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 3970X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£920PassMark multi-core score:62900N. of physical cores:32CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:sTRX4TDP (Thermal design power):280 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 27 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 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
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

Technical score

25%

8.8

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

★Better than 90% 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

5.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 82%
8.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.8/ 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 98% of models

80%

8.6

Average grade

20%

9.4

Popularity

Grades by review (27)
19 reviews: 11 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 98%
?

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-3970x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x
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 3970X

Based on 9 · 7

Reviewers praise its huge multi-core power and connectivity, but note limited platform compatibility, heavy heat and poor value, with gaming views split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Based on 14 owners sharing their experience in online comments

43%positive28%mixed29%negative

Owners praise its speed in creative work, while high temperatures and uneven results in demanding workloads cause frustration.

What owners dislike

  • In heavy Blender CPU renders it reaches 80–85°C at stock and hits the 95°C maximum with PBO or overclocking.3
  • Blender physics simulations gain less than expected, few programs use all cores, and heavy models lag above about 5 million polygons.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components:

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.8
Reviews score
8.8
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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

5.7

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
sTRX4
This processor uses the sTRX4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Chipset
TRX40
This processor supports TRX40 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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, ADX, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 94.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
32x 3.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 32x3.7 GHz which is higher than that of 99% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
62,900
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 62,900 in PassMark, which is higher than 98.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
128 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 128 MB which is larger than that of 98% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% 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
2048 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2048 KB which is larger than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
3,600 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 3,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.8% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
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
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)
280 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 280 W which is higher than that of 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
280 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 280 W which is higher than that of 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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 3970X vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.48x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (62,900 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    62,900 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 2.64x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,755 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,755 vs 5,209
  • 5.92x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (16,596 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    16,596 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
  • 14.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (128 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    128 MB vs 9 MB
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (32x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    32x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 31.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.8/ 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 98% of models

    80%

    8.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    19 reviews: 11 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.
    8.8 vs 6.7
  • 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, ADX, 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, ADX, 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 (sTRX4 vs FP5).
    sTRX4 vs FP5
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • 5.48x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (62,900 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    62,900 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 2.64x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,755 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,755 vs 5,209
  • 5.92x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (16,596 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    16,596 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 (32x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    32x3.7 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.
  • 2.15x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (731.2 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    731.24 vs 340.075
  • 8.3% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,662 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,662 vs 1,535
  • 14.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (128 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    128 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 2.16x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 5.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2048 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,048 KB vs 384 KB
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 4.84x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (23.9 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    23.94 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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
  • 2.18x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 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.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 88.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (47.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    47.4 vs 398.015
  • 6.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 4.02x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (712 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    712 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 6.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 3.68x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is more expensive than the average processor (£920 vs £250).
    £920 vs £250
  • 3.68x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is more expensive than the average processor (£920 vs £250).
    £920 vs £250
  • 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
  • 88.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (47.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    47.4 vs 398.015
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 4.02x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (712 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    712 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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.
  • 6.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 6.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (280 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    280 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
Chris Mizo
≈ estimated
10/08/2020
Long-term test · 8 months of daily use
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X runs hot and is expensive to run, but it is a reliable workstation CPU that has paid for itself.
9.5
Adam Baroody
≈ estimated
16/01/2020
Hands-on review · ZBrush sculpting, rendering and projection tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is excellent for ZBrush sculpting and rendering, and highly recommended if you want top performance.
8.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Hands-on review · performance, thermals and value tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X leads the market here, but its price premium only pays off if your time is valuable.
8.0
optimum
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and Premiere tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is a huge performance gain for heavy content creation, but overkill for most mainstream creators, who should choose the 3950X.
8.0
iGyaan
≈ estimated
11/02/2020
Quick look · benchmarks and first test setup
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X performs very well overall, though graphics card compatibility problems held back the gaming tests.
8.0
Paul's Hardware
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Benchmark comparison · against Intel Core i9 10980XE
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X delivers strong performance, but its price does not scale well, so the cheaper 3960X makes more sense for most buyers.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Lab test · Rendering and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is the fastest desktop chip for rendering and 7-Zip, but it loses single-core tests to the Core i9-9900K and has little overclocking room.
9.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
First look · Chiplet design
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X packs 32 cores and 64 threads into Zen 2 chiplets, but its new TRX40 socket rules out older Threadripper boards and chips.
9.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
29/11/2019
Benchmark review · Windows workstation tests
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X delivers a bigger generational jump than usual, but its new TRX40 socket means older Threadripper boards can't be reused.
9.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Compute benchmark · Linpack and NAMD
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X is strong for scientific computing, but Intel's AVX-512 chips still lead in Linpack and code may need recompiling or tuning to reach top speed.
9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
20/12/2019
Lab review · Threadripper versus Intel
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X tops high-end desktop chips for multi-core work and overclocking, but needs a new TRX40 board and has only quad-channel memory.
10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Lab test · Creator-focused processor
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X suits developers, video editors and renderers, with PCIe 4.0 throughout, while gamers gain little over a six- or eight-core chip.
9.5
hardwarecanucks.com
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Video review · Benchmarks and motherboards
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X leads most rendering and encoding tests, but its new socket means buying TRX40 motherboards.
9.0
digitec.ch
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Hands-on test · Creator benchmarks
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X is far faster than the Ryzen 9 3950X at rendering and creative work, though single-core speed trails slightly and graphics tests are about even.
10
chip.de
✓ explicit
23/06/2020
Lab test · Cinebench and rendering
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X is strongest at heavy multi-core work, but it runs very hot, has no integrated graphics and is overkill for everyday use.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Lab test · Multi-core performance
Verdict
The Threadripper 3970X is a strong 32-core chip for heavy applications with no memory or cache bottlenecks, though some games need Game mode turned on.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

  • Unmatched multi-threaded performance for professional tasks like 3D rendering and video encoding
  • Significant generational leap, outperforming previous 32-core models by up to 50% in certain benchmarks
  • Supports up to 256GB of quad-channel ECC memory for high-reliability workstation use
  • Excellent PCIe 4.0 support with 64 usable lanes for high-speed storage and multiple GPUs
  • Surprisingly capable gaming performance for an HEDT chip, rivaling high-end mainstream CPUs
  • Improved power efficiency compared to competitors and previous generations when considering the massive core count

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

  • Extremely high cost of entry, including a premium MSRP and expensive TRX40 motherboards
  • Requires significant cooling solutions, typically a high-end 280mm+ liquid cooler
  • Limited overclocking headroom with very small performance gains for the risk involved
  • Middling single-core performance compared to much cheaper mainstream enthusiast chips
  • Lack of backwards compatibility; does not work with older X399/TR4 motherboards
  • High idle power consumption (~130W), which can lead to heat buildup in smaller rooms

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is a high-end desktop processor featuring 32 cores and 64 threads based on the 7nm Zen 2 architecture. It operates at a base clock of 3.7 GHz with a maximum boost of 4.5 GHz and includes a massive 144 MB of combined L2/L3 cache. Built for the TRX40 platform, it supports PCIe 4.0 with 88 total lanes and quad-channel DDR4 memory up to 256GB with ECC support. Its primary pros include unmatched multi-threaded performance for creative workloads like 3D rendering and video editing, significantly improved IPC over previous generations, and excellent power efficiency for its 280W TDP. However, it comes with notable cons such as a high entry cost requiring expensive new motherboards, the lack of backward compatibility with the X399 platform, and a relatively low overclocking ceiling.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 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 3970X and other processors

No results found