Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 Listed Early: 32 Cores, Up to 4.2 GHz

AMD Ryzen Threadripper

(Image credit: AMD)

Update 11/6/2019 11:40am PST: Corrected L2 cache details.

Original article:

Wootware, a South African provider of IT-related products and services, apparently listed two upcoming AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 CPUs before their launch. As discovered by hardware leaker @momomo_us, a user from the Korean Quasar Zone grabbed some screenshots of the postings for both chips, the Threadripper 3970X and 3960X, before Wootware took them down.

This is the first time that we've seen a retailer officially list the upcoming core-heavy chips. But we should approach the listings with skepticism, as we've found some inconsistencies with the specifications.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and 3960X Specifications

ProcessorCores / ThreadsBase / Boost (GHz)L2 Cache (MB)L3 Cache (MB)TDP (W)
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X*32 / 643.0 / 4.232256250
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X*24 / 483.5 / 4.732256250
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX32 / 643.0 / 4.21664250
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX24 / 483.0 / 4.21264250

*Specifications in this row aren't confirmed.

The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X reportedly comes with 32 cores and 64 threads. Wootware reportedly listed the chip with a 3 GHz base clock and 4.2 GHz boost clock, which is identical to that of the previous Threadripper 2990WX. The biggest upgrade seems to lie within the L3 cache.

According to Wootware, the Threadripper 3970X and 3960X are equipped with 32MB of L2 cache. This is likely wrong because the Zen 2 architecture brings 512KB of L2 cache per core, unless AMD was able to squeeze in 1MB per core. Therefore, the Threadripper 3970X and 3960X should maintain the same L2 configurations as last-gen's counterparts.

The Threadripper 3960X seemingly sports 24 cores and 48 threads, which would most likely make it a direct replacement for the Threadripper 2970WX. The Threadripper 3960X appears to feature a 3.5 GHz base clock and 4.7 GHz boost, which is 500 MHz faster than its predecessor.

Both the Threadripper 3970X and 3960X are also said to have 256MB of L3 cache, which is four times more than the predecessors.

Image 1 of 4

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

(Image credit: Quasar Zone)
Image 2 of 4

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X (Image credit: Quasar Zone)
Image 3 of 4

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X (Image credit: Quasar Zone)
Image 4 of 4

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X (Image credit: Quasar Zone)

According to the screenshots, the Threadripper 3970X and 3960X are rated at 250W, which is the same TDP (thermal design power) envelope as the last-gen counterparts.

For the most part, Wootware's listings look plausible, except for the information on the CPU socket, memory type and PCIe design. The retailer points to the AM4 socket, dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory and 16 PCIe 4.0 lanes. However, that matches specifications for the lower-end AMD Ryzen 3000-series desktop processors and seems unlikely for AMD's next HEDT (high-end desktop) CPUs.

AMD's third-generation Threadripper processors were rumored to launch on November 5, but yesterday VideoCardz reported that AMD pushed the announcement date to November 7.

  • donner
    Please engage your brain when reporting on rumors. The L2 cache can't be right. L2 cache is per core. And, we can be certain that the 3960X is not a different chiplet than 3970X. In addition, we can be pretty certain that we don't have different silicon with 1MB L2 per core instead of 512KB per core like both Ryzen 3000 and Rome. Which throws everything into doubt. More likely some one was testing the Threadripper page with bogus numbers.
    Reply
  • willgart
    no, its the correct cache.
    no mistake.
    Reply
  • npgrx
    donner said:
    Please engage your brain when reporting on rumors. The L2 cache can't be right. L2 cache is per core. And, we can be certain that the 3960X is not a different chiplet than 3970X. In addition, we can be pretty certain that we don't have different silicon with 1MB L2 per core instead of 512KB per core like both Ryzen 3000 and Rome. Which throws everything into doubt. More likely some one was testing the Threadripper page with bogus numbers.
    512KB per core is the correct amount with Zen 2 afaik
    Reply
  • ukperson
    Should be 12mb and 16mb L2 (unless they have managed to sneak in 1mb per core) zen 2 core has 512kb of L2 cahce

    Both having 32mb is quite incorrect, even if they had 1mb L2 per core as one is a 24 core part

    L3 cache should be correct as amd don't norm chop off the L3 cache (16x16mb L3 per ccx, 32mb per chiplet and there is 8 of them)
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    ukperson said:
    L3 cache should be correct as amd don't norm chop off the L3 cache (16x16mb L3 per ccx, 32mb per chiplet and there is 8 of them)
    That depends on how many chiplets AMD included in these. There are 48 and 64-core Epyc processors with 256MB of L3 cache across 8 chiplets, but the 24 and 32-core models have just 128MB of L3 cache across 4 chiplets. Technically, AMD could use 8 chiplets with half or more of the cores disabled on each, but that doesn't seem like a particularly efficient or cost-effective way to do things. More likely, these processors will have 128MB of L3 just like their Epyc counterparts, and more cache would be reserved for higher core-count models utilizing more chiplets, should they arrive to the platform.

    I agree with the suggestion that someone was probably just getting the product page ready with filler information while waiting for the actual specifications to get released, especially considering the other specs like socket, memory channels and PCIe lanes were all ripped from the AM4 platform, making them clearly wrong. If a good chunk of the information was made up, then it was probably all made up, and this isn't something Tom's Hardware should have bothered reporting on. Especially since AMD will likely be announcing the actual specifications in another day or so, making this little more than a useless, clickbait article.
    Reply
  • ukperson
    cryoburner said:
    That depends on how many chiplets AMD included in these. There are 48 and 64-core Epyc processors with 256MB of L3 cache across 8 chiplets, but the 24 and 32-core models have just 128MB of L3 cache across 4 chiplets. Technically, AMD could use 8 chiplets with half or more of the cores

    actual specifications in another day or so, making this little more than a useless, clickbait article.

    That would make more sense on the 24-32 core parts (like they did with older threadripper parts having 2 broken dies and 2 working ones) so having 128mb L3 cache I guess probably would happen for 24-32 core part with 4 chiplets enabled only for 24>3 and 32>4 cores per ccx (L3 128mb), the 48 core part would have to be the full 8 chiplets enabled at 3 cores per ccx (L3 256mb)

    The larger combined size L3 does not mean much as its L3 is 16mb per ccx and has to copy that data to other ccx L3 cache over infinity fabric if same data needs to be worked on another ccx group (not unified like Intel where the total is available to all cores typically)

    Guess we find out in 2-3 days
    Reply
  • Ryan S. White
    Thank you Zhiye for the nice article and the latest information. 256 MB L3 is a ton of cache! I would buy one for sure but mine is still too new to replace.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    And as expected, a day later, pretty much none of these "rumored" specifications ended up being accurate. : P

    Rumored 3970XCores/Threads: 32 / 64
    Base/Boost: 3.0 / 4.2 GHz
    L2 Cache: 32 MB
    L3 Cache: 256 MB
    TDP: 250 W

    Actual 3970XCores/Threads: 32 / 64
    Base/Boost: 3.7 / 4.5 GHz
    L2 Cache: 16 MB
    L3 Cache: 128 MB
    TDP: 280 W

    Rumored 3960XCores/Threads: 24 / 48
    Base/Boost: 3.5 / 4.7 GHz
    L2 Cache: 32 MB
    L3 Cache: 256 MB
    TDP: 250 W

    Actual 3960XCores/Threads: 24 / 48
    Base/Boost: 3.8 / 4.5 GHz
    L2 Cache: 12 MB
    L3 Cache: 128 MB
    TDP: 280 W

    Aside from core counts, literally everything else is wrong. Just as expected, the specs match the Epyc Server processors these CPUs are based off of, with the exception of higher clocks and in turn power draw.
    Reply