Threadripper 7000 vs. Threadripper 3000: Generational Improvements

Looking at how the latest AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 series processors compare against the previous Threadripper 3000 series, we are essentially testing apples against apples (or older apples). Both sets of Threadripper CPUs share the same core/thread counts, including the 7980X and 3990X, which both have 64C/128T, albeit being Zen 4 vs Zen 2, given AMD didn't launch non-Pro SKUs for the 5000 series. The same can be said with the 7970X and 3970X, which are both 32C/64T chips.

(0-0) Peak Power

All four of the AMD Ryzen Threadrippers hit a max power in line with their rated TDPs, including 280 W for the 3000 series and 350 W for the 7000 series.

(2-1) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (non-AVX)

(2-2) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (Peak AVX)

In 3DPM V2.1, it's worth highlighting that AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series doesn't support AVX 512/AV2 workloads. Given that AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 7000 series does, it means that performance in comparison is much higher as expected in this benchmark.

(3-2a) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 65x65, 250 Yr

(3-2b) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 129x129, 550 Yr

(3-2c) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 257x257, 550 Yr

In Dwarf Fortress, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 series CPUs (7980X and 7970X) run much faster in this benchmark than the 3000 series. In the larger of the three tests, the 7980X is around 39% faster than the 3990X, showing that Zen 4 versus Zen 2 is very beneficial.

(3-4a) Factorio v1.1.26 Test, 10K Trains

(3-4b) Factorio v1.1.26 Test, 10K Belts

(3-4c) Factorio v1.1.26 Test, 20K Hybrid

In Factorio, both the Ryzen Threadripper 7000 series chips perform similarly here, although are around 30% faster than the 3000 series.

(4-7a) CineBench R23 Single Thread

(4-7b) CineBench R23 Multi-Thread

Looking at CineBench R23 single-threaded performance, there are substantial gains going from Zen 2 to Zen 4, as expected. In the CineBench R23 multi-threaded benchmark, we can see that even the Threadripper 7970 (32C/64T) is 10% faster than the 3990X, which is a 64C/128T part. The Ryzen Threadripper 7980X decimates the other three chips with a gain of 71% over the previous generation chip with the same core/thread count.

(5-4) WinRAR 5.90 Test, 3477 files, 1.96 GB

While our WinRAR 5.90 benchmark is quite sensitive to memory performance, the Threadripper 7970X beats the 7980X, while both are marginally ahead of the Threadripper 3000 series chips.

Overall, as we can see regarding rendering and simulation performance, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 chips are both vastly superior to the 3000 series chips. It does have to be said that Threadripper 7000 is two generations of cores ahead of the 3000 series (Zen 4 vs Zen 2), as AMD didn't launch non-Pro 5000 series SKUs. Users looking to update from the Threadripper 3000 series platform for HEDT will certainly see benefits across the board opting to elect for Ryzen Threadripper 7000.

Core-to-Core Latency TR 7000 vs. Intel: Power and Compile
Comments Locked

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • thestryker - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    Forgot to add: these are just the lower SKU workstation parts not a resurrection of HEDT
  • wujj123456 - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    > the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X ($4999), despite having eight fewer cores than the W9-3495X ($5889), half the memory channels (4 vs. 8) and being ultimately cheaper, it is the better option.

    Am I reading it wrong? 7980X has eight more cores than W9-3495X not fewer. Don't think it changes the conclusion though.
  • rUmX - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    You're right
  • Gavin Bonshor - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    Thanks for highlighting that obvious error, edited!
  • bernstein - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    It remains true, what has been true for every threadripper: if your software allows for computing on more than one node, using 5-10 ryzen servers for the same money gives you more performance, redundancy, more io-bandwith & for many usecases even more total ram.
  • vfridman - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    There is a lot of so called "professional" use cases that require a lot of RAM on a single machine. It often possible to split calculations across a cluster of machines, but not so with RAM.
  • quorm - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    A nice increase in performance, but seems like almost everyone would be better off with either desktop ryzen or pro/epyc.
  • Thunder 57 - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    You should either use bar graphs that show the 14900K's performance when limited to 125W, or you should just change the graphs and list the 14900K as 428W.

    AMD doesn't get a pass either but at least they are more honest. With these new Threadrippers they are actually spot on. Meanwhile the "350W" Xeon uses just over 500W. At the very least maybe include some efficiency charts?
  • thestryker - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    Not that the power consumption is good, but these represent the absolute maximum power draw number seen they do not represent workload power draw. If they were to pick "real" power numbers they would have to measure power consumption for every single test and show that.
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    Deceptive power usage needs to be stopped.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now