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 2970WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,140PassMark multi-core score:30986N. of physical cores:24CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:sTR4TDP (Thermal design power):250 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 17 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX
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 73% of models
Score components

40%

7.0

Technical score

25%

7.9

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

â–²Better than 73% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

4.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
7.0

Technical score

Technical score
7.0/ 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 68% of models
Score components

60%

7.5

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 68%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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
â–² Better than 66% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

9.1

Popularity

Grades by review (17)
15 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 2 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.
â–²Better than 66%
?

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-2970wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx
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 2970WX

Based on 11 · 2

Its massive core count and multi-core muscle impress, but reviewers agree it's poor for gaming and power-hungry.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Technical score
Technical score
7.0/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

7.5

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.0
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

4.5

Price

6.5
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
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
24
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 24 CPU cores, which is more than 96.3% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
CPU threads
48
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 48 CPU threads, which is more than 98.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
24x 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 24x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 97.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
30,986
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 30,986 in PassMark, which is higher than 86.9% 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
64 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
12 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L1 cache
2,304 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2,304 KB which is larger than that of 97.8% 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
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% 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)
250 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 250 W which is higher than that of 97.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
250 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 250 W which is higher than that of 97.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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 2970WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 2.7x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (30,986 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    30,986 vs 11,469
  • 3.43x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (9,624 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    9,624 vs 2,804.5
  • 20 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (24 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    24 vs 4
  • 40 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (48 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    48 vs 8
  • 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 (24x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    24x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 7.11x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    64 MB vs 9 MB
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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
    â–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (17)
    15 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    7.9 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
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 2.7x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (30,986 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    30,986 vs 11,469
  • 3.43x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (9,624 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    9,624 vs 2,804.5
  • 20 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (24 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    24 vs 4
  • 40 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (48 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    48 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (24x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    24x3.0 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.
  • 39% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (7,241 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    7,241 vs 5,209
  • 7.11x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    64 MB vs 9 MB
  • 4x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    12 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2,304 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,304 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 3.88x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (19.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    19.2 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 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
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB 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.
  • 5.56x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (250 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    250 W vs 45 W
  • 4.81x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (852 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    852 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 19.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,240 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,240 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
  • 5.56x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (250 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    250 W vs 45 W
  • 12% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (431 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    431 vs 490
  • 4.56x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,140 vs £250).
    £1,140 vs £250
  • 12.2% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.5 vs 7.3).
    6.5 vs 7.29
  • 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 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 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, GMET, 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, GMET, 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).
    October 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
  • 19.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,240 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,240 vs 1,535
  • 12% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (431 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    431 vs 490
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 8.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,339 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,339 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
  • 4.81x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (852 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    852 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/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.
  • 5.56x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (250 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    250 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
  • 5.56x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (250 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    250 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Hands-on review · workstation and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is recommended only for specific workstation tasks, and it slows down gaming.
6.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
30/10/2018
Gaming benchmarks · frame time and resolution tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX gives mixed gaming results, with frame time problems in some games.
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
29/10/2018
Lab benchmarks · Multi-threaded apps
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core, 48-thread chip that excels in some heavy multi-threaded apps, but only suits buyers whose software can use all those cores.
7.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Benchmark test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a strong rendering chip that runs best on Linux, while gamers would do better with the 2950X.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
29/10/2018
Lab test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a fast 24-core chip, but the mainstream Intel Core i9-9900K outperforms it and draws less power.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
12/12/2018
Lab test · Creator CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX suits creators running heavy multi-threaded apps, though it is a poor fit for office work and single-core programs.
9.3
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
29/10/2018
Benchmark review · 24-core workstation
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core chip that suits specific multi-threaded programs, but it runs hot, draws a lot of power and needs a strong motherboard.
5.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
29/01/2019
Benchmark test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX suits specific heavy workloads that scale across many cores, while the 2950X is the better pick for most people.
forbes.com
29/10/2018
Not graded yet
9.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
20/11/2018
Lab test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core, 48-thread workstation chip for heavy multi-threaded work, a second-generation model aimed at professionals.
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Benchmark test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a solid 24-core workstation chip for X399 boards, though its split memory layout adds latency in some workloads.
7.0
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
29/10/2018
Lab test · Creator CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is fast for video editing and simulation, but most of its cores sit idle in games and it draws a lot of power.
8.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Test report · 24-core workstation
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core chip that nearly matches the 2990WX, but only for highly parallel workloads that don't depend on memory speed.
8.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
11/12/2018
Benchmark test · Game performance
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core chip that trails Intel's Core i9-9900K in most game benchmarks, so it suits workstation users rather than gamers.
6.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
08/11/2018
Lab test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core chip whose Dynamic Local Mode costs no speed, but in default mode it trails the 12-core 2920X in games like Far Cry 5.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Benchmark review · Multi-threaded workloads
Verdict
The Threadripper 2970WX is a 24-core, 48-thread chip that comes close to the 2990WX on software that uses many cores, but performs unevenly in everyday desktop programs.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance with 24 cores and 48 threads for heavily-parallelized workloads
  • Strong value proposition for professional rendering and video encoding compared to higher-priced Intel alternatives
  • Dynamic Local Mode helps mitigate performance issues in some memory-sensitive applications
  • Backward compatibility with existing X399 motherboards, simplifying upgrades for current platform users
  • Large number of PCIe lanes (64) for multi-GPU setups and extensive high-speed storage

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

  • Suboptimal gaming performance, often trailing behind mainstream chips like the i9-9900K
  • Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) architecture causes latency issues in applications that don't scale well
  • Very high power consumption (250W TDP) and significant heat output requiring high-end cooling
  • Poor single-core performance compared to modern consumer-grade processors
  • Relatively expensive entry cost due to the high price of X399 motherboards

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is a high-end desktop workstation processor built on the 12nm Zen+ architecture, featuring 24 cores and 48 threads with a 3.0 GHz base and 4.2 GHz boost clock. It is equipped with a substantial 64MB L3 cache, 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes for extensive connectivity, and supports quad-channel DDR4-2933 memory. Main pros include its exceptional multi-threaded performance in parallelized tasks like 3D rendering and video encoding, as well as its high value-to-core ratio and compatibility with the X399 motherboard ecosystem. However, it suffers from a high 250W TDP requiring robust cooling, lower single-core performance compared to mainstream CPUs, and architectural memory latency issues due to some dies lacking direct DRAM access, which can hinder performance in gaming and bandwidth-sensitive applications.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX 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 2970WX and other processors

No results found