Power Consumption

The nature of reporting processor power consumption has become, in part, a dystopian nightmare. Historically the peak power consumption of a processor, as purchased, is given by its Thermal Design Power (TDP, or PL1). For many markets, such as embedded processors, that value of TDP still signifies the peak power consumption. For the processors we test at AnandTech, either desktop, notebook, or enterprise, this is not always the case.

Modern high performance processors implement a feature called Turbo. This allows, usually for a limited time, a processor to go beyond its rated frequency. Exactly how far the processor goes depends on a few factors, such as the Turbo Power Limit (PL2), whether the peak frequency is hard coded, the thermals, and the power delivery. Turbo can sometimes be very aggressive, allowing power values 2.5x above the rated TDP.

AMD and Intel have different definitions for TDP, but are broadly speaking applied the same. The difference comes to turbo modes, turbo limits, turbo budgets, and how the processors manage that power balance. These topics are 10000-12000 word articles in their own right, and we’ve got a few articles worth reading on the topic.

In simple terms, processor manufacturers only ever guarantee two values which are tied together - when all cores are running at base frequency, the processor should be running at or below the TDP rating. All turbo modes and power modes above that are not covered by warranty. Intel kind of screwed this up with the Tiger Lake launch in September 2020, by refusing to define a TDP rating for its new processors, instead going for a range. Obfuscation like this is a frustrating endeavor for press and end-users alike.

However, for our tests in this review, we measure the power consumption of the processor in a variety of different scenarios. These include full peak AVX workflows, a loaded rendered test, and others as appropriate. These tests are done as comparative models. We also note the peak power recorded in any of our tests.

First up is our loaded rendered test, designed to peak out at max power.

In this test the 3995WX with only 64 threads actually uses slightly less power, given that one thread per core doesn’t keep everything active. Despite this, the 64C/64T benchmark result is ~16000 points, compared to ~12600 points when all 128 threads are enabled. Also in this chart we see that the 3955WX with only sixteen cores hovers around the 212W mark.

The second test is from y-Cruncher, which is our AVX2/AVX512 workload. This also has some memory requirements, which can lead to periodic cycling with systems that have lower memory bandwidth per core options.

Both of the 3995WX configurations perform similarly, while the 3975WX has more variability as it requests data from memory causing the cores to idle slightly. The 3955WX peaks around 250W this time.

For peak power, we report the highest value observed from any of our benchmark tests.

(0-0) Peak Power

As with most AMD processors, there is a total package power tracking value, and for Threadripper Pro that is the same as the TDP at 280 W. I have included the AVX2 values here for the Intel processors, however at AVX512 these will turbo to 296 W (i9-11900K) and 291 W (W-3175X).

AMD TR Pro Review: 3995WX, 3975WX, 3955WX CPU Tests: Rendering
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Threska - Tuesday, July 20, 2021 - link

    VFIO would be more popular if video card makers weren't tight with GPU-pasthrough.


    CPUs like Threadripper would be a great fit.
  • FLORIDAMAN85 - Wednesday, July 21, 2021 - link

    Alt title: AMD, faster than Intel in Crysis, again.
  • quadibloc - Thursday, July 22, 2021 - link

    It's too bad it took so long for this chip to become generally available. I hope this won't be repeated in the next generation of Threadrippers - and they should have become available sooner. Like within a month of Ryzen, so that people could buy them before they're already obsolete.
  • mode_13h - Thursday, July 22, 2021 - link

    > Like within a month of Ryzen, so that people could buy them before they're already obsolete.

    First, how is it obsolete? TR 3000 and TR 3000 Pro are still peerless, in many ways.

    Second, Intel has traditionally had like 6 months or a year of lag between their mainstream and HEDT. I know you didn't say anything about Intel, but I'm pointing this out because it establishes a precedent for what AMD is doing (not that I think AMD is worried about precedents).
  • alpha754293 - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link


    You might want to fix this link in your review.
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, August 2, 2021 - link

  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link

    I can understand Lenovo locking their OEM CPUs to their motherboards as a packaged deal.

    If I read this correctly, ALL Threadripper Pro CPUs will be locked to Lenovo boards forever if they're ever installed in a Lenovo P620 motherboard.

    That's a huge load of crap. No one is going to know this except for Anandtech readers and whatever poor schmuck that gets screwed a few years down the road.

    Hopefully someone will figure out how to defeat that OEM lock. That is just poor judgment on AMD's part.

    To clarify, I have zero problem with the CPU being locked to the Lenovo system *as it is sold*, but it is 100% unacceptable to lock a LATER installed CPU to the motherboard as well.
  • GregoriaEgan - Sunday, December 12, 2021 - link

    So I was thinking about getting the low end 3955WX Threadripper Pro, but as I understand it the 24 Core "old" Threadripper are better because of more chiplets (and cores). I just saw a mentioning of TH "Pro" functions, I'm unsure, are there more functions of the Pro-line, like remote administration or the like?
    I doubt that I would ever get more than 256 GB RAM and I'm not sure that I need the extra PCI-e lanes, but are there any other more features that just don't exist in the non-pro TH, that you only get with the Pro-line?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now