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 2920X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£350PassMark multi-core score:25172N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:sTR4TDP (Thermal design power):180 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 16 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 72% of models
Score components

40%

6.6

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

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

▲Better than 72% of processors
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

▲Better than 71%
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 63% of models
Score components

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 63%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 89% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (16)
13 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 3 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 89%
?

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-2920x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2920x
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 2920X

Based on 8 · 3

Reviewers value the high core count and memory support, but are split on gaming, which many find only middling.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.6
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

7.7
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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 58% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
Market range: <2 – >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
Market range: <4 – >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
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 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 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 12x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 92.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
25,172
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 25,172 in PassMark, which is higher than 79.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
12 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 12 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 48% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 12 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 48.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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
6 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 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
1,152 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,152 KB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
1 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 1 TB of memory, which is more than 97.9% of processors and equal to 0.4% 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

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.19x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,172 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,172 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
  • 2.08x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,843 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,843 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 (12x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 16x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (1 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    1 TB vs 64 GB
  • 25.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 89% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    13 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.4 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
  • 2.19x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,172 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,172 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
  • 2.08x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,843 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,843 vs 2,804.5
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x3.5 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.
  • 63% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,491 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,491 vs 5,209
  • 44.3% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.7 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.67 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • 3x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,152 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,152 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 (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 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
  • 16x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (1 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    1 TB vs 64 GB
  • 2x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (93.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    93.9 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Colfax vs Kaby Lake).
    Colfax vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 66.2% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (134.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    134.4 vs 398.015
  • 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
  • 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
  • 17.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,267 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,267 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 40% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is more expensive than the average processor (£350 vs £250).
    £350 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    October 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA 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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 66.2% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (134.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    134.4 vs 398.015
  • 17.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,267 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,267 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Colfax vs Kaby Lake).
    Colfax 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
14/11/2018
Comparison · 1920X vs 2920X benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X offers excellent value against Intel, but the small gain over the 1920X rarely justifies upgrading at current prices.
9.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
30/10/2018
Gaming benchmarks · comparison with larger models
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is a very viable gaming chip and beats the Ryzen 7 2700X in some games.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
29/10/2018
Lab test · 12-core Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is a 12-core Zen+ chip that boosts to 4.3 GHz, suited to buyers who want many cores without the 24-core WX chips.
10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
29/10/2018
Hands-on test · 12-core Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is a 12-core chip with quad-channel memory and 64 PCIe lanes, suited to multi-threaded work on existing X399 boards.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
08/11/2018
Benchmark review · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X offers quad-channel memory and 64 PCIe lanes, but the Core i9-9900K is faster in almost every test.
9.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
31/01/2019
Lab test · Multi-core processor
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is strong in multi-threaded apps and boosts automatically, but draws a lot of power and has no integrated graphics, so you need a graphics card.
9.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
27/11/2018
Lab test · 12-core Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is a 12-core, 24-thread chip for buyers who want a Threadripper without stepping up to the 24-core 2970WX.
9.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
01/11/2018
Benchmark test · Zen+ Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is a good pick for gamers wanting more cores, with lower cache latency and faster memory support, but has half the cores of the 24-core WX chips.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
02/11/2018
Lab test · 12-core processor
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is strong at 3D rendering and encoding, trails Intel slightly in games, and is only about 8% faster than the 1920X.
7.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
11/11/2018
Review · 12-core Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2920X is the best Threadripper for gaming with local memory mode at 1080p, though it has little overclocking headroom.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

  • Excellent multi-core performance for productivity and content creation tasks like rendering and encoding
  • High value for a High-End Desktop (HEDT) platform, offering more PCIe lanes (64) and quad-channel memory support than mainstream alternatives
  • Runs relatively cool even under heavy workloads, especially when compared to contemporary high-core count competitors
  • Features improved Precision Boost 2 and Precision Boost Overdrive for efficient automated overclocking
  • Includes Dynamic Local Mode to help balance performance between creative workloads and gaming

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

  • Lower gaming performance compared to cheaper mainstream processors like the Intel Core i9-9900K or AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
  • High total system cost due to expensive X399 motherboards required for the TR4 socket
  • Slower single-threaded performance and higher memory latency compared to mainstream Zen 2 or Intel architectures
  • Higher power consumption than mainstream 8-core or 12-core chips
  • Performance can be inconsistent in applications not optimized for its multi-die architecture

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is a high-end desktop (HEDT) processor based on the 12nm Zen+ architecture, featuring 12 cores and 24 threads with a 3.5 GHz base clock and a 4.3 GHz maximum boost frequency. Designed for the TR4 socket and X399 chipset, it boasts 64 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes for extensive multi-GPU and NVMe storage support, alongside a quad-channel DDR4-2933 memory interface and 38MB of combined L2 and L3 cache. Its main advantages include exceptional multi-threaded performance for workstation tasks like rendering and video encoding, as well as an unlocked multiplier for overclocking and ECC memory support. However, it carries a high 180W TDP requiring robust cooling, lacks integrated graphics, and can be outperformed in pure gaming scenarios by more modern mainstream CPUs with higher single-core clock speeds.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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 2920X and other processors

No results found