AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D review: closing the Intel gap for gaming
AMD is back to challenge Intel for the PC gaming crown. After losing out to the Core i9-13900K with its first Zen 4 chips, the new Ryzen 9 7950X3D closes the performance gap for PC games. But it doesn’t seem to replicate the huge jump that we saw with the dominant Ryzen 7 5800X3D due to a rather mixed bag of results in the selection of games we’ve tested.
This new flagship Ryzen 9 7950X3D chip is priced at $699 and has 16 cores with 32 threads and 144MB of cache. It goes head-to-head with Intel’s flagship Core i9-13900K, which retails at around $589 and has eight performance cores and 16 efficiency cores for a total of 32 threads. While Intel’s main Core i9 is cheaper, AMD also has to compete with Intel’s new $699 Core i9-13900KS processor, which breaks the 6GHz barrier at stock speeds for the first time.
AMD has promised it will beat Intel’s gaming and productivity performance with its X3D chips, all while consuming less power. So we’ve put its flagship 7950X3D against Intel’s Core i9-13900K and Core i9-13900KS chips to find out.
8Verge Score
The Good
- Gaming performance gains
- Lower power draw
The Bad
- AM5 motherboards still slow to boot
- Intel takes the edge in productivity apps
How we rate and review products
I’ve been testing out AMD’s 7950X3D with MSI’s Meg X670E Ace motherboard, 32GB of G.Skill DDR5 6000 RAM, and Nvidia’s RTX 4090. This AM5 motherboard includes one PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot and three PCIe 4.0 M2. slots, so there’s plenty of room for the latest storage.
The Verge doesn’t review processors in the traditional sense, so we don’t own dedicated hardware testing rigs or multiple CPUs and systems to offer all of the benchmarks and comparisons you’d typically find in CPU reviews. We’re going to recommend Eurogamer’s Digital Foundry, Tom’s Hardware, and PC World for those.
AMD test machine:
- CPU cooler: Corsair h250 Elite LCD
- Motherboard: MSI Meg X670E Ace
- RAM: 32GB G.
Skill DDR5 6000 - GPU: Nvidia RTX 4090 Founders Edition
- Storage: Samsung 980 Pro 1TB
- Case: Corsair Crystal 570X
- PSU: Corsair HX1000W
I’ve tested a variety of workloads, synthetic benchmarks, and games across both AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Intel’s Core i9-13900K and 13900KS. All tests were run on the latest Windows 11 2022 Update with VBS security off, Resizable BAR enabled, and at 1080p resolution. Tests are performed at 1080p to help avoid any potential GPU bottlenecks and to analyze the raw CPU performance.
AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X3D catches right up to Intel’s Core i9-13900K in most of the games I tested. In Metro Exodus, the 7950X3D is practically identical in frame rates to the 13900K and 13900KS at 1080p, and it’s similar with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla and Watch Dogs: Legion, too.
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D performance (1080p)
| Metro Exodus (ultra / high) | 158fps | 157fps | 159fps | 153fps |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 354fps | 313fps | 308fps | 286fps |
| Gears 5 | 213fps | 237fps | 235fps | 211fps |
| Assassin’s Creed Valhalla | 207fps | 207fps | 209fps | 201fps |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 156fps | 155fps | 155fps | 141fps |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 209fps | 212fps | 210fps | 197fps |
| F1 22 | 423fps | 389fps | 388fps | 389fps |
| Geekbench 5 single-thread | 2204 | 2211 | 2130 | 2143 |
| Geekbench 5 multithread | 23205 | 26730 | 26241 | 22492 |
| Cinebench R23 single-thread | 2023 | 2163 | 2169 | 1941 |
| Cinebench R23 multithread | 35524 | 39410 | 38704 | 34814 |
| Blender Fishy Cat | 00:13. 1 |
00:13.2 | 00:13.0 | 00:12.5 |
| PugetBench for Premiere Pro | 1288 | 1354 | 1227 | 1148 |
| PugetBench for Photoshop | 1550 | 1678 | 1646 | 1497 |
| 3DMark Time Spy CPU | 16475 | 20858 | 21179 | 18650 |
The big exceptions are Shadow of the Tomb Raider and F1 22, where the 7950X3D blasts straight past Intel’s latest and greatest. Shadow of the Tomb Raider ran at 354fps on the 7950X3D at 1080p, while it hit 308fps on the 13900K and 313fps on the 13900KS. AMD’s 7950X3D also hit 423fps in F1 22, with the 13900KS trailing behind at 389fps.
Intel’s main advantage in the games we tested was Gears 5, where the 13900KS manages to hit 237fps on average compared to 213fps on the 7950X3D. It’s clear from this small selection of games that AMD has closed the gap here, though.
Over on the synthetics benchmarks and productivity side, Intel is still largely ahead. The 7950X3D loses out on PugetBench’s Photoshop test but manages to close the gap on the Premiere Pro side. I found that the 7950X3D also falls behind both Intel’s latest Core i9 chips in Geekbench 5 and Cinebench R23. Strangely, it also falls really behind in the 3DMark Time Spy CPU test.
Intel test machine:
- CPU cooler: Corsair h250 Elite LCD
- Motherboard: MSI MAG Z690 Carbon Wi-Fi
- RAM: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5 6600
- GPU: Nvidia RTX 4090 Founders Edition
- Storage: Western Digital SN850 1TB
- Case: Corsair Crystal 570X
- PSU: Corsair HX1000W
While Intel might edge ahead in some productivity tests and draw in gaming ones, it’s doing so with a much larger power budget. AMD upped its first flagship Zen 4 chips to a 170-watt TDP, but it has dropped this Ryzen 9 7950X3D to a TDP of 120 watts. Intel, on the other hand, has a base power of 125 watts on the Core i9-13900K, and it has bumped this up to 150 watts on the 13900KS.
At max turbo power, both of Intel’s latest chips hit slightly above 250 watts and can go way beyond this if a motherboard is set to unlimited power. The difference can be as much as more than 200 watts between the 7950X3D and 13900KS on identical multithread loads. Digital Foundry also found that the 7950X3D draws significantly less power than Intel’s Core i9-13900K.
Both AMD and Intel have also been maximizing thermal headroom lately. That saw the 7950X run at around 95C during heavy mutilthread loads in our previous review, and the Core i9-13900K hitting 100C in similar workloads. I noticed the 13900KS hitting 101C in a multithread load, while the 7950X3D managed 86C during the same test. Both CPUs are using the same Corsair h250 Elite LCD cooler.
AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X3D arrives on February 28th.
If you like the performance results, here are some considerations. AMD’s latest 3D Zen 4 processors use the company’s impressive 3D V-Cache technology. AMD’s first desktop chip to use this technology was the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, and it outclassed its own Ryzen 5900X and Intel’s 12th Gen Core i9-12900K last year for PC gaming.
Even against the 13900K, it still holds its own.
We now have a better idea of how it performs at the flagship level for productivity and rendering apps, alongside PC gaming. But if you’re interested in a 7950X3D, you’ll need a new AM5 motherboard, much like the regular 7950.
Motherboards that use AM5 have support for DDR5 memory and up to 24 PCIe 5.0 lanes. We’re still waiting on the first PCIe 5.0 consumer SSDs to appear, so you’ll likely be pairing any AM5 motherboard with PCIe 4.0 SSDs for now. The PCIe 5.0 support is also merely futureproofing on the GPU side, as Nvidia’s latest RTX 40-series don’t support this latest standard, and we haven’t hit the limits of PCIe 4.0 for GPUs yet.
Existing AM4 coolers should work just fine, and much like the 7950, I was able to use Corsair’s h250 Elite LCD without any changes required. You’ll need to check with your cooler manufacturer to make sure that existing AM4 models can easily be used with these new AM5 motherboards.
I noticed some early issues with the DDR5 memory training process during my Ryzen 9 7900X review, with an additional boot time of around 30 seconds.
New BIOS updates have certainly addressed this, but I’m still noticing delayed boot times compared to the Intel system I’ve been testing.
I’m pleased to report that the sleep mode issues I also experienced during the Ryzen 9 7900X review have been fixed. I can now resume from sleep with the latest BIOS updates to the MSI Meg X670E Ace.
AMD’s 7950X3D truly closes the gap with Intel’s latest and greatest processors for PC gaming, but it doesn’t go much beyond in our small selection of games. With AMD promising support for its new AM5 socket through 2025, the 7950X3D feels like a great option for those who need performance in both gaming and productivity tasks.
For just pure gaming, AMD might still have a more reasonably priced option for PC gamers that brings the performance and power usage benefits. The 7950X3D arrives alongside the 7900X3D that’s $599. Both chips are shipping on February 28th, with the new Ryzen 7 7800X3D retailing on April 6th priced at $449. AMD only supplied the 7950X3D for testing, but the 7800X3D could be a true successor to the 5800X3D that became a popular option for PC gamers.
Since we haven’t been able to test the 7800X3D yet, the 7950X3D offers some great PC gaming performance in a processor that won’t hit your energy bills quite like Intel’s flagship CPUs will. In an era where chip makers don’t always focus on efficiency, AMD’s 7950X3D shines through as an exception to the rule.
Unreal Engine: AMD Ryzen 7000 Series vs Intel Core 12th Gen
Table of Contents
The new AMD Ryzen 7000 Series processors do extremely well in Unreal Engine, showing a solid 35-39% multi-core performance gain versus the previous generation Ryzen 5000 Series. At the top end, this means the Ryzen 9 7950X outperforms the Intel 12900KS by 53% on average. The 7900X bests the Intel 12900K by 29% across the three tests. This makes Ryzen an solid choice.
Lower down the stack, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 5 7600X are neck and with Intel Core i7 12700K and i5 12600K with only a few percentage points between them. The 7700X did significan’ty falter in one test, but this may be resolved with an update or a different CPU.
This makes either CPU an OK choice, though we dont typically recomend CPUs with this few cores for Unreal Engine.
Introduction
Over the past few years, the demand for Unreal Engine systems has skyrocketed. Not just driven by tremendous growth in the video game industry, but a wide variety of industries have begun implementing real-time engines into their workflow. This is especially true for the film and television industry, and their pivot to Virtual Production. Many of the biggest performance hurdles faced by Unreal Engine users are improved with high core count CPUs. This is especially true if you are compiling the game engine source code, or compiling shaders large amounts of shaders.
However, many users aren’t compiling the full engine source code on a daily basis or dealing with 10s of thousands of shaders being updated by their 500-person dev team. They want to know what kind of performance they can expect with consumer-grade hardware. It is important to find that balance for your specific workflow.
In this article, we will be using Unreal Engine and Visual Studio to examine the performance of the new AMD Ryzen 7000 CPUs and compare them to Intel’s 12th generation CPUs, as well as the previous generation Ryzen 5000 series. While we are including most of the primary models from each of these product lines, note that we are skipping the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D which features AMD’s 3D V-Cache Technology. We have looked at this model in past articles, and found that for content creation, it is either on par or slower than the normal Ryzen 7 5800X model.
If you want to read more about the new AMD Ryzen 7000 Series and what sets them apart from the previous generation, we recommend checking out our main AMD Ryzen 7000 Series Processors Content Creation Review article. That post includes more detailed information on the CPU specifications, testing results for a range of other applications including Lightroom Classic, Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Unreal Engine; as well as all the test setup details for both the hardware and software used in our testing.
Unreal Engine Workstations
Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.
Configure a System!
Labs Consultation Service
Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.
AMD Ryzen 7000 vs Intel Core 12th Gen for Unreal Engine
Previous
Next
Previous
Next
To start off our analysis, we wanted to look at how the new Ryzen 7000 series compares to the Intel Core 12th Gen processors.
The MSRP pricing for Intel and AMD don’t exactly match, but in most cases, the comparisons we are making in the chart above are looking at CPUs that have an MSRP within $40 of each other. We have a full breakdown of the MSRP of each of these CPUs in our main AMD Ryzen 7000 Series Processors Content Creation Review article if you want to get into the specifics.
The three main bottlenecks Unreal Engine users struggle with are compiling the source code (whether to use a pre-released version or to package up a custom game project), light baking on the CPU, or just compiling shaders. AMD’s Ryzen 5000 already had an edge in these tasks.
Comparing the new Ryzen 7000 series to Intel’s 12th Generation CPUs, we see AMD take a commanding lead in the top end. On average, the Ryzen 7950X is 53% faster than Intel’s top-of-the-line 12900KS. The biggest difference here is in light baking, where AMD’s new chip is 73% faster than Intel’s. Granted, many users are adopting GPU Lightmass, but there are still a lot of reasons to stick with CPU-based light baking.
Shader compiling the 7950X is 32% faster than Intel’s best offering. Keep in mind that while the Intel 12900KS and AMD 7950X have the same number of CPU cores, They are not built the same. Intel is using a hybrid architecture where 8 performance cores have hyperthreading, while the remaining 8 efficiency cores do not. This means that while it has 16 cores, it only has 24 threads, while the Ryzen 7950X has 32. This difference counts for much of the lead the 7950X possesses.
The Ryzen 7900X has 12 cores and 24 threads, the same number of threads as the Intel 12900K, yet is 29% faster. This highlights the differences in the CPU architecture, as well as general IPC and clock speed improvements in the new Ryzen CPUs. The 7900X is a little more balanced with all three tests being roughly 30% faster than the 12900K.
Moving on to the lower-end parts, the story changes and Intel takes in the lead. This says a lot about the performance of Intel’s parts and the amazing value they provide.
The new Ryzen 7700X is 26% slower than the Intel 12700K, but with a large caveat. In source code compile, and shader compile the 7700X was only 3% and 6% slower respectively. However, in light baking, Intel’s 12700K was 90% faster. We ran this test a total of 14 times, with wildly different results, the time listed is the average of those. We updated the BIOS, reseated the cooler, even switched to a different CPU for a while then came back. This is the only CPU that had any variance, and the only test across 10 different applications that had any variance. I suspect that either something was up with our CPU, or a bios and/or software update will fix this in the future.
The 7600K is 3% slower than the 12600K. But it is hard to recommend anything below 8 cores for Unreal Engine.
AMD Ryzen 7000 vs AMD Ryzen 5000 for Unreal Engine
Previous
Next
Previous
Next
In the previous section, we examined how the new Ryzen 7000 series stacks up against Intel’s current CPUs, but we should also examine how they compare to the previous generation Ryzen 5000 series.
The core counts have not changed, so the increases we are seeing are due to the increase in IPC, clock speeds, DDR5, and other core changes.
As we can see from the chart, there is a 35-39% improvement on most of the new CPUs. The one exception is the 7700X. As noted above, there was one specific test that this CPU struggled with, CPU light baking. Other than that one instance, across all tests and all CPUs, there is a pretty consistent 30% uplift or more. The 7950X even managed to be 47% faster at compiling shaders, the task that every Unreal Engine user must face. This is a fantastic improvement over one generation. AMD already presented a great option on the higher end of these CPUs, and that just got even better.
How well do the AMD Ryzen 7000 Series CPUs perform in Unreal Engine?
AMD’s new Ryzen 7000 series CPUs show great improvements in Unreal Engine performance. AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series already had a lead in rendering performance over Intel, and this furthered that.
On the top end, the Ryzen 7950X averages 53% faster than Intel’s 12900KS in all of our tests. The Ryzen 7900X managed to outperform the similarly priced 12900K by 29%. On the top end of this class of CPU, AMD furthered its lead.
On the lower end, Intel manages pulls out some wins, even though the gap is much smaller. The Ryzen 7700X faltered in the light baking test, but in source code compile it was only 3% faster, and shader compile the 12700K was 6% faster. Even if the 7700X hadn’t struggled in light baking, the 12700K probably would have essentially tied. The 7600X is in a virtual dead heat with the 12600K, each winning and losing different tests by small margins.
However, it is worth pointing out that Intel is expected to launch their new Core 13th Gen processors sometime later this year, with some sites like Tom’s Hardware speculating that they could launch as early as October. We won’t know how those upcoming Intel processors will perform until they are released, but given the short timeframe we are likely dealing with, it may be worth holding off on purchasing a Ryzen 7000 (or an Intel Core 12th Gen) processor for a little bit if you can.
While AMD has a firm lead when it comes to Unreal Engine performance on their higher end CPUs, it may be worth waiting to see if Intel is able to pull off comeback with their 13th gen processors.
Update 9/27/2022: Intel has officially announced that the 13th Gen CPUs will be available in October.
Keep in mind that the benchmark results in this article are strictly for Unreal Engine and that performance will vary widely in different applications. If your workflow includes other software packages, we highly recommend checking out our AMD Ryzen 7000 Series Processors Content Creation Review article which includes results and links to in-depth testing for a range of other applications including Premiere Pro, After Effects, Lightroom Classic, DaVinci Resolve, and Blender.
Unreal Engine Workstations
Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.
Configure a System!
Labs Consultation Service
Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.
Related Content
Latest Content
View All
Tags: 5600X, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X, 7600X, 7700X, 7900X, 7950X, Game Development, GPU, GPU Acceleration, i5 12600K, i7 12700K, i9 12900K, i9 12900KS, Rendering, Unreal Engine, virtual production
AMD has conceded defeat to Intel in the current generation and has already begun to reduce prices for the Ryzen 7000 series
The release of AMD’s Ryzen 7000 series processors seemed perfect until the first buyers reached the stores. Brochures talked about the benefits of new technologies, only a few dared to pay astronomical sums for all this. Needless to say, if the assembly on the new Ryzen 7 7700X (motherboard, processor and RAM) will cost at least 2 times more than on the Ryzen 7 5800X. But only under the most ideal conditions, you will get up to 20% boost in games, while at 2K and 1080p resolutions with a mid-range video card, the difference will be completely zero. It would be rather strange if, after that, gamers rushed to buy a sharply risen in price assembly.
Insiders report that gamers really waited until the last minute, hoping that motherboard prices would drop or AMD would release inexpensive boards without PCIe 5.0, but the reds do not want or cannot influence what is happening, so PC gamers are buying up the Ryzen 7 5800X3D en masse . This modest 8-core gem has not only managed to outperform AMD’s new products, but today it occupies the place of the fastest processor on the planet. At the same time, you can buy it in the USA for $350.
But if the demand for the Ryzen 7000 was initially weak, then the release of the new Intel Raptor Lake processor series with the flagship Core i9-13900K completely brought down sales of the Ryzen 9 7950X. It turned out that the leader of the red team takes the lead in just a few games and in some synthetic applications, while in most cases it is much inferior to the Core i9-13900K. Fans of Lisa Su began to come up with all sorts of excuses for what was happening, assuring that this was all a Windows problem, while Microsoft was once again subversive in favor of Intel.
It got to the point that gamers even noticed how the Ryzen 7 7700X outperforms the Ryzen 9 in some games.7950X by a wide margin. Apparently, the problem turned out to be so serious that AMD specialists independently decided to test several current processors with a GeForce RTX 4090 video card. in games. Agree that if there were any problems with Windows, AMD representatives would definitely mention this in the reports. In the meantime, there are several problems. First of all, problems were found in the NVIDIA code, which turned out to be unoptimized, which means that this problem will be solved in the first place. But it’s much weirder to hear the speculation that in some cases games require fewer cores. Allegedly, the design of chiplets with an Infinity Fabric connection does not always perform perfectly in games. The problem has long been known, and as a result, processes with fewer cores and threads may benefit. At the same time, experts promise to work on optimizing the code, but it is already clear today that this is a real failure.
It was not possible to achieve parity with Intel, and as a result, your expensive Ryzen 9The 7900X may even be slower than the Ryzen 5 7600X in games. Perfect solution.
As we wrote above, the position of the reds is currently strong, but only due to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which is sold out faster than it can be produced in factories. Well, the entire Ryzen 5000 series is selling very solidly. The prices for these processors are extremely favorable, while enthusiasts are forced to pay more for access to new products. By the way, about payment, apparently, we will soon see a massive price reduction for the Ryzen 7000 line. Experts write that AMD needs to solve the problem with the cost of motherboards and RAM. It seems that in some American stores the process has begun. For example, Microcenter will give you 32 GB DDR5-5600 G.Skill Flare X5 along with any Ryzen 7000 series processor (except Ryzen 5 7600X). A set of RAM costs 19$0, so the discount is very solid. Well, in the same Microcenter, you can get a $50 discount if you decide to buy a motherboard based on the AM5 platform.
The ice has broken, but not only stores in the United States have joined the action. For example, the Japanese retailer Tsukumo offers a 1000 yen discount for the Ryzen 9 7950X and X670E Taichi kit.
recommendations
Experts believe that AMD will continue to reduce production of the Ryzen 7000 series processors as it plans to move gamers to the more advanced Ryzen 7000 3D. The release is expected to take place as part of CES 2023, but we can only dream of how fast the Zen 4 architecture will be based on 3D V-Cache technology.
This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.
The 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 3990X defeated all Intel processors in tests, including the $20,000 Xeon / Sudo Null IT News Now we can see with facts how far AMD has taken the lead in the technology race thanks to the introduction of the Zen 2 microarchitecture. In fact, it has no competitors now.
For example, in the arithmetic test, one 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 3990X processor performed 19% better than two 28-core Xeon Platinum 8280 processors, the total cost of which exceeds $20,000.
A similar pattern in other tests.
All tests of the Threadripper 3990X in the SiSoftware database were carried out under the Windows x64 operating system. Motherboards — ASUS PRIME TRX40-PRO, MSI MS-7C59 (MSI Creator TRX40 (MS-7C59)) and ASUS ROG ZENITH II EXTREME ALPHA. The earliest dates are February 1, 2020, the latest are today, and 6 out of all 22 available benchmarks have been published this morning.
(click image to enlarge)
In the arithmetic test, the best result at a slightly increased clock speed of 4.34 GHz was 1836.9 GOPS (giga operations per second). In comparison, the 28-core Xeon W-3175X (4.8 GHz) performed best among Intel processors, but it only has 1099.31 GOPS. A system of two 28-core Xeon Platinum 8280s with a total cost of $20,000 in this test has a maximum result of 1543.72 GOPS, that is, two such processors for 19% weaker than a single Threadripper 3990X.
Ryzen Threadripper 3990X runs at 2.9GHz base frequency, 4.
3GHz turbo, 288MB cache, of which 256MB L3 cache. Built on the Zen 2 microarchitecture with a 7 nm process technology.
AMD EPYC2 IOD chip and Threadripper 3000, substrate physical size 28.04*15.29mm (428.73mm 2 ). Photo: Fritzchens Fritz
The 28-core Xeon Platinum 8280 server processors were released in the second quarter of 2019. Made using the 14nm process, they represent the 2nd Generation Intel Xeon Scalable Processor family. 2.7GHz base clock, 4.0GHz turbo, 38.5MB cache, 205W TDP, DDR4-29 memory type33. The official website lists a «recommended customer price» of $10,009.00.
And this is far from the most expensive Xeon. Intel hasn’t dropped prices on its 28-core/56-thread Xeon Platinum 828x family of server processors for a long time, although those prices have clearly become irrelevant since the introduction of 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper processors.
| Model | Clock frequency (base/turbo) | TDP | Memory support | Price (from 1000 pcs. ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8280 | 2.7 / 4.0 GHz | 205W | maximum 1.5 TB per socket | $10,009 |
| 8280M | 2.7 / 4.0 GHz | 205 W | maximum 2 TB per socket | $13,012 |
| 8280L | 2.7 / 4.0 GHz | 205 W | maximum 4.5 TB per socket | $17,906 |
| 8284 | 3.0 / 4.0 GHz | 240 W | maximum 1.5 TB per socket | $15,460 |
In November 2019, AMD released the first representatives of the 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper: Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and 3970X (24 and 32 cores, 7nm, Zen 2). It became one of the main events of the year in the market of high-performance desktop PCs. Ryzen Threadripper 39 BenchmarksThe 60X and 3970X showed a whole new level of performance in almost all applications.
At the same time, Intel released the 18-core Core i9 10980XE, reducing the price by a thousand dollars compared to its predecessor. At that moment, the big picture became clear: in the market for high-performance desktop processors, Intel and AMD switched places. Now AMD is releasing the fastest and most expensive processors. Intel cannot match them in terms of performance, so it has to compete with AMD’s second-tier processors.
This state of affairs only took hold with the release of the 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, AMD’s top processor. This is a desktop version of the 64-core EPYC 7702P, which is already on sale for servers ($4450). Only the Threadripper 3990X has fewer memory channels (only four) and no specific corporate features, but a higher clock frequency and, as a result, increased power consumption.
The third generation of Threadripper accepts TRX40 motherboards. The manufacturer recommends purchasing RAM at the rate of at least 1 GB DDR4 per core, and preferably 2 GB.