The TR CPU's, especially the clocks (although with +30w on the TDP compared to last year, 280w vs 250w) and platform are obviously good, but I'm disappointed that they are not backwards compatible with the TR4 socket X399 motherboards, especially considering that the prices are higher than last year's 24 and 32 core CPUs:
- 2970WX @ $1299 vs 3960X @ $1399
- 2990WX @ $1799 vs 3970X @ $1999
People that have an expensive X399 motherboard will not get the chance to solve the performance inconsistency that Zen and Zen+ display due to their core / memory channels configuration. Zen 2 with a centralized memory controller was supposed to solve that, but for some reason AMD decided to not make them backwards compatible, but somehow EPYC Rome, which is also Zen 2 based, is backwards compatible with 1st gen EPYC boards, so AMD has some explaining to do. Yes, people would "only" get PCIe 3.0 bandwidth and less bandwidth to the chipset, but still, those clocks, extra IPC and consistent performance across workloads would be great for someone considering making the upgrade from a first gen TR, possibly even upgrading on the core count after two years, say going from 16 core first gen 1950X to a 24 or 32 core Zen 2 Threadripper. Now there's a new motherboard to factor in the equation.
Admittedly AMD TR 3 CPU's have no competition unless you have an AVX 512 workload, but I'm just worried that this is what will happen in the future when there is no competition - no backwards compatibility and higher CPU prices, which goes counter to what they did on the mainstream platform where they are still not the all-round winner. Heck, it would have even been fine if they said that possible upcoming 48 and 64 core Zen 2 required a new TRX40 (or TRX80) board, but at least the 24 and 32 core CPUs should have been made backwards compatible.