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 2990WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,610PassMark multi-core score:31991N. of physical cores:32CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:sTR4TDP (Thermal design power):250 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 31 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX
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%

6.9

Technical score

25%

8.1

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 73% of processors
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

2.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
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%

7.4

Performance

18%

5.8

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 67%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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 78% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (31)
21 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 13 estimated from the review. 10 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 78%
?

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-2990wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx
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 2990WX

Based on 10 · 9

Reviewers agree it's a rendering and multi-core powerhouse, but gaming and software support disappoint, and power and cooling divide opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

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%

7.4

Performance

18%

5.8

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.9
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

2.0

Price

5.8
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, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
32
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 32 CPU cores, which is more than 98.8% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
CPU threads
64
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 64 CPU threads, which is more than 98.9% of processors and equal to 0.5% 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
32x 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 32x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,991
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 31,991 in PassMark, which is higher than 87.9% 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
16 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
L1 cache
3,072 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 3,072 KB which is larger than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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)
2,933 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 90.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
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)
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 2990WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 26 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (32 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    32 vs 6
  • 2.79x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,991 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,991 vs 11,469
  • 4.09x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (11,463 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    11,463 vs 2,804.5
  • 28 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (32 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    32 vs 4
  • 56 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (64 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    64 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.
    60 usable lanes
    64 vs 16
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (32x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    32x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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 78% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (31)
    21 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 13 estimated from the review. 10 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.
    8.1 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
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, 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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sTR4 vs FP5).
    sTR4 vs FP5
  • 26 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (32 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    32 vs 6
  • 2.79x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,991 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,991 vs 11,469
  • 4.09x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (11,463 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    11,463 vs 2,804.5
  • 28 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (32 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    32 vs 4
  • 56 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (64 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    64 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (32x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    32x3.0 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.
  • 46% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (7,605 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    7,605 vs 5,209
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 8x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (3,072 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    3,072 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 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.
    60 usable 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
  • 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
  • 83.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (65 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    65 vs 398.015
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 21.6% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,203 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,203 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 81.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (63 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    63 vs 340.075
  • 6.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,610 vs £250).
    £1,610 vs £250
  • 26.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.76 vs 7.3).
    5.76 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, 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).
    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
  • 83.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (65 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    65 vs 398.015
  • 21.6% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,203 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,203 vs 1,535
  • 81.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (63 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    63 vs 340.075
  • 11% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,276 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,276 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 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, x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, 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.
  • 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

6.0
Laurent's Choice
≈ estimated
01/10/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks and memory bandwidth tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is great for rendering and data crunching, but not worth it for gaming or everyday use.
8.0
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
16/09/2018
Hands-on review · performance tests and early firmware issues
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is a strong choice for 32-core workloads, though it still has rough edges to fix.
6.0
BPS Customs
≈ estimated
19/08/2018
Hands-on review · Premiere, HandBrake and Blender tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX only makes sense for heavy multi-core work, as most users can't use all 32 cores, especially in Premiere.
5.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks and workload tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is hard to recommend over the 2950X at this price, though it is not written off yet.
9.0
WccftechTV
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks, thermals and power
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX excels at demanding workloads, but skip the WX series if you mainly game.
7.0
Bits Be Trippin'
≈ estimated
24/08/2018
Build showcase · benchmarks and mining tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX delivers solid performance out of the box, but testing so far is only a quick first check.
9.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Full review · overclocking and cooling tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX delivers huge multi-threaded performance and is worth it if you're willing to put in the overclocking effort.
8.0
CrazyTechLab
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Full review · benchmarks against Intel and the 2950X
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is excellent for workstation work, but less impressive for gaming and content creation.
9.0
Techgage
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · rendering and workstation benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is extremely powerful for heavy multi-threaded work, but not ideal for gaming or every application.
9.0
Techgage
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · workstation and rendering benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is an extremely powerful workstation chip, but not ideal for gaming or responsive desktop use.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Hands-on review · Creator workstation
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is a creator's chip for rendering, CAD and virtual machines, but gamers and everyday users would do better with a six- or eight-core Ryzen.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Hands-on test · 32-core processor
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is the most powerful chip for rendering and heavy multitasking, but its 32 cores and high power draw suit only specialist users.
8.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Lab benchmark · V-Ray rendering
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is the fastest single-processor option for V-Ray CPU rendering, cutting render time by 46% versus Intel's Core i9-7980XE, but only for rendering-heavy work.
8.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Lab test · Workstation rendering
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is a 32-core workstation chip that speeds up rendering, but it is built for professional software, not gamers.
9.0
develop3d.com
≈ estimated
30/08/2018
Hands-on test · Design visualisation
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX suits design studios that render large scenes quickly, but CAD work and long renders show its limits.
9.0
aecmag.com
≈ estimated
30/08/2018
Hands-on test · Architecture and CAD
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX suits design studios that render big scenes, cutting a KeyShot job from around ten minutes to under two.
9.5
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
14/08/2018
Workstation review · Armari build
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX suits 3D modelling and multi-threaded rendering, boosts to 4.2GHz, and needs capable cooling to hold 4GHz on every core.
8.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
14/08/2018
Lab test · 32-core workstation
Verdict
The Threadripper 2990WX is a 32-core rendering chip that struggles in games unless you enable Game Mode, which cuts it to eight cores.
7.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
14/11/2018
Lab test · Benchmark review
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is a top chip for professional software that uses all 32 cores, but programs that can't use many cores run better on smaller chips.
7.0
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Lab test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is very fast for pros editing 4K video or rendering 3D, but gamers should choose the 2950X instead.
9.5
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
14/08/2018
Lab test · Multi-core benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX leads in multi-core rendering for creators and developers, but its single-core speed trails Intel and it draws more power.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Lab test · 32-core workstation chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is a 32-core chip built for video editing, modelling and 3D rendering, but many everyday programs cannot use all its cores.
7.0
tomshardware.fr
✓ explicit
15/08/2018
Lab test · Air and water cooling
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX runs at full speed on a basic air cooler and performs strongly in heavily parallel calculations, but few programs use all 32 cores.
9.4
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
13/08/2018
Full review · Workstation processor
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX suits virtual machines and heavy rendering, but its 250W heat output calls for liquid cooling and limits overclocking.
7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
11/08/2018
Lab test · 32-core workstation CPU
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX brings 32 cores to high-end desktops, but it only delivers its best results in heavily threaded workloads.
7.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Lab test · Multi-core performance
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is built for rendering and parallel computing, but its 32 cores sit idle in games and in software that does not scale.
7.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
13/08/2018
Lab test · Workstation processor
Verdict
The Threadripper 2990WX has 32 cores that speed up 3D rendering and POV-Ray, but in stock gaming it is extremely slow and needs legacy mode.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

  • Unmatched multi-threaded performance for 3D rendering, video encoding, and heavy scientific workloads
  • Massive 32-core and 64-thread count providing high aggregate compute power on a consumer platform
  • Drop-in compatibility with existing X399 chipset motherboards via a BIOS update
  • Supports up to 64 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes for extensive multi-GPU and NVMe storage configurations
  • Excellent value for high-end workstation performance compared to competing Intel HEDT processors
  • Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 technology effectively manage clock speeds based on thermal headroom

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

  • Inconsistent performance in memory-sensitive applications due to two dies lacking direct DRAM access
  • Poor gaming performance and lower single-threaded IPC compared to mainstream Ryzen or Intel CPUs
  • High power consumption and significant heat generation, especially under full load or when overclocked
  • Software and OS optimization issues, with some applications struggling to utilize all 32 cores effectively
  • Steep entry price for the processor and required high-end cooling solutions
  • Platform is considered a 'dead end' as it is incompatible with later Zen 2 and Zen 3 Threadripper generations

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is a high-end desktop (HEDT) workstation processor featuring 32 physical cores and 64 threads built on the 12nm Zen+ architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.0GHz and a max boost frequency of up to 4.2GHz, supported by a massive 80MB of total cache (64MB L3), quad-channel DDR4 memory support, and 64 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes for extensive expandability. Its primary advantages include unparalleled multi-threaded performance for heavy rendering, encoding, and scientific workloads, along with compatibility with the existing X399 chipset. However, its drawbacks include a high 250W TDP requiring robust cooling, inconsistent performance in memory-bound applications due to its quad-die NUMA topology, and mediocre gaming results compared to lower-core-count processors.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX 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 2990WX and other processors

No results found