AMD Threadripper 3990X 64 core CPU reviews are out

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,747
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.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,025
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.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
4,616
i'm disappointed in the lack luster review kits for the 3990X. Really weak compared to the 2990WX


Meeho
 
Last edited:

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
29,331
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.
 

JasonLD

n00b
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Messages
12
64c/128t being stuck with maximum of 256GB of memory really limits the options where 3990x could shine.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
540
Hothardware got it to pull 953 Watts OC'd!
Full system pulled 416Watts at stock...That's 537 added wattage!
 

JasonLD

n00b
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Messages
12
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.
 

Neapolitan6th

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
1,088
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
 

D-EJ915

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,134
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.
 

Thunderdolt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
510
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).
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
4,293
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
 

thecold

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
407
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).
 

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,290
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.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
2,648
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.
 

thecold

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
407
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:

Thunderdolt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
510
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).
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,225
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!
 

JasonLD

n00b
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Messages
12
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.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,807
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
 

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,290
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.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,445
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.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,590
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.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
540
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...
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
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.
 

Thunderdolt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
510
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.
 

mlcarson

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
335
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.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,590
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.
 
Top