Intel is woefully incapable of challenging AMD’s existing 32-core Threadripper 3970X, so falling the 64-core 3990X is akin to delivering a blow in HEDT: AMD says this single processor can defeat two of Intel’s $10,000 Xeon 8280’s in some workloads.
However, there is a ~$2,000 gap in pricing between the 32-core 3970X and the 64-core 3990X, not to point out the obvious difference of 32 cores.
That leaves a center ground where a 48-core model, which has been purportedly listed in CPU-Z’s source code.
Nevertheless, Hallock said the firm currently has no plans for a 48-core model.
That’s because, based on 2019’s Threadripper sales, AMD noticed that customers have a tendency to jump proper to the top of the stack or choose the “sweet spot” product, which AMD sees as the 32-core Threadripper 3970X.
Meaning the company doesn’t plan to fill that gap in its product stack.
However, bringing forward a 64-core part is a frightening engineering challenge, and while the Threadripper 3990X makes use of the same fundamental design as the top-notch EPYC Rome data facility chips. It is not ‘just’ a re-badged EPYC processor.
AMD has pushed the clocks up from the EPYC 7742’s 2.25 GHz base, and 3.4 GHz enhance to a powerful 2.9 GHz base and 4.3 GHz increase.
Hallock said that the 3990X’s faster clocks are exceedingly essential for some heavy purposes, significantly in the rendering field; however, with most processors, efficiency does not scale linearly in most threaded workloads.