases a bios that changes rd ram support.

According to all the mobo manufacturer's website none of the trx40 mobo's support rd dimms (at least the ones I checked, asrock, asus, gigabyte, msi).
 
Rdimm support would cannabalize EPYC space. There's a limited market for $4k processors, even in the enthusiast realm. It exists, to be sure, but it's limited. I don't see wanting to let threadripper get out of its lane - and into EPYC's.
 
The 256GB practical memory cap pretty much explains why the new Mac Pro isn't using a Threadripper. There are numerous pro-level tasks where having gobs of memory matters more than core count. And before you ask: Epyc's clock boosting doesn't behave the way Threadripper's does, so it's not as effective as it could be for workstation use.
 
Rdimm support would cannabalize EPYC space. There's a limited market for $4k processors, even in the enthusiast realm. It exists, to be sure, but it's limited. I don't see wanting to let threadripper get out of its lane - and into EPYC's.

Oh I agree. I'd make a threadripper for the professional workstation. I'd market it under the Epyc brand and support rd ram (aka single xeon processor workstations). Decide if it needs to support the full memory channel width. The final thing is charge as much as they do for Epyc's.

Does a market exist for it, probably. Is it big enough, no idea. Bigger question - do they have the capacity/chips.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, no 64gb udimms exist.

That said the factual limit is 256 (until 64gb udimms are released, if they get released) unless amd releases a bios that changes rd ram support.

According to all the mobo manufacturer's website none of the trx40 mobo's support rd dimms (at least the ones I checked, asrock, asus, gigabyte, msi).

Looks like LTT has the same assessment. They list the max RAM as both a "theoretical limit" (2TB) and a "Max" (256GB via 8x 32GB UDIMMs).
 
Overkill for 99% of us, as most desktop apps simply cannot use >64 threads. The 32core is likely the best fit/value for non-server/non-virtual machine work.

8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!
 
8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!

Then again, for the higher end video editing that requires 64-cores, 3990x will suffer from current RAM limit of 256GB. I think Linus mentioned that on his 3990x review.
 
8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!

If 8 core is overkill, then 64 must be an ultra kill. You like the sound of that
 
8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!
Ah. I thought the "4-cores is enough for anything ever" voice had subsided. I see it lingers.
 
still true in 2020, tell me how 99% of computer users need more than 8 cores for web browsing, office, and simple day to day usage? You could argue a 4 core is still enough, they do not. We on [H] are not the 99% of computer users out there.
4 cores are more than enough for anything that doesn't use parallel data processing in an office environment. Photoshop and video editing can benefit from extra cores, but that's only up to a point as well. I'm writing this sitting in an office in front of a i7-4770. And I can tell you that the 4770 doesn't perform any worse running cad software (heck it might even be better thanks to it still running W7) than the 7900x next to me with 2.5x the cores.
 
still true in 2020, tell me how 99% of computer users need more than 8 cores for web browsing, office, and simple day to day usage? You could argue a 4 core is still enough, they do not. We on [H] are not the 99% of computer users out there.

4C/8T is still more than enough for most users. Personally I run 12C/24T and love the fact that I can have a program crash and use up 100% of one core and still run 3 x VM's and don't even notice I'm doing it considering my daily usage tasks.
 
4C/8T is still more than enough for most users. Personally I run 12C/24T and love the fact that I can have a program crash and use up 100% of one core and still run 3 x VM's and don't even notice I'm doing it considering my daily usage tasks.
I love having that piece of mind...
 
still true in 2020, tell me how 99% of computer users need more than 8 cores for web browsing, office, and simple day to day usage? You could argue a 4 core is still enough, they do not. We on [H] are not the 99% of computer users out there.
99% of users hardly need more than 2 cores if we're being honest. It's kind of a moot point.
 
99% of users doing 99% of things don't need a computer at all - they can do those things just as well if not better via tablet and phone.

Heck, my machine doesn't even turn on any of the radiator fans if it isn't running a game or a compute. The two case fans will spin up to ~150rpm for about 3 seconds once every hour, but that's about it.
 
A lot of us don't like phones/tablets because they have tiny screens and crappy input devices. I also don't need to be carrying a phone/tablet everywhere I go. I use a tablet if I'm flying somewhere and use a phone as a phone and not as an access method to social media platforms. Does that put me in the 1%?

99% of users doing 99% of things don't need a computer at all - they can do those things just as well if not better via tablet and phone.

Heck, my machine doesn't even turn on any of the radiator fans if it isn't running a game or a compute. The two case fans will spin up to ~150rpm for about 3 seconds once every hour, but that's about it.
 
A lot of us don't like phones/tablets because they have tiny screens and crappy input devices. I also don't need to be carrying a phone/tablet everywhere I go. I use a tablet if I'm flying somewhere and use a phone as a phone and not as an access method to social media platforms. Does that put me in the 1%?

My Samsung S5e with keyboard folio and DeX mode is one of my most used devices...

I can even SSH into servers via terminal when I need to.
 
Back
Top