OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark benchmark result:16837N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:sTR4TDP (Thermal design power):180 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1

▲Better than 56% of processors

5.8

▲Better than 53% of processors

8.7

▲Better than 88% of processors

3.9
Gaming
Gaming
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
4.1
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
3.5
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
4.9
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.5
L3 cache
8.0%
4.9
N. of physical cores
5.4
Video editing
Video editing
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
5.0
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
4.9
N. of physical cores
20.0%
8.9
CPU threads
15.0%
2.5
L3 cache

Best prices

Check price

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

#49inBest workstation CPUs

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

6.1

Show more

Hide

Platform

8.5

Show more

Hide

Brand name

AMD

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Show more

Performance

5.5

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Show more

Cache & Architecture

5.9

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

7.9

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

?

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated Graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

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

Power & Thermal

4.2

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

Show more

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X vs the average processor

Why is AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

48 more PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
64
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (64 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
64 vs 16
8 more CPU threads
CPU threads
16
▲ Better than 71% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
16 vs 8
32x more memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
2 TB GB
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (2 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
2 TB vs 64 GB
Unlocked for overclocking
Unlocked multiplier
yes
▲ Better than 78% of models
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
Higher base clock
CPU base clock speed
8 x 3.8 GHz
▲ Better than 85% of models
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
8x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
59.3% higher PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
16,837
▲ Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (16,837 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
16,837 vs 10,572.5
32 °C lower CPU temperature
CPU temperature
68 °C
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (68 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
68 °C vs 100 °C
86.2% higher memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
85.3 GB/s
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (85.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
85.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s

8.11x more popular
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is more popular than the average processor (8.11 vs 1).
8.11 vs 1
9.2% higher user score
User score
8.7/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
the average processor
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has a higher user score than the average processor (8.73 vs 8.000).
8.73 vs 8

Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET, SME, SEV
▲ Better than 77% of models
This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
Higher-end processor class
Processor type
workstation
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
workstation vs mobile
Broader instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
▲ Better than 80% of models
This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
sTR4
▲ Better than 60% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sTR4 vs FP4).
sTR4 vs FP4

8 more CPU threads
CPU threads
16
▲ Better than 71% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
16 vs 8
Unlocked for overclocking
Unlocked multiplier
yes
▲ Better than 78% of models
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
Higher base clock
CPU base clock speed
8 x 3.8 GHz
▲ Better than 85% of models
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
8x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
59.3% higher PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
16,837
▲ Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (16,837 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
16,837 vs 10,572.5
2 more CPU cores
N. of physical cores
8
▲ Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
8 vs 6
31.8% better multi-core performance
Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
3,678
▲ Better than 60% of models
Market range: <702 – >10.8k
This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,678 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
3,678 vs 2,791
21.9% higher multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
5,885
▲ Better than 56% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (5,885 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
5,885 vs 4,829
10 higher clock multiplier
Clock multiplier
38
▲ Better than 89% of models
Market range: <16 – >38
This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
38 vs 28

2x larger L1 cache
L1 cache
768 KB
▲ Better than 78% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
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 L3 cache
L3 cache
16 MB
▲ Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
16 MB vs 8 MB
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
60% larger L2 cache
L2 cache
4 MB
▲ Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
4 MB vs 2.5 MB

48 more PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
64
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (64 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
64 vs 16
32x more memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
2 TB GB
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (2 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
2 TB vs 64 GB
86.2% higher memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
85.3 GB/s
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (85.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
85.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
Supports memory overclocking
Memory overclocking
yes
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
Supports ECC memory
ECC memory support
yes
▲ Better than 68% of models
This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.

32 °C lower CPU temperature
CPU temperature
68 °C
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (68 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
68 °C vs 100 °C

Why is AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
4x higher base power
Base power (PL1)
180 W
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (180 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
180 W vs 45 W
19.2% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,189
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,189 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,189 vs 1,471
16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
32 °C lower TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
68 °C
▼ Worse than 100% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (68 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
68 °C vs 100 °C
7% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
4.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
4.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
4x higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
180 W
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (180 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
180 W vs 45 W
37.3% slower Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
243
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (243 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
243 vs 387.66

3 years older release date
Release date
2017
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
August 2017
2017 vs 2020

19.2% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,189
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,189 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,189 vs 1,471
7% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
4.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
4.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
37.3% slower Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
243
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (243 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
243 vs 387.66
6.8% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
2,331
▼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,331 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
2,331 vs 2,500
No Turbo Core
Turbo Core version
1.0
▼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor does not support Turbo Core, the average processor does. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
Precision Boost 1
1.0 vs 2.0

16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
20.3% larger die size
Die size
213 mm²
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (213 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
213 mm² vs 177 mm²

2 fewer memory channels
Memory channels
4
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <1 – >6
This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
4 vs 2

No integrated graphics
Integrated graphics
no
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
4x higher base power
Base power (PL1)
180 W
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (180 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
180 W vs 45 W
32 °C lower TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
68 °C
▼ Worse than 100% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (68 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
68 °C vs 100 °C
4x higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
180 W
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (180 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
180 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

tomshardware.com

23/10/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X CPU Review - Tom's Hardware

The Tom's Hardware review finds that the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves as a functional, entry-level gateway to the X399 HEDT platform, providing 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory with ECC support. Its primary pros include superior thermal efficiency via indium solder and robust I/O capabilities for workstation tasks. However, the 8-core/16-thread CPU offers a questionable value proposition, with lower-than-expected cache and high die-to-die latency resulting in inconsistent gaming performance, often underperforming against the cheaper Ryzen 7 1800X. The 1900X's high platform costs, including expensive X399 motherboards and necessary quad-channel memory, make it difficult to recommend for mainstream users or gamers. The review suggests it is only a logical choice for users requiring specific high-end I/O features who cannot yet afford higher-core Threadripper models. Ultimately, it is recommended to either opt for a lower-cost AM4 system or upgrade to higher-core Threadripper options to justify the platform premium.

tweaktown.com

31/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD launches Ryzen Threadripper 1900X CPU and more

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves as an 8-core, 16-thread entry point into the X399 HEDT platform, providing significant connectivity advantages over mainstream Ryzen 7 CPUs, including 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes and quad-channel memory support. While featuring high base/boost clocks for improved productivity in specific tasks, its gaming performance is often similar to or slightly lower than cheaper alternatives due to platform latency. High platform costs for X399 motherboards and higher power consumption (180W TDP) are notable trade-offs, making the 1900X a specialized choice for connectivity-driven workflows rather than general gaming. Copy

forums.anandtech.com

24/04/2018

Summary of the review

My Threadripper 1900X Semi-formal Review - Part 1 - AnandTech Forums

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves as an 8-core entry point into the enthusiast X399 platform, providing 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory support. While it offers high-end workstation features and bandwidth, it faces performance limitations in gaming due to inter-die latencies. The platform requires expensive TR4 motherboards and high-cost cooling for its 180W TDP, making it a difficult recommendation over the standard Ryzen 7 1800X or higher core count Threadripper models for most users. Detailed user insights and discussion on the Threadripper 1900X can be found on the AnandTech Forums. Copy

hardwareinside.de

21/03/2018

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Enthusiast Processor

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves as an entry-level gateway into the high-end desktop (HEDT) X399 platform, offering 8 cores and 16 threads with 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel DDR4 support. It excels in highly threaded productivity workloads, with pros including an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, bootable NVMe RAID support, and an affordable entry point for the TR4 socket. Conversely, the processor faces significant cons, including high inter-die latency reducing gaming performance and a high total cost of ownership due to expensive motherboards and necessary high-end cooling. For more details, visit Tom's Hardware.

hardwareluxx.de

10/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review (including 1900X data)

The Hardwareluxx review highlights AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X as dominant HEDT processors designed for multi-threaded performance, offering 64 PCIe lanes and excellent value. While the 1950X excels in rendering, the review notes significant power consumption (180W TDP) and lower relative gaming performance. Despite the high platform costs, the chips are praised for professional workstations.

chip.de

27/10/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Review

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves as an 8-core, 16-thread entry point to the high-end desktop X399 platform, primarily highlighting 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes, quad-channel memory support, and superior multi-threaded performance for prosumers. While offering higher base/boost clocks than the Ryzen 7 1800X, the 1900X faces increased latency from its dual-die architecture and generally underperforms compared to cheaper mainstream chips in gaming, which are listed as cons. Furthermore, the platform requires expensive X399 motherboards, has a high 180W TDP, and acts as a niche solution focused on I/O connectivity over raw performance per dollar, per the review. The original review can be viewed at CHIP.de.

computerbase.de

07/09/2017

Summary of the review

Ryzen Threadripper vs. Core X im Test: 1900X und i7-7820X im Duell

The ComputerBase review positions the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X as a niche, HEDT-focused processor for those requiring 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory, while the Intel Core i7-7820X is identified as the faster, more power-efficient 8-core competitor. Performance-wise, the i7-7820X generally leads in gaming and applications, often rendering the 1900X, which performs similarly to the cheaper Ryzen 7 1800X, as poor value unless maximum platform connectivity is required. While the 1900X offers a superior upgrade path and superior I/O, the high cost of X399 motherboards, coupled with the i7-7820X's superior energy efficiency (up to 22% less in some scenarios), makes the Intel chip the better choice for most high-end enthusiasts.

tomshardware.fr

24/10/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Threadripper 1900X Review: Better than a Ryzen 7 1800X?

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves as an entry-level HEDT processor, offering 8 cores and 16 threads while leveraging the X399 platform for 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory. Performance matches the Ryzen 7 1800X in many productivity tasks but suffers in gaming due to higher latency from its dual-die design. Pros include superior connectivity and bandwidth, while cons involve higher power consumption, platform cost, and poorer, latency-heavy performance in certain applications. For detailed benchmarks, visit Tom's Hardware.

labonneconfig.fr

31/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Benchmark

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is an 8-core, 16-thread entry-level processor for the X399 platform, designed to offer 64 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and quad-channel DDR4 memory support. While sharing core counts with the mainstream Ryzen 7 1800X, this CPU targets users needing high-bandwidth connectivity and massive I/O capacity over pure core count. Performance-wise, the 1900X operates at high clock speeds, starting at 3.8 GHz with boosts up to 4.2 GHz, making it strong for threaded productivity tasks. However, it often lags behind cheaper mainstream alternatives in gaming due to latency, while its multi-die architecture presents limitations in certain applications compared to single-die chips. Key advantages include its cost-effective entry into the X399 ecosystem and extensive workstation features, including support for ECC memory. Conversely, the platform requires expensive motherboards and quad-channel RAM, high-end cooling for its 180W TDP, and offers poor value for users who do not require extensive PCIe connectivity. Copy

hardware.fr

18/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Threadripper 1900X: An 8-core like no other!

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is an 8-core HEDT processor that uses a unique 4 /4 die configuration on the X399 platform to provide 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory. While offering superior I/O capabilities for prosumers, the architecture results in high inter-die latency and a high 180W TDP, often leading to lower gaming performance and higher power consumption compared to standard Ryzen 7 chips. Performance is defined by high base/boost clocks (up to 4.2 GHz) and excellent memory bandwidth, yet it features only 16 MB of L3 cache. Pros include accessing HEDT features, while significant cons are the requirement for robust cooling and lower efficiency in consumer tasks. The 1900X acts primarily as a budget entry point into the X399 ecosystem, though total platform costs remain high. It is only recommended for those strictly requiring Threadripper's PCIe lane count, as 12-core models offer better productivity and AM4 chips offer better gaming value.

hwupgrade.it

07/02/2020

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X: The first 64-core desktop CPU (Includes benchmarks against the 1900X)

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, a 64-core/128-thread CPU based on the 7nm Zen 2 architecture, redefines HEDT performance by delivering unprecedented rendering speeds in applications like Blender. Operating with a 280W TDP, it offers exceptional power efficiency for its class, making it a viable, high-performance alternative to dual-socket workstation systems. Pros include unparalleled parallel processing power for professional content creation, 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes for extensive I/O, and decent clock speeds for lighter tasks. However, the $3,990 USD price point, need for specialized, heavy-duty cooling on sTRX4 motherboards, and memory bandwidth bottlenecks under full load are notable drawbacks. The 3990X is a niche product; while dominant in heavily threaded workloads, many applications cannot utilize all 128 threads, meaning 32-core options may offer better value. Copy

techpulse.be

05/10/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X review: performance beast (1900X availability discussion)

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on Zen architecture, establishes itself as a high-end desktop (HEDT) performance leader utilizing the specialized TR4 socket, according to the TechPulse review. Featuring a 3.4 GHz base clock (4.0 GHz boost), the chip supports quad-channel DDR4 memory and offers 64 PCIe lanes. The 1950X is praised for superior multi-threaded performance, specifically dominating in 3D rendering and video encoding, while offering better value than competing Intel Core i9-7900X processors. It is an ideal platform for heavy, professional "mega-tasking" workloads. Conversely, the processor presents significant drawbacks, including high power consumption and high heat generation, requiring strong liquid cooling for its 180W TDP. Gaming performance, particularly at 1080p, is lower than on some mainstream processors due to lower single-core performance, and the required X399 motherboards are expensive. The total system cost, combined with the physical size of the chip, makes it a premium, niche solution rather than a mainstream option.

id.nl

04/04/2018

Summary of the review

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and 1950X Review (Including 1900X Details)

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (16-core) and 1920X (12-core) disrupt the high-end desktop market by offering superior core counts and 64 PCIe lanes at a lower price point than competitors. These processors excel in heavily threaded tasks like 3D rendering and video editing, dominating benchmarks such as Cinebench. Key advantages include immense multi-threaded performance and extensive I/O capabilities for workstation tasks. Conversely, drawbacks include high power consumption (180W TDP), high platform costs for X399 motherboards, and slightly lower gaming performance compared to chips with higher single-core clocks. Overall, these CPUs are ideal for professional content creators needing maximum thread count, rather than pure gaming applications. For more details, visit the review from Hardware Canucks at Hardware Canucks.

techgaming.nl

27/11/2017

Summary of the review

ASRock Fatal1ty X399 Professional Gaming Review (Tested with 1900X)

The ASRock Fatal1ty X399 Professional Gaming is a high-end ATX motherboard for AMD Threadripper, featuring integrated Aquantia 10GbE LAN and a robust 8 power phase design with quality components. Designed for workstations with a professional matte black and copper aesthetic, it supports 4-way SLI/CrossFireX, three Ultra M.2 slots, and a U.2 port. Key pros include excellent VRM cooling and networking capabilities, while cons center on its high price compared to the similar X399 Taichi and the lack of an internal USB 3.1 Type-C header. For more details, visit TweakTown.

techgaming.nl

13/12/2017

Summary of the review

Noctua NH-U14S TR4-SP3 Review

The Noctua NH-U14S TR4-SP3 is a specialized 140mm single-tower air cooler designed specifically for AMD’s Threadripper and Epyc processors, featuring an enlarged 70x56mm contact surface for full coverage. It boasts excellent thermal performance, rivalling some AIO liquid coolers, while maintaining very low noise levels, often between 32dB and 40dB under heavy load. Key pros include a straightforward installation via the SecuFirm2 system with PCIe clearance options and a 6-year warranty, though its 165mm height requires checking case compatibility.

Third-party reviews

Based on 226 buyer reviews from online shops.

Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Provides a budget-friendly entry point to the high-end X399/TR4 platform
Features 64 PCIe lanes, ideal for multi-GPU setups and extensive NVMe storage
Supports quad-channel memory bandwidth, which aids specific professional workloads
Offers ECC (Error-Correction Code) memory support for increased system stability
Strong multi-threaded performance for productivity tasks like rendering and encryption
High base clock speeds compared to some other early Threadripper models

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

High platform costs due to expensive X399 motherboards and quad-channel RAM requirements
Gaming performance is often outperformed by cheaper, mainstream Ryzen 7 or Intel alternatives
Limited upgrade path as newer Threadripper generations moved to different sockets
Higher power consumption and heat output (180W TDP) compared to consumer-grade chips
Large physical size requires specialized and often more expensive cooling solutions
High inter-die latency can negatively impact performance in latency-sensitive applications

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is an 8-core, 16-thread High-End Desktop (HEDT) processor based on the 14nm Zen architecture, featuring a 3.8 GHz base clock and a 4.0 GHz boost clock (with XFR up to 4.2 GHz). Its primary strength lies in the X399 platform's expansive I/O, offering 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes for multi-GPU or NVMe storage configurations, quad-channel DDR4 memory support for up to 2TB of RAM, and official ECC memory compatibility. While it provides entry-level access to a premium workstation platform, it suffers from a high 180W TDP, significant inter-die latency due to its dual-die (4+0/4+0) configuration compared to mainstream 8-core chips, and a limited 16MB L3 cache that can hinder gaming performance compared to its contemporaries.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9965WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9985WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7900

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7985WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9955WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9900X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X with other processors

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and other processors

No results found