Now that the Ryzen Threadripper 2000-series processors have officially launched, AMD is issuing significant price cuts on its three first-generation Threadripper processors.
Despite being a year old, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1000-series processors are formidable multi-core beasts for consumers that constantly deal with heavy-threaded workloads. The Threadripper 1950X, which was the flagship processor, originally launched at $999. The processor now has a suggested retail price (SEP) of $799. In fact, at the time of writing the Threadripper 1950X is available on Amazon for $718.90, which is a pretty sweet deal for a processor that comes equipped with 16 cores and 32 threads.
AMD is also lowering the price for the Threadripper 1920X and Threadripper 1900X models as well. The chipmaker has adjusted the suggested retail price for the Threadripper 1920X with 12 cores and 24 threads from $799 to $399 and the Threadripper 1900X with eight cores and 16 threads from $549 to $299. At the time of this article, the Threadripper 1920X's pricing on Amazon doesn't reflect the price change and it's still priced at $463.06; however, the Threadripper 1900X is selling for $307.
Whether you're interested in picking up the monstrous 16-core Threadripper 1950X or the entry-level octa-core Threadripper 1900X, it's important to pair it with a capable X399-based motherboard and CPU cooling solution to exploit the processor's full potential.
| Model | Threadripper 1950X | Threadripper 1920X | Threadripper 1900X |
| Suggested Etail Price | $799 | $399 | $299 |
| Launch Price | $999 | $799 | $549 |
| Interface / Chipset | TR4 / X399 | TR4 / X399 | TR4 / X399 |
| Cores / Threads | 16 / 32 | 12 / 24 | 8 / 16 |
| TDP | 180W | 180W | 180W |
| Base Frequency (GHz) | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.8 |
| Boost Frequency (GHz) | 4.0 (4.2 XFR) | 4.0 (4.2 XFR) | 4.0 (4.2 XFR) |
| Cache (L2+L3) | 40MB | 38MB | 20MB |
| Memory Support | DDR4-2667 | DDR4-2667 | DDR4-2667 |
| Memory Controller | Quad-Channel | Quad-Channel | Quad-Channel |
| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 64 | 64 | 64 |
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
-
timf79 I see the Threadripper 1950x at Micro Center for $599.99; guess that makes it a super duper sweet deal?Reply -
FFH TI'm still waiting for the Vega price drops. The cheapest I've seen is $480 for a vega 56. That's still over the $399 MSRP.Reply -
Nintendork RX580 8GB is the best bang for buck gpu right now, you can find model from $199-229. Even 4GB models or the RX570 cost more on avrg.Reply -
lun471k Correct me if I'm wrong, but one would be better off getting a 2700x for roughly the same price as a 1900X, newer and about 5% faster overall.Reply -
g-unit1111 Reply21272389 said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but one would be better off getting a 2700x for roughly the same price as a 1900X, newer and about 5% faster overall.
Well it depends on what the rig is being used for, but yes, that is a correct assumption. The only reason you would consider a 1900X at this point is to provide the upgrade path for the 2990X.
21272545 said:I'd wager the 1900X wouldn't be worth it coming from a 4700k (4.2 mild OC).
I'd say you would wager correctly. Ryzen 2nd generation is a far better investment. -
pokeman Reply21272670 said:21272389 said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but one would be better off getting a 2700x for roughly the same price as a 1900X, newer and about 5% faster overall.
Well it depends on what the rig is being used for, but yes, that is a correct assumption. The only reason you would consider a 1900X at this point is to provide the upgrade path for the 2990X.
21272545 said:I'd wager the 1900X wouldn't be worth it coming from a 4700k (4.2 mild OC).
I'd say you would wager correctly. Ryzen 2nd generation is a far better investment.
I see where you are going, I really do - that could be a good idea where it not for the 1500$.
Forgive me for being out of the CPU loop so to speak but I would like to challenge the "core count and lots of TDP equals better" idea a bit. What if 8 cores are enough with lower TDP and higher clocks?