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

  • GeoffreyA - Thursday, November 23, 2023 - link

    Yes. Deceptive everything.
  • boozed - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    "While it's clear in multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, the Ryzen Threadripper 7980X and 7970X are more potent with higher core counts, there are certain situations where the current desktop flagship processors still represent a better buy."

    Good to know if I ever start playing Dwarf Fortress?
  • FatFlatulentGit - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    One test I'd like to see is encoding 4+ videos at once. One 4K AV1 or HEVC encode is not going to top out all of the cores on the 7980X, but enough parallel encodes will blast the thing.

    I also wouldn't mind seeing how they stack up against the WX series, especially in regard to RAM channels when the CPU is saturated.
  • garblah - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    So, even with a 5,000 dollar CPU, encoding an hour of 1080p AV1 video at 30fps with the medium quality preset would take nearly 2 hours? I guess AV1 software encoding is still pretty slow.
  • GeoffreyA - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    Just raising the presets a few steps can cut down the time considerably, without too much of a loss of quality. On my system, SVT-AV1's fastest preset, 12, approaches x264 preset medium, if I remember right, and the quality is still better than the latter.
  • GeoffreyA - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    And preset 6, which is medium, is roughly similar to libaom's fastest, cpu-used 8.
  • FatFlatulentGit - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    A single AV1 encode is not going to saturate 64/128 cores. The advantage is being able to do multiple simultaneous encodes.
  • GeoffreyA - Thursday, November 23, 2023 - link

    Or splitting into scene-based chunks.
  • SanX - Wednesday, November 22, 2023 - link

    These new processors are just the BS and utter ripoff. Look at supercomputers which use very similar processors: You can find there a lot of different models and test them. What these tests show is that during simulations they almost always stay around base frequency which is for this article's 64-core 2.5GHz processor equivalent to 32-cores of standard consumer ~5 Ghz 7950x which costs ~$500. So you pay 10x money for just the 2x increase in performance. What is 2x increase in performance ? NOTHING! When you compare computers, remember, you compare not a salary, game fps or your weight loss :) stop thinking this way, in computers, and specifically in supercomputers it is 3-10x when things are really different. Typically if usual PC is really not enough for you then the next step you need is 10x or 100x more, or even 1000x. So these hell expensive toys have no economic sense for almost everyone. Just get supercomputer time if you need more than your PC gives you and stop wasting your money. By the way these processors made off $10 chiplets cost probably $100 to manufacture
  • Thunder 57 - Wednesday, November 22, 2023 - link

    You're all over the place. First of all a 7950X has 16 cores. Even if tweo of those could match a 64 core TR (it won't), you'd need all of the other parts associated with a second computer. You are also forgetting about PCIe and memory bandwidth.

    Then you say maybe $100 to manufacture. You know how much it costs to develop these chips? AN insane amount of money. You make it sound like AMD is selling a $100 widget for $5000 because they can. People will buy these for $1000's. If they didn't sell, AMD would have to lower prices. The market will determine what is "fair".

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now