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 3990X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£3,510PassMark multi-core score:79673N. of physical cores:64CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:sTRX4TDP (Thermal design power):280 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 31 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 89% of models
Score components

40%

7.6

Technical score

25%

8.5

Reviews score

25%

7.6

List score

10%

7.6

Sentiment score

▲Better than 89% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

▼Worse than 98%
7.6

Technical score

Technical score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 79% of models
Score components

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 79%
8.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (31)
20 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 11 estimated from the review. 11 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 92%
7.6

List score

List score
7.6/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x
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 3990X

Based on 10 · 11

Reviewers agree its multi-core and rendering muscle is outstanding, but the cost and heavy power draw are hard to justify.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Technical score
Technical score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 79% of models
Score components:

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.6
Reviews score
8.5
List score
7.6
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.0

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
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
64
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 64 CPU cores, which is more than 99.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU threads
128
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 128 CPU threads, which is more than 99.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.3 GHz which is lower than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
64x 2.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 64x2.9 GHz which is higher than that of 99.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
79,673
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 79,673 in PassMark, which is higher than 98.8% 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
256 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 256 MB which is larger than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L2 cache
32 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L1 cache
4,096 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 4,096 KB which is larger than that of 99% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
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)
?
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 3990X vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6.95x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (79,673 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    79,673 vs 11,469
  • 58 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (64 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    64 vs 6
  • 8.84x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (24,803 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    24,803 vs 2,804.5
  • 2.66x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,857 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,857 vs 5,209
  • 60 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (64 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    64 vs 4
  • 120 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (128 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    128 vs 8
  • 28.44x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (256 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    256 MB vs 9 MB
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 MB vs 3 MB
  • 26.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 92% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (31)
    20 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 11 estimated from the review. 11 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.
    8.5 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
  • 6.95x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (79,673 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    79,673 vs 11,469
  • 58 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (64 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    64 vs 6
  • 8.84x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (24,803 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    24,803 vs 2,804.5
  • 2.66x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,857 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,857 vs 5,209
  • 60 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (64 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    64 vs 4
  • 120 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (128 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    128 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (64x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    64x2.9 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.
  • 28.44x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (256 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    256 MB vs 9 MB
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 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
  • 10.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (4,096 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    4,096 KB vs 384 KB
  • 7.98x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (39.5 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    39.5 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 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
  • 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 vs 3
  • 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
  • 92.5% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (30 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    30 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
  • 5.69x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (1,008 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    1,008 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 73.9% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (88.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    88.6 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • 14.04x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is more expensive than the average processor (£3,510 vs £250).
    £3,510 vs £250
  • 14.04x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is more expensive than the average processor (£3,510 vs £250).
    £3,510 vs £250
  • 26.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X has worse value for money than the average processor (5.77 vs 7.3).
    5.77 vs 7.29
  • 2.6% lower list score
    List score
    7.6/ 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 (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    7.6 vs 7.8
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 92.5% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (30 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    30 vs 398.015
  • 73.9% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (88.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    88.6 vs 340.075
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.69x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (1,008 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    1,008 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

9.5
NicoD's SBCs
≈ estimated
20/11/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power and heat tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X delivers outstanding performance and efficiency, a strong showing for x86 designs.
9.5
PC Crazy
≈ estimated
18/05/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks and motherboard tour
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X suits rendering, game development and high-budget video editing; the cheaper 3970X and 3960X are alternatives.
9.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
28/03/2020
Real-world build test · rendering, encoding and gaming
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is strong for demanding multitasking and content creation, though game stutter and memory needs are drawbacks.
7.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
11/03/2020
Hands-on review · code compile, render and compression benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is only worth it for professionals whose workloads scale well; most buyers should choose the 3970X.
9.5
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
17/02/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks and Windows/Linux tuning
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X has few real flaws and performs best on Linux, though it caps memory at 256 GB.
6.0
optimum
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Hands-on review · rendering, editing and gaming benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is only worth it for niche, heavy workloads; most creators should choose the 3960X or 3970X instead.
9.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Hands-on review · overclocking, power and performance tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X suits heavy workstation work, but its price and power draw make it niche for most users.
9.5
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks and content creation workflow
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X performs strongly even when workloads can't use all its cores, but it only makes sense for extreme workloads.
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
07/02/2020
Lab test · Rendering and VFX
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X suits rendering and VFX work, but its use is narrow, and it needs a strong water cooler to reach its best results.
9.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
07/02/2020
Benchmark review · Rendering and gaming
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is a strong pick for time-critical rendering, but many everyday programs gain little from its extra 32 cores.
9.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
07/02/2020
Hands-on review · 64-core desktop chip
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is a 64-core, 128-thread desktop chip for heavy multi-threaded work, but some software stops scaling beyond 64 threads.
8.0
hexus.net
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Hands-on test · 64-core workstation
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is the fastest high-end desktop chip, built for workstation users whose software can use up to 128 threads.
6.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Lab test · Premiere Pro editing
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X underperforms in Premiere Pro, where the 24- and 32-core Threadrippers match or beat it; it pays off only in software that uses all its cores.
8.0
bit-tech.net
≈ estimated
30/04/2020
Lab review · Workstation and gaming
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X excels at rendering, but its lower all-core boost lets cheaper models win in lightly threaded work.
9.0
cgchannel.com
≈ estimated
28/05/2020
Workstation benchmarks · Rendering and VFX
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X leads rendering, simulation and Unreal Engine tasks by large margins, but gains little in HandBrake and Unreal project packaging.
9.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
07/02/2020
Lab test · Benchmarks and gaming
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X leads rendering and other core-heavy work, but gains little in gaming and Premiere Pro.
9.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
07/02/2020
Lab test · Core count and boost
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is a 64-core, 128-thread chip with no real Intel rival, best suited to heavy multi-threaded work rather than lightly threaded tasks.
9.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Linux benchmark · Launch-day preview
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is the top single-socket Linux workstation chip in these early tests, though they covered only about 48 hours with the chip.
9.0
overclock3d.net
≈ estimated
16/04/2020
Benchmark review · Rendering flagship
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is a 64-core desktop chip that should cut waits on long 4K encodes and 3D renders, though single-core speed suffers.
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Lab test · Power and multitasking
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is far ahead of other desktop chips, suited to multi-day workloads, but it draws heavy power and drops to about 3GHz under long load.
9.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
07/02/2020
Hands-on preview · Application benchmarks
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X leads rendering and encoding tests, but it has the highest power draw the lab has ever measured, and this preview lacks full results.
7.8
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
25/03/2020
Lab test · Professional workloads
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is the fastest desktop chip for professional work, but it has no built-in graphics and draws a lot of power under load.
9.8
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
14/03/2020
Lab test · 64-core desktop chip
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X is a 64-core desktop chip that holds high clocks under long full load, though it needs strong cooling and four memory sticks at once.
9.5
tomshw.it
✓ explicit
11/04/2026
Lab test · Workstation rendering
Verdict
The Threadripper 3990X suits video and rendering work, but Windows 10 splits its 128 threads into two groups, so many programs stop at 64.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

  • Unmatched multi-threaded performance with 64 cores and 128 threads, especially for 3D rendering and video production
  • Significant productivity gains in professional software like Blender and Cinebench, often doubling the speed of 32-core counterparts
  • Surprising power efficiency at stock settings relative to its massive core count
  • Support for PCIe Gen 4 provides high-speed connectivity for storage and multiple GPUs
  • Decent lightly-threaded performance for a workstation CPU, thanks to Precision Boost 2
  • Excellent scalability on Linux, which handles the high thread count more effectively than standard Windows versions

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

  • Extremely high price point makes it overkill for most 'normal' or mainstream desktop users
  • Poor value for gaming, as many titles cannot utilize the high core count and may perform worse than cheaper CPUs due to latency
  • Limited to quad-channel memory, which can create bandwidth bottlenecks for certain memory-intensive tasks compared to server-grade EPYC
  • Software limitations in Windows 10 Home/Pro require specific updates or 'Pro for Workstations' to fully utilize all 128 threads
  • Extreme power consumption and heat generation when overclocking, often requiring high-end custom cooling solutions
  • Performance is identical to much cheaper 24 or 32-core models in applications that aren't highly parallelized

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is a high-end desktop (HEDT) powerhouse built on the 7nm Zen 2 architecture, featuring an unprecedented 64 cores and 128 threads. It operates with a base clock of 2.9 GHz, a max boost clock of 4.3 GHz, and carries a massive 288 MB of combined L2 and L3 cache within a 280W TDP. Its primary pros include world-class multi-threaded performance for 3D rendering, 8K video editing, and complex simulations, along with support for 88 PCIe 4.0 lanes for extensive I/O expansion. However, key cons include its high MSRP of $3,990, a limitation to quad-channel memory that can lead to bandwidth starvation in specific workloads, and the requirement for specialized Windows versions or Linux to effectively manage its high thread count.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X 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 3990X and other processors

No results found