OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
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 Threadripper 1950X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£550PassMark multi-core score:27748N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:sTR4TDP (Thermal design power):180 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 46 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
7.5/10

Overall score

Score
7.5/ 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
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components

40%

6.9

Technical score

25%

8.6

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.9

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 77% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

â–²Better than 60%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 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
â–² Better than 66% of models
Score components

60%

7.4

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 66%
8.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.6/ 10
✕
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
★ Better than 95% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

9.8

Popularity

Grades by review (46)
27 reviews: 12 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
★Better than 95%
?

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
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

Based on 10 · 19

Reviewers hail its huge multi-core power for rendering and video work, but agree it's a poor pick for gaming.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 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
â–² Better than 66% of models
Score components:

60%

7.4

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.9
Reviews score
8.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

7.5
Processor type
workstation
This processor belongs to the workstation processor class, which is more advanced than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU socket
sTR4
This processor uses the sTR4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 58.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Chipset
X399
This processor supports X399 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 54.5% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
32
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 32 CPU threads, which is more than 94.9% of processors and equal to 3.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4 GHz which is lower than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
16x 3.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 16x3.4 GHz which is higher than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
27,748
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 27,748 in PassMark, which is higher than 83.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
L3 cache
32 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 89% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L2 cache
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
1,536 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,536 KB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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
2,667 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,667 MHz, which is lower than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
2 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 2 TB of memory, which is more than 98.4% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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)
180 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 180 W which is higher than that of 97.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
180 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 180 W which is higher than that of 97.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.42x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (27,748 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    27,748 vs 11,469
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 2.38x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,670 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,670 vs 2,804.5
  • 48 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (64 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    64 vs 16
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 32x more memory capacity
    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
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 10
    ✕
    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
    ★ Better than 95% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    9.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (46)
    27 reviews: 12 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sTR4 vs FP5).
    sTR4 vs FP5
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.42x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (27,748 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    27,748 vs 11,469
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 2.38x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,670 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,670 vs 2,804.5
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 65.6% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,626 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,626 vs 5,209
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 4x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,536 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,536 KB vs 384 KB
  • 3.56x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    32 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 48 more PCIe lanes
    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
    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
  • 81.9% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (85.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    85.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 32 °C lower CPU temperature
    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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 4x higher base power
    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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Whitehaven vs Kaby Lake).
    Whitehaven vs Kaby Lake
  • 23.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,180 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,180 vs 1,535
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 9.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2.41x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (426 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    426 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (411 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    411 vs 490
  • 2.2x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    August 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2).
    TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2.0
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 23.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,180 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,180 vs 1,535
  • 9.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 16.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (411 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    411 vs 490
  • 10.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,285 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,285 vs 2,558
  • 21.8% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (265.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    265.92 vs 340.075
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Whitehaven vs Kaby Lake).
    Whitehaven vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.41x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (426 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    426 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% larger process node
    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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    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
    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.
  • 4x higher base power
    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 temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (68 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    68 °C vs 100 °C
  • 4x higher TDP
    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

8.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
19/05/2018
Long-term use review · benchmarks and gaming tests
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is great for multithreaded work and has run well for months, but it is weak for gaming and single-core tasks.
9.0
Graya Overload
≈ estimated
17/10/2017
Long-term use · compile, render, power and temperature tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a strong workstation chip with many cores and PCIe lanes, though it draws notable power under full load.
7.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
03/09/2017
Retest review · retail chip vs engineering sample
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X performs almost identically to the engineering sample; it suits heavy multi-threaded work and needs strong cooling to overclock.
8.0
BPS Customs
≈ estimated
25/08/2017
Hands-on benchmarks · overclocking and comparison with Intel
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X excels at multi-threaded workstation tasks, but it is not built for gaming and trails Intel in single-threaded work.
9.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Review · benchmarks, power draw and gaming tests
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X excels at rendering and content creation, but it draws a lot of power and is a poor choice for gaming.
8.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Full review · productivity, streaming and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a good buy for heavy productivity work, but gaming-focused buyers should look at mainstream chips.
9.5
AdoredTV
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Long hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and power tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a clear choice for digital content creators, though gaming is weaker and the price is high.
9.5
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Hands-on review · multi-threaded performance, cooling and platform
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is the fastest multi-threaded desktop processor, with superb performance per dollar and good platform features.
9.5
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Full review · benchmarks, power, temperatures, overclocking
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X offers strong price-to-performance for workstations, beating the Core i9 at the same price, with ECC support.
6.0
Randall Brander
≈ estimated
20/03/2022
Setup tour · failed benchmark attempt
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X did its job well and was enjoyed over time, but an upgrade may now be due.
5.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
20/10/2017
Hands-on comparison · 1950X vs Ryzen 7 1700 in real use
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is only worth it for extreme power users; for most people it is mostly bragging rights.
6.0
Tech Showdown
≈ estimated
10/09/2017
Hands-on comparison · 1950X vs i9-7900X benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X edges ahead at stock speeds, but overclocked the race is too close to call.
More graded video reviews (2)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.5
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Benchmark review · Production tasks
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X beats Intel's Core i9-7900X in most production tasks, but Intel stays ahead in single-threaded work and 1080p gaming.
9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Lab review · Heavy multitasking
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X suits heavy multitaskers, streamers and video creators, but it needs a strong cooler and a reboot to switch modes.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Benchmark review · Creator workloads
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X is a good choice for multi-core video encoding and rendering, though single-threaded tasks trail the newest Intel chips.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
15/08/2017
Lab review · Creator-focused CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X suits heavy multitasking and streaming with room to expand, but it draws more power than Intel's rival.
9.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Benchmark review · Intel comparison
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X clearly wins multi-core Cinebench, while Intel's Core i9-7900X is about 10 percent quicker on single-threaded tasks.
9.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Lab test · Rendering and gaming
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X leads in rendering, finishing Blender and Premiere jobs faster than the Core i9-7900X, but it trails Intel in games and single-threaded work.
9.0
pcper.com
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Hands-on review · Multitasking CPU
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X suits video encoding and heavy multitasking thanks to its 64 PCIe lanes, but it is not the best choice for gaming.
9.5
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Hands-on test · Multitasking demo
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X handles gaming, streaming, rendering and recording at once, but it needs its own socket and motherboards.
9.1
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Lab test · Gaming and latency
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X beats Intel in many scientific tests and some transcoding jobs, but it cannot beat Ryzen 7 chips in games, even in Gamer mode.
9.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Technical review · Platform and multi-core
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X packs 16 cores and plenty of PCIe lanes for heavy multitasking, but it lacks NVMe RAID and needs a powerful cooler.
8.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
11/08/2017
Benchmark review · Work and gaming
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X is very fast for heavy work and can game while recording, but for gaming alone it is overkill.
6.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Benchmark test · Memory setup
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X drops sharply in memory-heavy tasks when run with only two memory channels.
7.0
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Benchmark test · Top 16-core CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X suits heavy multi-core work like rendering, but it trails in games and needs a new motherboard.
9.5
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
17/08/2017
Benchmark review · 16-core desktop
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X is the first desktop CPU with 16 cores and 64 PCIe lanes, suited to heavy workloads rather than gaming.
9.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
15/09/2017
Benchmark test · Enthusiast CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X packs 16 cores into a consumer PC, but it draws a lot of power and is overkill even for most gamers.
9.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Lab test · Connectivity and gaming
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X offers 60 PCIe lanes and strong DX12 CPU results, but the quad-core Core i7-7700K beats it in several games.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
10/08/2017
Editor's review · Workstation chip
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X is a strong pick for 3D rendering and video encoding, though it is held back in games.
9.0
3dcollective.es
≈ estimated
17/01/2018
Hands-on test · 3D rendering workstation
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X roughly doubles the rendering speed of the older Core i7-5960X and stays under 70°C at full load for hours.
9.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
10/08/2017
Lab test · Workstation processor
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X is a strong choice for rendering, but in many games it trails Intel's Core i9-7900X, and its game mode cuts memory bandwidth in half.
9.0
id.nl
✓ explicit
04/04/2018
Review · 12- and 16-core chips
Verdict
The Threadripper 1950X beats the Core i9-7900X in most tests, mainly video editing and rendering, while its 1920X sibling is nearly as capable.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance with 16 cores and 32 threads, ideal for rendering, video editing, and heavy multitasking.
  • Competitive value proposition, offering more cores and threads than Intel rivals at a similar price point.
  • High number of PCIe lanes (64) across the entire platform, supporting extensive multi-GPU and NVMe storage setups.
  • Support for ECC (Error Correction Code) memory, a feature often reserved for more expensive server-grade hardware.
  • Solder-based thermal interface material (TIM) provides better heat transfer compared to some competitors using thermal paste.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

  • Lower single-threaded performance and IPC (Instructions Per Clock) compared to contemporary Intel Core i9 and i7 processors.
  • Gaming performance can be inconsistent; some titles require a manual 'Game Mode' (disabling cores) and a system reboot to run optimally.
  • High power consumption and heat output (180W TDP), necessitating robust and often expensive liquid cooling solutions.
  • The X399 platform and compatible motherboards are significantly more expensive than mainstream consumer options.
  • Physical size and unique TR4 socket make installation more complex and limit choices for compatible air coolers.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a high-end desktop processor based on the 14nm 'Zen' architecture, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads with a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 4.0 GHz boost frequency (up to 4.2 GHz via XFR). Designed for the TR4 socket on the X399 chipset, it boasts a massive 32MB L3 cache, quad-channel DDR4 memory support, and a class-leading 64 PCIe Gen3 lanes. Its primary strengths are exceptional multi-threaded performance for workstation tasks like 3D rendering and video editing, as well as a generous allocation of I/O for multiple GPUs and NVMe drives. However, it has a high 180W TDP requiring robust cooling, lower single-threaded performance compared to contemporary rivals, and an intricate installation process involving a specific torque wrench.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 Threadripper 1950X and other processors

No results found