Ryzen 9 3900X vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
2017
16 cores / 32 threads
17.83
Ryzen 9 3900X
2019
12 cores / 24 threads
21.12
+18.5%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 18% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking305227
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money18.9338.13
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen ThreadripperAMD Ryzen 9
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release date10 August 2017 (6 years ago)7 July 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$499
Current price$396 (0.4x MSRP)$388 (0.8x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 3900X has 101% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.

Technical specs

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads3224
Base clock speed3.4 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.6 GHz
L1 cache96K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache32 MB64 MB
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die size213 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature68 °C95 °C
Number of transistors9,600 million19,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierYesYes

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketSP3r2AM4
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHAno data
AES-NI++
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Quad-channelDDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size2 TiB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/s51.196 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card--

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes60no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 17.83
Ryzen 9 3900X 21.12
+18.5%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 18% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 27577
Ryzen 9 3900X 32659
+18.4%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 18% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 1171
Ryzen 9 3900X 1693
+44.6%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 45% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 7538
Ryzen 9 3900X 9923
+31.6%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 32% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 4754
Ryzen 9 3900X 6019
+26.6%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 27% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 41814
Ryzen 9 3900X 45539
+8.9%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 9% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 3.34
Ryzen 9 3900X 2.69
+24.2%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 24% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 23
Ryzen 9 3900X 34
+46.5%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 46% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 2997
Ryzen 9 3900X 3049
+1.7%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 2% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 159
Ryzen 9 3900X 207
+30.2%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 30% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 1.73
Ryzen 9 3900X 2.36
+36.4%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 36% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 19
+76.7%
Ryzen 9 3900X 10.8

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 77% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 4150
Ryzen 9 3900X 7534
+81.5%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 82% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 190
Ryzen 9 3900X 268
+41.1%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 41% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 134
Ryzen 9 3900X 147
+9.5%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 9% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 17.83 21.12
Recency 10 August 2017 7 July 2019
Physical cores 16 12
Threads 32 24
Cost $999 $499
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 125 Watt

The Ryzen 9 3900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and Ryzen 9 3900X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Ryzen 9 3900X

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 138 votes

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 1950X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 4978 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 1950X or Ryzen 9 3900X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.