Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180PassMark multi-core score:31232N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

40%

7.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 72% of processors
8.0

Value for money

Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–²Better than 86%
7.4

Technical score

Technical score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 75%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £180
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading...
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

Technical score
Technical score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components:

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.4
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

8.0
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450
This processor supports X570, B550, A520, X470, B450 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 68.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 67.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 89.7% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.3 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.3 GHz which is lower than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
12x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 12x3.1 GHz which is higher than that of 90% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,232
This processor scores 31,232 in PassMark, which is higher than 87.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
64 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
6 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 6 MB which is larger than that of 65.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
L1 cache
768 KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 768 KB which is larger than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.72x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,232 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,232 vs 11,469
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 2.25x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,321 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,321 vs 2,804.5
  • 75.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,122 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,122 vs 5,209
  • 7.11x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    64 MB vs 9 MB
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 9.8% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 has better value for money than the average processor (8 vs 7.3).
    8 vs 7.29
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 2.72x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,232 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,232 vs 11,469
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 2.25x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,321 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,321 vs 2,804.5
  • 75.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,122 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,122 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 7.11x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    64 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2.88x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (5.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    5.33 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Matisse vs Kaby Lake).
    Matisse vs Kaby Lake
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (768 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    768 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    6 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

  • High core and thread count (12C/24T) provides excellent multi-threaded performance for rendering and video editing.
  • Superior power efficiency with a 65W TDP, making it ideal for small form factor (SFF) builds.
  • Strong performance-per-watt metrics compared to higher-wattage counterparts like the 3900X.
  • Includes professional-grade security features such as AMD Memory Guard and Secure Boot.
  • Supports PCIe 4.0 for faster data transfer speeds with compatible NVMe SSDs and GPUs.
  • Overclocks well, often reaching performance levels similar to the 3900X when power limits are removed.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

  • Lower base and boost clock speeds (3.1 GHz / 4.3 GHz) compared to the retail 3900X model.
  • Limited retail availability as it was primarily intended for system integrators and OEMs.
  • Single-core performance and 1080p gaming speeds trail slightly behind Intel competitors and newer Ryzen generations.
  • Lacks integrated graphics, necessitating a dedicated GPU for any display output.
  • Actual power draw under heavy load can exceed the 65W rating, reaching closer to 90W.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is a high-performance 12-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on a 7nm Zen 2 architecture, primarily designed for professional OEM and business environments. It features a 3.1 GHz base clock, a 4.3 GHz boost clock, a massive 64MB L3 cache, and support for PCIe 4.0 and DDR4-3200 memory. Its primary advantages include exceptional multi-threaded performance for content creation, enterprise-grade security features like AMD Memory Guard, and a highly efficient 65W TDP that allows for cool and quiet operation in compact systems. However, it lacks integrated graphics, is generally unavailable as a standalone retail product for DIY builders, and has lower clock speeds and single-core performance compared to its 105W counterpart, the 3900X.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and other processors

No results found