Monday, January 6th 2020

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X Pricing and Availability Detailed

AMD will update its 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper product stack sooner than expected. The flagship 64-core/128-thread Ryzen Threadripper 3990X will be available to purchase on February 7, 2020, priced at USD $3,990. The company debuted the "Zen 2" based 3rd gen Threadripper family last November with the 24-core Threadripper 3960X and the 32-core Threadripper 3970X, while teasing the 64-core flagship, the 3990X. AMD detailed this halo-flagship product some more at its 2020 CES event. Designed for the TRX40 platform in the sTRX4 package, the 3990X is differentiated from 64-core EPYC "Rome" products with its narrower monolithic quad-channel memory interface (compared to 8-channel for EPYCs).

The Ryzen Threadripper 3990X ships with clock-speeds of 2.90 GHz with 4.30 GHz boost, a gargantuan 288 MB of total cache (L2 + L3), and the same I/O as the 3970X: 4-channel memory interface with support for up to 2 TB of memory; a PCI-Express 4.0 x8 pipe to the TRX40 chipset, and up to three gen 4.0 x16 links to the processor package. AMD also showed a performance sneak-peak, comparing a machine with a single 3990X squaring off against a machine with 2P Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 processors that add up to 56 cores and 112 threads. In the side-by-side V-Ray render test, the 3990X emerged 30% faster than the Intel setup, but here's the kicker: the 3990X "only" costs $3,990, versus $20,000 for the 2P Xeon 8280 (processors alone). The HEDT chip also supports ECC memory.
Add your own comment

49 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X Pricing and Availability Detailed

#1
seronx
Stop, stop it is already dead! (It being the 1P 56-core Intel)
Posted on Reply
#2
Cheeseball
While AMD is killing Intel with price & performance, the 3990WX seems overpriced for what it was replacing last year, the $1800 2990WX.

If this was $2,500 to $3,000, this would be very attractive to the hardcore HEDT enthusiasts, especially since they have to pay for the jump to a TRX40 motherboard and higher-clocked 3200MHz DDR4 ECC memory.
Posted on Reply
#3
phill
I'm not sure if there's enough cores on that CPU, but damn, I'd love one !! :D :D
Posted on Reply
#4
Mark Little
Cheeseball
While AMD is killing Intel with price & performance, the 3990WX seems overpriced for what it was replacing last year, the $1800 2990WX.

If this was $2,500 to $3,000, this would be very attractive to the hardcore HEDT enthusiasts, especially since they have to pay for the jump to a TRX40 motherboard and higher-clocked 3200MHz DDR4 ECC memory.
Seriously!?! If AMD is only marginal on the GPU pricing, its absolutely killing Intel on pricing in the CPU space. You really need to stop this now!
Posted on Reply
#5
Patriot
I selfishly wish for a lower price as well, however the 3970x replaces the 2990x and is what 40% faster....
Price increases are warranted. AMD is dominating in the space.
Posted on Reply
#6
Cheeseball
Mark Little
Seriously!?! If AMD is only marginal on the GPU pricing, its absolutely killing Intel on pricing in the CPU space. You really need to stop this now!
Stop what? 2990WX (their first 64-core Zen+ CPU) was $1800 on it's launch last year. 3990WX (the 2990WX successor, [S]also 64-core) at $3990 is more than double the price of it's predecessor. HEDT users who are on TR4 now have to buy a new TRX40 motherboard and better memory (3200 MHz is not a need, but would help). Like I said, if this came out at $2500 to $3000, it would be extremely attractive for everyone.[/S]

If you're harping on about killing Intel, they've already been beating their balls with the EPYC 7742 selling for just $6950.

EDIT: Man I'm drunk as shit. I thought 2990WX was 64-core.
Posted on Reply
#7
steve360
Cheeseball
the 3990WX seems overpriced for what it was replacing last year, the $1800 2990WX.
2990WX - 32 cores at $1800
3970X - 32 cores at $2000 (the real replacement for the 2990WX, because they're both 32 cores - shock horror)
3990X - 64 cores at $3990

3990X overpriced? Seriously? It's going for exactly what was expected.
Posted on Reply
#8
theoneandonlymrk
Cheeseball
While AMD is killing Intel with price & performance, the 3990WX seems overpriced for what it was replacing last year, the $1800 2990WX.

If this was $2,500 to $3,000, this would be very attractive to the hardcore HEDT enthusiasts, especially since they have to pay for the jump to a TRX40 motherboard and higher-clocked 3200MHz DDR4 ECC memory.
What, no ones got any choice, buy an amd 64/128 thread or don't is the choice, if you need one what does it matter what it costs you would have no choice, they're generous imho.
Posted on Reply
#10
Cheeseball
Zubasa
Because of Windows scheduling issues, in most cases even the $1400 24-core 3960X already out performs the 2990WX.
3D rendering is pretty much the best case senario for the 2990WX and it barely keeps up with the 3960X.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15044/the-amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-and-3970x-review-24-and-32-cores-on-7nm/5
I agree with these sentiments, although I would've preferred that the 3960X launch at the same price (or maybe $100 less) as it's previous generation 2970WX to give leeway with the platform jump too. TRX40 motherboards are going from $450 to $850 at the moment
Posted on Reply
#11
Zubasa
Cheeseball
I agree with these sentiments, although I would've preferred that the 3960X launch at the same price (or maybe $100 less) as it's previous generation 2970WX to give leeway with the platform jump too. TRX40 motherboards are going from $450 to $850 at the moment
Definitely agree, this is the situation I am in right now.
Even 24c/48t is more than what I know what to do with.
I need the IO on HEDT but I am not quite sure if I want to shell out for new mobo + CPU.

The issue with Zen right now is the core count is restricted by the dual CCX per chiplet design.
With Zen3 and the alleged redesign, they can make odd-cores chiplets and lets say make a 20-core Threadripper for $1000.
Posted on Reply
#12
Tomgang
Finnally a cpu powerful enough to run my very demanding single core threaded applications:p

More seriously, a powerful cpu that kicks Intel right there where it hurts the most. But to the price of 3999 USD, I think I can be pleased with less in form of ryzen 9 3950X to replace my old i7 980x.

Posted on Reply
#13
thesmokingman
Cheeseball
While AMD is killing Intel with price & performance, the 3990WX seems overpriced for what it was replacing last year, the $1800 2990WX.

If this was $2,500 to $3,000, this would be very attractive to the hardcore HEDT enthusiasts, especially since they have to pay for the jump to a TRX40 motherboard and higher-clocked 3200MHz DDR4 ECC memory.
:rolleyes:

Go buy a 64 core epyc then.
Posted on Reply
#14
Darmok N Jalad
Crazy to think this is how far we've come. I'm wondering how long it will be before 16C/32T is in the $300 price bracket. 5nm?
Posted on Reply
#15
Tomgang
Darmok N Jalad
Crazy to think this is how far we've come. I'm wondering how long it will be before 16C/32T is in the $300 price bracket. 5nm?
Intel CEO: I find your comment very disturbing...


Cut just as well be Intel ceo reaction I think:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#16
Cheeseball
thesmokingman
:rolleyes:

Go buy a 64 core epyc then.
?

Corrections (and making a complete fool out of myself) were made in my further replies.

3970X at $1800 ($200 less, launch price of the 2990WX) would be more palpable for moving to 32-cores on TRX40. Although 3990WX at $3200 to $3400 would be better.

EPYC 7742 is currently selling for just $6950 which is completely screwing over Intel's Xeon Platinum.
Posted on Reply
#17
Jism
This thing is a massive tank in relation of performance.
Posted on Reply
#18
Dave65
Once again Intel, RIP :roll:
Posted on Reply
#19
Mouth of Sauron
/Sarcastic mode on/

It's all in vain, because the next-gen NVIDIA GPU will be both 50% faster (then what?) and use 50% less power (then what?) and probably be 50% cheaper (then what?), and will render the mentioned V-RAY scene in real-time, in 4k with active player interaction, probably with stable 360+Hz (for a new G-Sync flavour) in time of <5min... It will probably work without CPU, because (like) no one will need one...

Because, like, it so easy for their hardware acceleration to bypass current 20-30x gap between CPU and GPU RT/RP render... Mr. Huang invented whole new math, glory glory hallelujah! Another non-Euclidian one, I would bet - Lovecraft be praised... Mr. Huang, yo non-euclidian shader so fast, it renders light ray faster than the light can travel... just few millions times faster, because rays so few in 3D scene...

/Sarcastic mode off/

This is very important advancement, because all of the sudden, all that power is relatively available to single user. Personally, I can't think what I'd do with the power like that, but some others probably can - it effectively allows users to have high-grade (server? workstation?) hardware at relatively low price - and that is effectively breaking Moore's law from a view quite different - the price one. If the trend continues, we will be able to afford CPUs in previously unheard price range...
Posted on Reply
#20
Zach_01
Zubasa
The issue with Zen right now is the core count is restricted by the dual CCX per chiplet design.
With Zen3 and the alleged redesign, they can make odd-cores chiplets and lets say make a 20-core Threadripper for $1000.
ZEN3 will still be 8-core per chiplet, but instead of 2x4core CCXs (in the CCD/chiplet) it will be 1x8core CCX/CCD/chiplet. The are unifying the L3 cache to all 8cores and making it 1 CCX of 8cores.
Posted on Reply
#21
Zubasa
Zach_01
ZEN3 will still be 8-core per chiplet, but instead of 2x4core CCXs (in the CCD/chiplet) it will be 1x8core CCX/CCD/chiplet. The are unifying the L3 cache to all 8cores and making it 1 CCX of 8cores.
Well yeah when you have 2 CCX per chiplet, you can only make 2/4/6/8 cores per chiplet.
With EPYC /Threadripper you either use 2/4/6/8 chiplets per package.
So right now AMD can do 4x6 = 24 or 4x4=16 or for EPYC 7282 2x8=16, there is no way to make any core count in between.

It really doesn't make sense to make a 16-cores Threadripper, as AMD stated almost nobody brought the 8-core 1900X either.
So right now their only choice is to start at 24-core and there is no reason to charge less for it.
What you end up with is a huge void between $750 and $1400 CPUs with Intel being the only option in between.
Posted on Reply
#22
Zach_01
Zubasa
Well yeah when you have 2 CCX per chiplet, you can only make 2/4/6/8 cores per chiplet.
With EPYC /Threadripper you either use 2/4/6/8 chiplets per package.
So right now AMD can do 4x6 = 24 or 4x4=16 or for EPYC 2x8=16, there is no way to make any core count in between.

It really doesn't make sense to make a 16-cores Threadripper, as AMD stated almost nobody brought the 8-core 1900X either.
So right now their only choice is to start at 24-core and there is no reason to charge less for it.
What you end up with is a huge void between $750 and $1400 CPUs with Intel being the only option in between.
Well, make an example of something between the 16core 3950X and 24core 3960X from Intel that makes sense buying... (price to performance wise)
Since there is a “mainstream” desktop part of 16cores why would they make 16core HEDT part? For the I/O alone? Doesn’t make sense.
Posted on Reply
#23
Zubasa
Zach_01
Well, make an example of something between the 16core 3950X and 24core 3960X from Intel that makes sense buying... (price to performance wise)
Since there is a “mainstream” desktop part of 16cores why would they make 16core HEDT part? For the I/O alone? Doesn’t make sense.
There is no need to be quotes around mainstream. The 3950X is a mainstream CPU with its 20-pcie lanes off the CPU (with 4 more to the chipset).
A GPU takes 16 lanes, the first M.2 takes another 4, then there is 4 lanes to the chipset that is split amount all the M.2 and SATA etc.
With 3 nvme SSD like I do, I will be completely out of lanes, meanning I cannot add a 10G lan card, capture card etc.

The Intel X299 CPUs do now all offer 48-lanes off the CPU, even though they are still PCI-E 3.
It isn't easy to convert the PCI-E 4.0 bandwidth to more lanes of PCI-E, you need some kind of PLX switch chip.
Those alone cost like $100 now.
Posted on Reply
#24
thesmokingman
Zubasa
What you end up with is a huge void between $750 and $1400 CPUs with Intel being the only option in between.
That gap is filled by TR2.
Posted on Reply
#25
Zubasa
thesmokingman
That gap is filled by TR2.
The Issue with TR2, it the 2970WX and 2990WX really don't perform well on Windows. Price-wise they are still near the 3960X which out performs both of them.
The 2970WX right now is still $1275 on newegg, so it make absolute no sense to buy new.
https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2970wx/p/N82E16819113546?Description=2970X&cm_re=2970X-_-19-113-546-_-Product
As for the 2950X, it performs almost the same as my overclocked 1950X.

As for price, I am looking at $1400 3960X + $460 ish Asrock Creator, with the price hikes that puts the cost close to $2000.
A 10980XE and a "cheap" X299 board combined costs less than a $1400 3960X.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment