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 2950X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£750PassMark multi-core score:29489N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:sTR4TDP (Thermal design power):180 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 24 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 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 76% of models
Score components

40%

6.9

Technical score

25%

8.7

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.8

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 76% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 53% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

6.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 53%
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 67% of models
Score components

60%

7.6

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 67%
8.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.7/ 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 97% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

9.3

Popularity

Grades by review (24)
16 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 8 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 97%
?

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-2950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x
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 2950X

Based on 10 · 8

Praised for value and strong all-round performance, but gaming splits opinion and previous-generation owners see little reason to upgrade.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

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 67% of models
Score components:

60%

7.6

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.9
Reviews score
8.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 53% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

6.6

Price

7.2
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, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 67.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
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
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
16x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 16x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
29,489
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 29,489 in PassMark, which is higher than 85.4% 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
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
What reviewers say
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
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
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 2950X 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
  • 2.57x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (29,489 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    29,489 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
  • 2.5x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (7,003 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    7,003 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 (16x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x3.5 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.
  • 29.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.7/ 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 97% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (24)
    16 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 8 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.
    8.7 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
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 2.57x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (29,489 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    29,489 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
  • 2.5x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (7,003 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    7,003 vs 2,804.5
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x3.5 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.
  • 62.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,463 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,463 vs 5,209
  • 6.25x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (50 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    50 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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 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
  • 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.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 18.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,254 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,254 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 3x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is more expensive than the average processor (£750 vs £250).
    £750 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, 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, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME 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).
    August 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 18.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,254 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,254 vs 1,535
  • 13.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (425 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    425 vs 490
  • 4.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,453 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,453 vs 2,558
  • 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 (x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/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

9.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a strong all-rounder for productivity work, and its price makes it hard to ignore.
9.5
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · content creation, multitasking and gaming
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is not a gaming chip, but it offers outstanding value for rendering, multitasking and development work.
7.0
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
≈ estimated
20/08/2018
Podcast discussion · performance and value opinions
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a good workstation option for the price, though the speakers' endorsement is tentative.
9.0
Tech YES City
≈ estimated
19/08/2018
Comparison review · streaming, productivity and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is not the best for pure gaming, but it is a strong all-round pick with good value for productivity and streaming.
9.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Comparison test · 1950X vs 2950X benchmarks and temperatures
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a modest upgrade over the 1950X, but an excellent CPU for the price and a strong pick.
9.5
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Benchmark review · 2950X compared with 2990WX
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is an excellent all-round desktop CPU that takes over from the 1950X as the top high-end choice.
9.0
Paul's Hardware
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Benchmark comparison · CPU tests against Intel i9-7960X
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X held its own against the pricier Intel chip and is a standout on price-to-performance, though some tests were left unfinished.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Hands-on test · 16-core Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a 16-core, 32-thread chip that boosts to 4.4 GHz, aimed at heavy data work and enthusiasts who want room to grow.
9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
28/09/2018
Lab test · 16-core Threadripper
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a solid upgrade for first-gen owners, with higher clocks and existing X399 boards still supported.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · Build and benchmarks
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a 16-core chip with 64 PCIe lanes for multi-GPU builds; it is fast in multi-threaded work but still trails Intel in single-core speed.
9.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Architecture overview · 16-core desktop CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a 16-core, 32-thread chip that lets more cores boost more often than its predecessor and reuses the same X399 platform.
9.0
extremetech.com
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Benchmark review · Precision Boost Overdrive
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a modest refresh of the 1950X, strong in heavy multi-threaded work, but Intel still leads single-thread speed.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
31/08/2018
Performance test · Streaming and encoding
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X holds its own against Intel's larger high-end desktop chips, suiting streamers who game while encoding video, but trails in frame rates.
8.0
lowyat.net
≈ estimated
20/12/2018
Hands-on test · Overclocking and power
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a strong 16-core chip that never throttled in testing, but it draws about 350 watts and runs very hot when overclocked.
9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Benchmark review · 16-core desktop
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a strong 16-core upgrade for anyone moving off an older CPU, and a good all-round choice for heavy multi-threaded work.
9.0
pcper.com
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Benchmark review · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is one of Ryzen's most competitive chips in games against Intel, but its Legacy Compatibility Mode needs a reboot to switch.
7.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
23/08/2018
Benchmark test · Power-user desktop
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a fast 16-core chip for power users doing heavy video, rendering or CAD work, but it barely beats the 1950X.
9.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
09/11/2018
Game-mode review · Gaming tests
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a strong 16-core chip that wins many tests, but it trails Intel's 18-core Core i9-7980XE in Witcher 3 frame rates.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Lab test · 16-core desktop
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a 16-core chip that is strong at 3D rendering and video encoding, but barely faster than the 1950X it replaces.
8.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
26/08/2018
Feature review · Overclocking headroom
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X is a modest upgrade over the 1950X, suiting buyers who want high clock speeds and overclocking room more than maximum core counts.
9.0
notebookcheck.org
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Benchmark review · Gaming and streaming
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X suits gamers who also stream or render in the background, but most games use only four or eight cores, so it gains little.
9.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
11/08/2018
Hands-on test · 16-core desktop
Verdict
The Threadripper 2950X improves on first-gen Threadripper across the board, and could be the high-end desktop chip to beat.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance for rendering, video editing, and heavy multitasking.
  • Significant value compared to Intel's HEDT rivals like the Core i9-7960X and i9-7980XE.
  • Improved Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 provide better clock speeds and latency than the 1950X.
  • Massive connectivity with 64 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes and quad-channel memory support.
  • Better balanced for mixed workloads (gaming and productivity) than the 32-core 2990WX.
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for substantial all-core overclocking headroom with proper cooling.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

  • High power consumption and thermal output requiring a high-end liquid cooling solution.
  • Single-core gaming performance still lags behind mainstream flagship CPUs like the i7-8700K.
  • Total platform cost is high when factoring in expensive X399 motherboards and quad-channel RAM.
  • Performance is highly sensitive to memory speeds and timings.
  • Does not include a CPU cooler in the box.
  • Diminishing returns for users who only perform basic desktop tasks or pure gaming.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a high-end desktop (HEDT) processor based on the 12nm Zen+ architecture, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads with a 3.5GHz base clock and a 4.4GHz max boost. It is designed for the sTR4 socket on the X399 platform, offering 64 PCIe Gen3 lanes, quad-channel DDR4-2933 memory support, and a combined 40MB of L2 and L3 cache within a 180W TDP. Main characteristics include its massive multitasking capabilities and professional-grade I/O, while its primary pros are exceptional multi-threaded performance for 4K video editing, 3D rendering, and strong value compared to rival 16-core chips. However, cons include high power consumption under load, the lack of an included thermal solution, and lower single-threaded efficiency compared to contemporary mainstream gaming CPUs.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 2950X and other processors

No results found