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 9980X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£4,120PassMark multi-core score:147481N. of physical cores:64CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:sTR5TDP (Thermal design power):350 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 20 expert and video reviews and 3 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.4/10

Overall score

Score
8.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components

40%

8.9

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

8.1

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 98% of processors
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

▼Worse than 94%
8.9

Technical score

Technical score
8.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.6

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

9.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

★Better than 99%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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 86% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (20)
13 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 7 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 86%
8.1

List score

List score
8.1/ 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 (3)
List score: in 3 of 78 lists (4%)
★Better than 95%
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £4,120
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 9980X

Based on 9 · 7

Reviewers praise the multi-core speed and manageable power and cooling, but criticize lower clock speeds, everyday app performance and value.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Technical score
Technical score
8.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

9.6

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

9.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.5

Power & Thermal

4%

9.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

8.9
Reviews score
8.3
List score
8.1
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

70%

8.4

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

6.2
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
sTR5
This processor uses the sTR5 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Chipset
TRX50
This processor supports TRX50 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 98.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% 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
5.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.4 GHz which is higher than that of 94.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
64x 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 64x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 99.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
147,481
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 147,481 in PassMark, which is higher than 99.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% 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
64 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 99.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
L1 cache
5,120 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 5,120 KB which is larger than that of 99.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
6,400 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 97.5% of processors and equal to 1.8% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
1 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 1 TB of memory, which is more than 97.9% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
350 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 350 W which is higher than that of 98.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
350 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 350 W which is higher than that of 98.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 12.86x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (147,481 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    147,481 vs 11,469
  • 5.5x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (28,666 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    28,666 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 76.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,526 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,526 vs 2,558
  • 2.12x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,259 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,259 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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 86% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (20)
    13 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sTR5 vs FP5).
    sTR5 vs FP5
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    July 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • 12.86x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (147,481 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    147,481 vs 11,469
  • 5.5x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (28,666 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    28,666 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 76.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,526 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,526 vs 2,558
  • 2.12x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,259 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,259 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 22.7% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (64x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    64x3.2 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.
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Shimada Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    64 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
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • 13.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (5,120 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    5,120 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 13.44x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (66.5 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    66.52 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 72 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (88 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    88 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 16x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (1 TB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    1 TB vs 64 GB
  • 4.37x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (204.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    204.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 7.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    350 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.
  • 5.38x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (952 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    952 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 7.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    350 W vs 45 W
  • 16.48x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is more expensive than the average processor (£4,120 vs £250).
    £4,120 vs £250
  • 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
  • 18.2% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has worse value for money than the average processor (6.16 vs 7.3).
    6.16 vs 7.29
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 16.48x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is more expensive than the average processor (£4,120 vs £250).
    £4,120 vs £250
  • 18.2% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has worse value for money than the average processor (6.16 vs 7.3).
    6.16 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack, GMET, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack, GMET, Pluton 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
  • 5.38x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (952 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    952 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.
  • 7.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    350 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.
  • 7.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (350 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    350 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

8.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
01/08/2025
Hands-on review · rendering benchmarks and PBO overclocking tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is excellent for rendering and multi-core work, but its price jump over the 32-core model is hard to justify.
7.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Benchmark review · workstation and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X suits PCIe-heavy workstations, but it offers poor value for most buyers and less consistent gaming than desktop chips.
8.0
Gamer Meld
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks against last-gen and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is only a modest upgrade over last gen, but it is strong wherever many cores are used.
8.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and cooling tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X delivers strong overclocking and cooling results, but it is unclear whether it justifies an upgrade from a 7950X.
7.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power and cooling tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is excellent and stable, but its high cost and power draw make it worth considering only for paid workstation work.
6.0
Paul's Hardware
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Launch review · test bed build, benchmarks and buyer advice
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is only worth buying for people who earn money from demanding workloads; most buyers should pick cheaper options.
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
storagereview.com
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Lab test · Enterprise workloads
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is a clear generational step up from the 7980X, leading heavily threaded workstation tasks such as energy and financial services modeling.
7.5
xda-developers.com
✓ explicit
30/07/2025
Hands-on test · Workstation chip
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is built for heavy parallel workstation work, and its AVX-512 gains are large in suitable software, though most tasks improve only modestly.
9.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
25/08/2025
Lab test · Gaming and power
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X handles all-core rendering well, but it draws 371W and trails desktop chips in Photoshop and games.
9.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
30/07/2025
Hands-on test · Benchmark roundup
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is AMD's most powerful high-end desktop chip yet, with better efficiency and slightly higher clocks than the 7000 series.
8.0
lowyat.net
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Hands-on test · Gaming and rendering
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X dominates Cinebench and heavy multi-core rendering, but it is overkill for gaming, where consumer Ryzen 9000 chips perform better.
9.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
30/07/2025
Lab test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is a top pick for heavy multi-threaded work like Blender rendering, but it struggles in games and only pays off with software that uses all 64 cores.
7.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
30/07/2025
Benchmark review · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is a strong step up for heavy rendering, but only software that uses all 64 cores will make the most of its extra power.
9.0
hardwareand.co
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Lab test · Creative workstation
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is the fastest processor tested so far and excels at highly parallel creative work, but it offers little help for lightly threaded tasks or games.
9.0
hardwareand.co
≈ estimated
30/07/2025
Hands-on test · Production CPU
Verdict
The Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is a 64-core Zen 5 chip with clear rendering gains over its predecessor, though not every task improves.
9.0
blog.elhacker.net
≈ estimated
01/12/2025
Full benchmark test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Threadripper 9980X is a clear step up for multi-core work at similar power use, but with a top graphics card, games below 4K run into a CPU bottleneck.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

  • Exceptional multi-core performance for rendering, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations.
  • Significant generational uplift (up to 25%) over the previous 7980X in highly-threaded workloads like V-Ray and Blender.
  • Efficient Zen 5 architecture makes it surprisingly easy to cool despite a 350W TDP.
  • Support for up to 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes allows for massive I/O expansion (multiple GPUs/NVMe arrays).
  • Improved memory support for DDR5-6400 (up to 1TB capacity) out of the box.
  • Compatible with existing TRX50 motherboards (sTR5 socket) via a BIOS update.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

  • Extremely high price point ($4,999 MSRP), resulting in poor value for non-professional users.
  • Underwhelming gaming performance; often outperformed by much cheaper consumer chips like the Ryzen 9 9950X3D.
  • Lower sustained all-core clock speeds (around 4.5GHz) compared to the 32-core 9970X.
  • No integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU for any display output.
  • Platform costs remain very high, as TRX50 motherboards and high-capacity RDIMMs are expensive.
  • Some software compatibility issues in apps not optimized for ultra-high thread counts (e.g., occasional crashes in PugetBench Premiere Pro tests).

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is a high-end workstation processor based on the 4nm Zen 5 architecture, featuring 64 cores and 128 threads with a base clock of 3.2 GHz and a boost clock up to 5.4 GHz. It boasts a massive 256MB of L3 cache, 92 total PCIe 5.0 lanes (88 usable), and support for quad-channel DDR5-6400 ECC RDIMM memory on the sTR5 socket platform. Main pros include best-in-class multi-threaded performance for AI development and 3D rendering, a significant 25% performance uplift in certain heavy workloads over its predecessor, and extensive I/O for multiple GPUs and high-speed storage. However, its primary cons are the extreme $4,999 launch price, a high 350W TDP that demands substantial cooling solutions, and limited performance benefits for gaming or lightly threaded applications compared to standard desktop CPUs.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X 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 9980X and other processors

No results found