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 PRO 3975WX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,860PassMark multi-core score:62279N. of physical cores:32CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:sWRX8TDP (Thermal design power):280 W

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 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 83% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

Technical score

25%

7.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

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

â–²Better than 83% of processors
5.6

Value for money

Value for money
5.6/ 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 99% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
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%

7.4

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 82%
7.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.7/ 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 55% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, 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 55%
?

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-pro-3975wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
  • amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3975wx
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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

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%

7.4

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.8
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.6
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
sWRX8
This processor uses the sWRX8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 93% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
WRX80
This processor supports WRX80 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 32x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 98.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
62,279
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 62,279 in PassMark, which is higher than 97.9% of processors.
Show more
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
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)
N/A
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
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

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.43x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (62,279 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    62,279 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
  • 2.85x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,850 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,850 vs 5,209
  • 6.34x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (17,768 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    17,768 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
  • 112 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (128 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    128 vs 16
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 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 55% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (sWRX8 vs FP5).
    sWRX8 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
  • 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
  • 5.43x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (62,279 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    62,279 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
  • 2.85x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,850 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,850 vs 5,209
  • 6.34x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (17,768 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    17,768 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 (32x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    32x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 75.3% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (697.7 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    697.72 vs 398.015
  • 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
  • 58.2% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (74 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    74 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 3.07x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (15.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    15.2 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
  • 112 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (128 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    128 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
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 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
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 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
  • 7.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,860 vs £250).
    £1,860 vs £250
  • 29.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.63 vs 7.3).
    5.63 vs 7.29
  • 7.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,860 vs £250).
    £1,860 vs £250
  • 29.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has worse value for money than the average processor (5.63 vs 7.3).
    5.63 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 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 (Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake).
    Castle Peak vs Kaby Lake
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 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
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
Drew Geraci
≈ estimated
17/03/2021
Build video · workstation build and DaVinci Resolve tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is among the best workstation builds to work on, with excellent real-time 8K editing performance.
Shop video
Brand video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
19/02/2021
Software test · Video editing
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is a strong Premiere Pro chip, with 30-40% higher live playback on some 8K and 4K footage, though single clips gain little.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

  • Exceptional multi-core performance for rendering, 3D modeling, and data compiling
  • Massive connectivity with 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes for multi-GPU and high-speed storage setups
  • Support for 8-channel ECC RAM and up to 2TB of total memory
  • Balanced performance-to-cost ratio within the Threadripper Pro lineup compared to higher-core models
  • Professional-grade features like IPMI for out-of-band management and enhanced security
  • Effective thermal management when paired with high-quality air or liquid cooling

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

  • High total cost of ownership, including expensive WRX80 motherboards and high MSRP
  • Significant power consumption with a 280W TDP, requiring robust cooling and power solutions
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking
  • Not optimized for gaming; performance may be lower than cheaper consumer CPUs in single-threaded tasks
  • Requires professional-grade RDIMM/LRDIMM memory which can have higher latency
  • Cooler is not included in the box, adding to the initial setup cost

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is a high-end workstation processor built on the 7nm Zen 2 architecture, featuring 32 cores and 64 threads with a 3.5 GHz base clock and up to a 4.2 GHz boost frequency. Designed for the sWRX8 socket, it excels in professional workloads like 3D rendering and data compiling by offering 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, 128MB of L3 cache, and eight-channel DDR4-3200 memory support for up to 2TB of ECC RAM. Main pros include its massive multi-threaded performance and unrivaled I/O bandwidth for expansion. Notable cons include its high 280W TDP requiring robust cooling, the lack of an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and a high entry cost compared to mainstream desktop platforms.

Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX 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 PRO 3975WX and other processors

No results found