AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Two-minute review

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is an HEDT workstation processor built for an extremely specific — and extremely demanding — audience.

Nothing about this chip is ‘mainstream’, including the fact that just about every enthusiast consumer processor available right now will mostly outperform this chip in most workloads that 95% of users will run on their computers, and they will do so at a minuscule fraction of the Threadripper 9980X’s price.

There is part of me that wants to slag this processor as overpowered, overengineered, and overpriced—except I can’t. With 64 full-fat performance cores, 128 threads, a base clock of 3.2GHz, and the ability to push far beyond that under controlled thermal conditions, this chip feels like its sole purpose is to blow through Cinebench R23’s multi-core benchmark and shame every other chip that tries to do the same.

I would say that this is a ridiculous waste of time, energy, and resources, but the thing about Cinebench R23, as well as all the other multi-core benchmarks that this chip leaves defeated in its wake, is that there are professionals out there who need exactly this kind of power from a processor, and no other consideration really matters.

Database administrators, IT managers dealing with web servers, machine learning researchers and developers, 3D designers of every kind, and high-end video productions are among those who will look at the multi-core performance of this chip and see past the bar on a graph stretching well past every other chip in the test group and see the hours of work saved every week with a processor specifically designed to break up their workloads into as many as 128 individual processing threads to be worked through in parallel.

That definitely isn’t everyone, and the incredible parallel processing power available with the Threadripper 9980X comes at a cost. To keep those 64 cores from setting your workstation on fire under load, per-core clock speeds start nearly a full GHz lower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, which means that single-core or lightly-threaded processing power suffers somewhat, though the 9980X can still hold its own at a system and productivity-minded processor, and its TSMC N4P/N6 architecture does translate into some solid responsiveness.

With eight compute dies under the lid and 256MB of L3 cache, there are a lot of interconnects between all that discrete silicon, and communication between all those parts introduces latency as well, though it isn't debilitating.

What's more, at $4,999 / £4,499.99 / AU$8,399, this is a very expensive processor. It’s not the most expensive HEDT chip on the market, that’d be the 96-core Threadripper Pro 9995WX at nearly three times the price of the 9980X, but it’s still not a CPU you buy because you ‘want the best.’

You buy it because your workflow would bring even the best processors on the consumer market to their knees. This is the kind of chip you slap into a workstation because you need to render the 12-second Gargantua approach sequence from Interstellar in a matter of days rather than weeks, and not because you want to play Cyberpunk 2077 at the highest framerate possible. For the former, it’s an outstanding, special-use processor. Not at all for the latter.

Then there’s the matter of platform requirements. You’ll need a TRX50 motherboard, which isn’t just more expensive—it’s physically larger, requires more robust power delivery, and usually comes loaded with workstation-focused features that add to the price.

You’ll also need to spend a lot of money on cooling, because under full multi-core load, the 9980X can pull upwards of 350W from the socket, so a 360mm AIO cooler is the absolute rock-bottom, bare minimum cooling solution you can use to keep this chip from throttling, and there aren't many that fit this chip out there.

And believe me, having sat next to the open-air test bench running high-intensity multi-threaded workloads on the 9980X, this thing pumps out an enormous amount of heat, so plan your workstation environment accordingly.

All that said, if you’re the kind of user who spends whole workdays in Premiere Pro, Houdini, or TensorFlow, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is a dream, but you do have to really ask yourself if you need this much focused power for your particular situation.

I love multi-threaded programming and working on asynchronous processes when developing my own software tools, but in no universe would I ever be able to fully utilize all 64 cores on this processor unless I was actively trying to, and I don't work with anything nearly that complex.

If your workflow is even moderately mixed, or gaming is even a quarter of your use case, this chip delivers diminishing returns that will make you regret investing so much into it, especially when the significantly cheaper Threadripper 9970X is ideal for those situations at half the cost.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Price & availability

• How much does it cost? $4,999.99 / £4,499.99 / AU$8,399
• When is it available? It is available now
• Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is available now in the US, UK, and Australia for $4,999.99 / £4,499.99 / AU$8,399.

While not 'cheap' by any means, if you're seriously looking at buying this processor, you're not window shopping. You know you need it, and it will either make back the money you spent on it in relatively short order, or it is a processor you have to have for academic or scientific research, and it's simply the price paid for progress.

It should be noted, though, that while the Threadripper 9980X's multi-core performance is second only to the high-end Threadripper Pro 9000-series chips, the Threadripper 9970X's multicore performance is actually not that far behind the 9980X's, and it costs half the price of this chip.

If you're wincing at the price tag of the 9980X, but you really do need something like this for your workflow, give the 9970X a long look and see if it's a better fit for your needs.

• Value: 3 / 5

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Specs & Features

• 64-cores/128-threads chew through multi-core workloads
• Slower clock speeds than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
• 256MB L3 cache

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, an MCM design featuring TSMC’s N4P process for the compute dies and its N6 process for the I/O die, all tied together using AMD’s Infinity Fabric interconnect. Each of the eight CCDs contributes eight cores and 16 threads to the massive 64-core, 128-thread chip, supported by a staggering 256MB of L3 cache. This is particularly ideal for keeping large datasets close to the cores and minimizing memory latency in heavy workloads.

The base clock speeds sit at 3.2GHz, with boost frequencies climbing up to 5.4GHz under lightly threaded tasks, depending on cooling and power headroom. The processor is fully unlocked for overclocking, although thermal and power constraints will make manual tuning challenging without extreme cooling solutions. Out of the box, this processor is pulling 350W, so you’ll likely need more than a 360mm AIO to cool this properly if you push it even modestly.

Memory support is another standout. The 9980X works with up to 1TB of DDR5-6400 ECC RAM across quad-channel configurations, a 1,200MT/s increase over the last-generation Threadripper line.

I/O capabilities have also gotten a significant boost. Now, you can utilize up to 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes, meaning you can run multiple GPUs, storage arrays, and capture or networking cards without lane-sharing bottlenecks.

As with previous Threadrippers, there’s no integrated GPU, but that’s expected. Power consumption is rated at an extremely high 350W TDP, and the physical chip uses the sTRX5 socket, meaning it requires a TRX50-series motherboard. These boards are large, expensive, and purpose-built for heavy-duty computing.

• Specs & features: 4.5 / 5

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Installation & test setup

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X installation is much more involved than you might be used to if you've only ever used consumer-grade motherboards that seat a standard desktop CPU.

The Threadripper 9980X uses AMD’s sTR5 socket, which is physically longer and more delicate, and so requires a specific installation procedure.

Included with the 9980X is a torque-limiting wrench that you'll need to ensure even pressure across the heat spreader, which for this chip is a vital step for both thermal performance and long-term reliability.

I highly recommend watching some installation videos on YouTube after you've read over the installation instructions before you attempt to install this processor, since slacking on proper installation can create uneven contact with the socket or even damaged pins on the TRX50 motherboard. You've spent a lot of money on this chip, so definitely make sure you don't wreck the whole thing on the installation step.

For testing the chip, I used the ASUS Pro WS TRX50-SAGE motherboard together with an Nvidia RTX 5090 GPU, 128GB (4 x 32GB) G.Skill G5 Series DDR5-6400 ECC memory, along with a Crucial T705 PCIe 5.0 SSD as my primary system drive. Cooling was handled by a Silverstone XE360-TR5 AIO cooler, and power was supplied by a Thermaltake Toughpower PF3 1050W Platinum PSU, and a fresh install of Windows 11.

This configuration is more or less what an enthusiast HEDT rig or professional Windows workstation would look like, and it definitely outclasses what you'll find in all but the most tricked-out gaming PC, so it's a solid representative system for carrying out my testing.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Performance

• Best-in-class multi-core performance
• Slower clocks mean it can lose out to the Threadripper 9970X in key workloads
• Gaming performance is unimpressive

The performance of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9800X ends up being a somewhat mixed bag for all of the reasons I've already gone over, but now that we're at the 'take-a-look-at-the-actual-numbers' stage, hopefully you'll see what I mean.

Across most workloads I tested, the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X can't keep up with the 9970X, falling behind some Ryzen 9 desktop chips, and even losing a couple of times to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. This is especially true when it comes to single-core performance and gaming, where the Threadripper 9980X just isn't competitive at all with any of the consumer-grade enthusiast processors I tested.

First, the single-core performance of the 9980X consistently loses out to not just the Threadripper 9970X, but it gets roughed up pretty bad by pretty much all the high-end Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 9000-series processors. Ultimately, it just doesn't have the base clock speed to sustain enough performance to compete in focused, application-specific tasks.

This difference across all single-core tests is about 3% slower than the 9970X (which isn't terrible), but about 10% slower than the Ryzen 9 9950X (which is at least bad, if not quite terrible).

However, when we look at the 9980X's multi-core performance, things flip rather drastically. At first, it looks like more of the same with Geekbench 6, where the 9980X only outperforms the 9970X by about 4% (though it does beat out third-place finisher, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, by about 36%).

Once we hit the Cinebench tests, though, it's over for everyone else. In Cinebench R23, the 9980X's score of 115,098 is about 51% better than the 9970X's 76,136 score, and an increadible 173.4% better than the third-place finisher, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which scored a relatively measly 42,098.

In Cinebench R24, it's more or less the same, with the 9980X finishing 56% better than the 9970X's multi-core score and nearly 168% better than the third-best performer, the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Across all multi-core tests, the 9980X comes in about 36% better than the 9970X and about 106% better than the Core Ultra 9 285K, with the rest of the Ryzen 9 and 7 chips falling even further behind.

In whole system performance, as measured in CrossMark, the Threadripper 9980X does pretty well in terms of overall performance, though it comes in about 125 points behind the 9970X (or about 5%). That's still better than the Ryzen 9s and Ryzen 7s, though. It falls behind quite a bit in productivity workloads, coming in second to last, just ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D.

In terms of responsiveness, it's well ahead of the Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 chips, as well as Intel's flagship desktop processor, coming in second only to the 9970X.

Creative workloads are one of the areas where the 9980X shines like the powerhouse chip it is, notching substantial wins in Blender Benchmark 4.3, V-ray 6, and PugetBench for Creators Adobe Premiere.

Over all workloads, the 9980X chalked up a roughly 30% better performance than the 9970X, and that's taking the geomean of all the creative benchmark results, something that really undersells how dominating the 9980X's Blender Benchmark and V-Ray 6 CPU performance is (about 71% and 65% better than the 9970X). If I just averaged all the scores to give some of these tests more weight, the 9980X comes in about 50% better than the 9970X across creative workloads, with every other chip far, far behind.

Where the 9980X really fails is in terms of gaming performance, so PC gaming enthusiasts out there who want a Threadripper 9980X as a flex, you'd be doing yourself a massive disservice.

On average, across all the games tested, the 9980X had the worst gaming performance both in terms of average FPS and 1% FPS. The 9970X did marginally better, but the consumer-grade Ryzen chips and even the Core Ultra 9 285K are far better suited for gaming than either of the Threadripper 9000-series chips, but expecially compared to the 9980X.

This poor gaming performance also extends into game AI, largely because game logic is a largely single-core task that can't easily be disaggregated across multiple threads.

Independent NPC actors might benefit from multithreading in games, of course, but if that was the case, the 9980X should have done better simulating a full in-game year of Stellaris gameplay with 42 AI empires on a huge map, exactly the kind of asynchronous agent logic processing multithreading might have helped.

Unfortunately, the 9980X came in dead last in that test, only being able to finish the year in about 55.72 seconds, which would extrapolate to 393 in-game days in one minute. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D finished the year in about 44.75 seconds, which translates to about 489 days simulated in one minute.

In the end, all of this is to say that the 9980X isn't going to be awful at gaming, especially if you have one of the best graphics cards like the Nvidia RTX 5090 and crank up the settings so that the frame rate bottleneck moves from CPU to GPU.

Moving on to the more physical aspects of performance, the thermal and power consumption of the 9980X are what you would expect from a 350W TDP chip. I can assure you, the 9980X uses up every last watt of headroom its TDP will allow, ranging from 54.515W when idle all the way up to 349.623W peak power draw under 100% load.

Surprisingly, this did not directly translate into the chip overheating, and its temperatures ranged from 41℃ to 75℃ at its peak with a 360mm AIO cooler.

As you can see above, the real strength of this chip is in its multi-core performance. It's general system performance is decent and it's a pretty responsive chip, but you don't buy a 64-core Threadripper to try and max out your single-core clock speed for better FPS in games, you use it to chew through asynchronous workflows as fast as possible. The Threadripper 9980X is all about throughput, and in this regard, it's in a class all its own.

Normally, I take the geomean all of the different performance scores to arrive at a final score that accounts for some tests having very large numbers as their results compared to other tests (Cinebench R23 and R24's single and multi-core scores being a prime example).

However, when I do that, in the case of the 9980X, I all but erase the dominating results that make this chip what it is in the one workflow category it is designed to excel at.

As such, I've done something different and included both the aggregate geometric mean of all the chips' scores as well as a straight average. This allows you to appreciate how much the multi-core performance of the 9980X skews the results when the scores are averaged normally.

The 9980X is in an effective geometric tie with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and only a little bit ahead of the rest of the processors I tested in the end. But give the 9980X the proper weight of its multi-core performance with a straight average, and the 9980X runs away with it, beating out the 9970X by about 30% and the Intel Core Ultra 9 and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D by about 87%.

Taking all of those scores and looking at them in terms of performance-for-price, however, and the 9980X does not fair very well, coming in dead last in terms of value for your money. At least at first glance.

Given how this processor is designed for a very specific (and often lucrative) kind of work, I don't really think that the standard value metric I'd use with other products is applicable.

Yes, this chip is expensive, but if you're the kind of professional who would benefit from the 9980X's multi-core prowess, you're likely to make that money back fairly quickly just from speeding up your workflow and this chip will pay for itself in very short order.

• Performance: 5 / 5

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X?

Buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

How I tested the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

• I spent about two weeks testing the Threadripper 9980X
• I used it for content creation, gaming, and intensive office productivity
• I put the chip through my standard suite of CPU benchmark tests

I used the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X for about two weeks in my day-to-day work PC, using it for content creation for work, CPU experimentation and stress testing, and general productivity.

I didn't spend a whole lot of time gaming with this chip, as it definitely isn't its intended use case, and it was obvious early on that this wasn't a great gaming chip.

I used my standard CPU testing suite to stress the 9980X under load, including running custom scripts to maintain the highest CPU utilization possible for hours at a time to stress the chip's multi-core performance. For benchmarks, I focused most of my attention on benchmarks like V-Ray 6, Handbrake 1.9, Cinebench R23 and R24, as well as PugetBench for Creators Adobe Premiere.

I've tested dozens of processors for hundreds of hours over my time here at TechRadar, so I know my way around a processor and a testbench to push a chip to its limits to evaluate its quality and value, and I bring that expertise to bear with every review I do.

• First reviewed August 2025

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X: Two-minute review

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X isn’t just a “cut-down” version of the flagship AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X—it’s a deliberately tuned, high-clocked, 32-core workstation CPU that hits a sweet spot for many professionals.

By halving the core count from 64 to 32 while boosting base frequency to 4.0 GHz (and up to 5.4 GHz on single-core boost), AMD has created a chip that is easier to cool, faster in certain lightly threaded scenarios, and considerably more affordable.

When I first unboxed it, the 9970X didn’t feel like all that different proposition from the 9980X. The packaging, socket installation, and TRX50 platform requirements are the same, but it’s only after I spent two weeks extensively testing both HEDT chips that the performance story for the 9970X revealed itself.

In heavily threaded workloads like Blender Cycles and Cinebench multi-core, it delivers S-tier throughput in absolute terms—my Cinebench R23 multi-core score averaged 76,136, which is closer to the 9980X’s 115,098 than it is to the third-best result from my test group, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D with an average score of 42,100. That’s because the higher sustained clocks and reduced cross-die latency help the 9970X punch above its core count.

Where the difference becomes even more apparent is in day-to-day interactivity. Complex CAD assemblies, large Photoshop and Premiere projects, Unreal Engine scene editing, and other workloads with bursts of single-threaded or lightly threaded activity feel snappier than on the 9980X, a chip that feels purpose-built to maximize multi-core performance above any other consideration. That’s because the 9970X’s smaller core count means fewer CCDs to coordinate and a higher per-core thermal limit, allowing for faster frequency off the line. This will also pay dividends in applications that can sometimes scale unevenly across cores, such as large database server operations or multiple multi-threaded tasks running concurrently.

The 9970X’s power and thermals also proved more manageable in my testing. Under sustained all-core load, the chip’s maximum power draw hovered around 300W, but this was managed easily enough by the 360mm AIO cooler on the test bench. This kept the chip’s maximum tdie temperature at a balmy 74℃. For those who want to keep chip cooling simple in the form of a high-end AIO, this could make a tangible difference.

Platform benefits are unchanged from the rest of the Threadripper 7000 Pro lineup: you still get quad-channel DDR5-6400 ECC memory support, up to 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes, and motherboard designs built for multiple GPUs, high-bandwidth storage, and add-in accelerators. That means it can serve as the central brain for a machine-learning workstation, a film-editing suite with multiple GPU accelerators, or a high-end simulation box without compromise.

Like earlier Threadrippers before it, the 9970X’s gaming performance is at best a distant secondary consideration—and like the 9980X, the 9970X won’t match the best processors on the consumer market, like the Core i9-14900K or Ryzen 9 9950X3D, in pure gaming FPS.

However, with an average of over 240 FPS at 1080p in my tests, it’s more than capable of handling games competently between work sessions, especially when paired with one of the best graphics cards like the Nvidia RTX 5090.

The real magic of the 9970X, though, is how it blends workstation-class parallel compute with desktop-class responsiveness. For many pros, this chip will actually feel faster than the 9980X in mixed workloads, all while costing $2,499.99 / £2,299.99 / AU$4,199.

This is literally half the cost of AMD’s “best” HEDT processor. It’s still a major investment, but in the right pipeline, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X delivers a better return on both performance per dollar and performance per watt than its bigger sibling, making it the best AMD processor for just about every workstation PC that can run it.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X: Price & availability

• How much does it cost? $2,499.99 / £2,299.99 / AU$4,199
• When is it available? It is available now
• Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is available now for $2,499.99 / £2,299.99 / AU$4,199 in the US, UK, and Australia, respectively.

From a prosumer, enthusiast, and industry perspective, though, the price of the 9970X is going to be much cheaper than the 9980X, not to mention the Threadripper Pro 9000-series chips. So while its hard to call something costing more than a couple grand "cheap", for this class of product, this isn't that bad, especially considering that there's no increase in price from the Ryzen Threadripper 7970X.

Meanwhile, for many professionals, the 50% difference in price between the 9970X and 9980X—for what can often feels like 75–99% of the real-world performance of the 9980X—has to weigh heavily in its favor.

It’s important to note that Threadripper chips aren’t typically sold through mainstream retailers, so availability will be more limited than with high-end consumer CPUs. You’ll need to check with specialty component retailers, workstation-oriented e-tailers, and system integrators building high-end rigs for creative, engineering, or research applications in your region if you’re looking to upgrade to the 9970X.

It’s also worth noting that a total platform investment might be necessary as well. A TRX50 motherboard, high-bandwidth DDR5 ECC memory kit, and capable cooling are all required for the 9970X, and these can easily add a couple of grand to a build. That said, for buyers who rely on multi-core compute and high I/O throughput to make a living, the 9970X offers excellent return on investment.

• Value: 4 / 5

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X: Specs & Features

• AMD Zen 5 architecture
• Higher base clock than 9980X
• 32-cores/64-threads for excellent multi-core throughput

The Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, manufactured using a MCM design with the TSMC’s advanced N4P process for the main compute die and TSMC’s N6 proccess for chip I/O.

It combines 32 high-performance cores for 64 total threads, offering strong parallel compute capabilities while maintaining high per-core speeds that benefit lightly threaded workloads.

With a 4.0 GHz base and up to 5.4 GHz boost, it delivers both sustained throughput and the snappy responsiveness that closely parallels mainstream consumer CPUs.

A major strength of the Threadripper 9000-series is its quad-channel DDR5 memory controller, supporting ECC DDR5-6400, up from ECC DDR5-5200 from the Threadripper 7000-series, for higher data bandwidth and integrity, which are key for high-resolution video editing, scientific computation, and large-scale 3D rendering.

PCIe connectivity is equally formidable, with up to 80 lanes of PCIe 5.0 for GPUs and NVMe drives (up from 48 with the 7000-series), plus an additional 8 PCIe 4.0 lanes for legacy devices. This level of I/O capacity is ideal for multi-GPU render farms, expansive storage arrays, or specialized accelerator cards.

Its 350W TDP highlights the need for serious cooling (I would not recommend anything less than a 360mm AIO cooler), but it also enables sustained all-core performance without throttling when thermals are under control. The chip is fully unlocked as well, allowing fine-grained tuning for workloads that benefit from higher clocks.

Combined with the TRX50 platform’s durability and expandability, the 9970X’s specs make it a workstation CPU that can anchor a system for years of demanding use.

• Specs & features: 5 / 5

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X: Installation & test setup

Installing the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is more involved than seating a standard desktop CPU. It uses AMD’s sTR5 socket, which is physically massive and requires a specific installation process.

AMD includes a torque-limiting wrench with the processor to ensure even pressure across the integrated heat spreader, an important step for both thermal performance and long-term reliability. Skipping proper installation can lead to uneven contact or even bent pins on the TRX50 motherboard, so definitely watch some installation videos on YouTube and read the instructions carefully before touching anything.

For testing, I used an ASUS Pro WS TRX50-SAGE board, paired with an Nvidia RTX 5090, G.Skill 128GB DDR5-6400 ECC memory (4x32GB), and a Crucial T705 PCIe 5.0 SSD as the primary system drive running a fresh copy of Windows 11. Cooling was handled by a Silverstone XE360-TR5 AIO cooler, and power was supplied by a Thermaltake Toughpower PF3 1050W Platinum PSU.

This configuration is more or less what a professional workstation or enthusiast HEDT rig might look like, and definitely exceeds what you might find in a typical gaming PC (this will be important in a bit). Every component—from the motherboard’s VRM design to the memory configuration—was selected to match the demands of a CPU built for long, heavy, and complex computing tasks.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Performance

• Phenomenal multi-core performance
• Very responsive
• Gaming performance is unimpressive

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X’s performance reflects its 32-core, 64-thread design and high clock speeds, as demonstrated by my various benchmark data.

Everything from Geekbench 6.4 and Cinebench R23 to V-Ray, Blender Benchmark, and HandBrake 1.9 shows that it delivers exceptional throughput across professional workloads while maintaining strong single-core responsiveness.

In Geekbench 6.4, the 9970X scored a 3,010 in single-core and a 27,567 in multi-core performance, for example. This puts its single-core performance in the neighborhood of mainstream desktop CPUs like the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, though it’s about 10% slower than the fastest processor I tested, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, in Geekbench’s benchmark. Notably, the 9970X is about 1% faster in this test, on average, than the Threadripper 9980X.

For multi-core performance, however, the only real competition for the 9970X is the 9980X. In Geekbench 6.4, the 9970X is about 31% faster than the Core Ultra 9 285K, the third-fastest chip on this benchmark in my test group.

Meanwhile, the 9970X comes in about 4% slower than the 9980X in this test. Before you go thinking the 9970X can hang with the 9980X in overall multi-core performance, though, in Cinebench R23, the 9970X scored an astounding 76,136 points in multi-core performance, which is about 81% faster than the next chip on the podium, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, score of 42,098 (followed very closely by the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with 41,281).

The 9980X, meanwhile, clocked in 115,098 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which puts the 9970X about 34% slower than the 9980X. The story is essentially the same in Cinebench R24, with some tightening in the 3DMark CPU Profile (Max Thread) and PassMark CPU tests. Overall, the 9970X is the second-best multi-core performer, coming in about 54% faster than the third-place Core Ultra 9 285K, and about 25% slower than the multi-core champ 9980X.

The faster clock speeds in the 9970X give it a responsiveness edge over the slower 9980X, which you can see play out in system benchmarks like CrossMark. Here, the 9970X beat or roughly matched the productivity performance and responsiveness of the 9980X, Core Ultra 9 285K, and Ryzen 9 9950X. It’s only real competition here is the Intel Core i9-14900K, which has a noticeably higher boost frequency for its performance cores, which is vital to app performance and responsiveness.

In creative workloads, the 9970X outperformed nearly all of the chips in my testing, save for the 9980X, though there are some notable quirks in the results that might point to poor optimization for certain tests, like PugetBench for Creators.

Here both Threadripper chips fell way behind their client-grade competition in Adobe Photoshop, or essentially tying with them in PugetBench’s Premiere test—as the 9970X did—or only slightly beating the competition—hats off to the 9980X for the win there.

Other workloads, however, show that the 9970X is substantially better suited for these workflows than consumer-class chips. The 9970X takes the top spot in the CrossMark Creativity and Handbrake encoding tests overall, and loses only to the 9980X in Blender Benchmark 4.3 and V-Ray 6’s CPU test while nearly lapping its next closest rival on the consumer side on all four benchmarks.

Since the 9970X is classified as an HEDT chip rather than a full-on industrial workstation CPU, there are a lot of non-pro enthusiasts out there who like Threadrippers for the elite performance on offer, but I’ll warn you now that gaming is not where this chip is going to excel.

In my gaming benchmarks, the 9970X consistently came in at the bottom of the rankings, averaging about 241 FPS at 1080p on low settings (with a 1% FPS average of about 169). Every other chip besides the 9980X cleared 340 FPS on average, with 1% FPS averaging at least 40 FPS better. On the bright side, the 9970X did manage to beat out the 9980X, which came in dead last on every game I tested it with.

In terms of game AI performance, its also a bit of a mixed bag, with the 9970X doing very well in Civilization VII’s AI benchmark, but coming in a good deal behind in the mainstream consumer chips in the group in the Stellaris 1-year, 42 empire autoplay duration tests.

Of course, that’s not all there is to be said about gaming, since few with this kind of chip will be playing at 1080p with the lowest graphics settings on a cheap graphics card. If you’ve got the money for a Threadripper 9970X, you’re likely going to be able to swing a 4K graphics card like the Nvidia RTX 5080 or better; and gaming at higher resolutions shifts the FPS bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU, so the difference in actual framerates while playing might not be nearly so dramatic.

Thermals and power consumption were in line with what I was expecting from a 350W TDP chip. I recorded power draw ranging from 6.77W while idle to 300.6W peak, with temperatures between 37°C when idle and 74°C under sustained load using a 360mm AIO— an excellent result given the chip’s capabilities.

Overall, then, the 9970X really strikes a phenomenal balance between the responsiveness and everyday capability of the best consumer-market CPUs and the high-end performance required from a workstation-level processor.

Of course, given its price, I cannot imagine anyone who isn’t doing serious, heavy-duty 3D design, video production, or scientific simulation work needing a chip like this. If you’ve somehow stumbled into this review wondering if you should go through the ridiculous amount of expense to upgrade from a Core i9, Core Ultra 9, or Ryzen 9 system that you mostly use for gaming and prosumer-level content creation, don’t do it.

The payoff just isn’t worth the expense for anyone other than creative, AI, or scientific professionals. If you’re in a field that demands this kind of multi-core performance for your day-to-day work, however, the 9970X delivers close to flagship throughput with better responsiveness, making it one of the most balanced HEDT CPUs you’re going to find anywhere.

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X?

Buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

How I tested the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

• I spent about two weeks testing the Threadripper 9970X
• I put the chip through my standard suite of CPU benchmarks, with special attention on professional workloads and multi-core performance
• I used it for content creation, gaming, and day-to-day work

I used the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X in my day-to-day work PC, using it for general productivity, content creation for work, and a healthy dose of CPU experimentation. I also used it for gaming while running benchmarks on other systems, but that was not my primary focus.

While there are a lot of specialized workloads that this CPU will be running, most of those workflows or applications don't have readily accessible benchmarks, so I used my standard CPU testing suite to inform the potential performance for those I could not benchmark directly, and put special emphasis and attention on those benchmarks, like V-Ray 6 and Handbrake 1.9 Encoding, that directly relate to the intended market for this chip.

I've reviewed dozens of processors over my time at TechRadar, and have spent hundreds of hours of testing processors for features, special projects, and general maintenance of my benchmark score database, so I know how to push a processor to its limits and assess its quality and value, an expertise I bring to all of my reviews to ensure that you find the right chip for your needs and budget.

• First reviewed August 2025