Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17407673? 4.5ghz 6900k

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1872561 4.4ghz 6950x

They are not the same.
Roughly 1400points higher on 6950x at same clock speeds.
There is good scaling there.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a bench where they've dropped HT.
Have you seen one around ?

 

That was me missreading.


"Both CPU tests *can* use more than 8 cores. They just might not scale perfectly.

But they were never designed nor tested with more than 8, so past that is "unknown territory". When the tests were designed, no consumer hardware existed with more than 8 cores / 16 threads.

Time Spy Extreme CPU test will be designed and tested for far higher core counts."

Still might not work that well at least on TR currently which would kind of make sense.

 

To be honest, i more expected it with this release then the main ryzen release, because it's AMDs high end, expensive chips, and expensive motherboards, that i'm certain the market was very unsure of how fast it would sell, given peoples uncertainty with AMD throughout the past many years.

 

That's 8-10, i'm not sure where you got 10-14.

As well,

6900 = CPU Score 10703
6950 = CPU Score 12013 (which is very obviously 1300, not sure why you'd say roughly 1400, when it's not roughly 1400 anything.)

If there was perfect scaling, then:

6950 SHOULD have a score of around 13089, as the 6950 should be around 22.3% faster then the 6900, at the clock speeds you gave.

Now, you may say, "13000, 12000, not a big difference, there is good scaling". Of which i'd ask: How is almost half the performance increase it SHOULD have, "good scaling"? As in, how is an increase of 1300 "good" scaling when perfect scaling would be an increase of around 2350? When did "good scaling" become so low?

And then there's the dual-socket Intel Xeon Processor X5670 with 12 cores/24 threads total @ 2.93Ghz/4.2Ghz, and should be more powerful (total processor) then both the 6900 and 6950, with a CPU score of 7868, whereas if it scaled perfectly, compared the the 6900, it should have a score of around 14500~

Or the dual-socket Intel Xeon Processor E5-2670 with 16 cores/32 threads total @ 2.6Ghz/3.3Ghz with a CPU score of 7232, which if scaled perfectly, should have a score of around 17000~

These numbers are based off of how many cores a processor has and at what clock speed (base clock speed) those processors are at, compared to the 6900 processor, if scaling was perfect.

If you actually look at the high core count xeon processors, the scores don't make sense.

The simple fact that the highest scored processors are not xeons should be very telling.

 

"if you want the best gaming fps and that is your soul goal, get yourself a 7700K or 7740X and over clock it. Nothing out there will be able to match the fps that those 2 CPU's bring to the table. Oh, don't forget the 6700K that is basically a 7700K."

I've seen AMD Ryzen 7 @ 4,1GHz with 3533mhz memory beat an OCed 7700K @ 4,7GHz in minimum fps in the games that were tested.
And min fps IMO is the most important number, that's what's going to cause the first stutters.
Just wait till 3600 MHz and 4000 MHz memory sets are used more by gamers/tweakers.
People will believe it when they see it.

c:

 

I wonder what does Hilbert Hagedoorn have to say now on the 3DMark CPU bench.

Well he stop using it until a better version that can support higher cores/threads/ hmmm

 

In some ways, that's true. Just like Ryzen 7 was their first Zen CPU, Ryzen Threadripper is their first HEDT CPU. In both cases, there was little data to go on so mobo manufacturers may have decided to err on the side of caution. Also, HEDT is a pretty niche market overall so overstocking wouldn't be wise - only a few people will pony up the money for these chips. Then again, we've never had a HEDT chip that was as cheap as the 1920X (they're usually $1K and over).

I just find it annoying to have to wait to build a system. I got my Ryzen 7 CPU almost immediately after launch, but it was sitting under my desk for weeks as I waited for the motherboard. After a month of waiting, I was so desperate that I swapped out my original purchase (MSI) for another board that happened to be in stock, which is how I ended up with my ASRock board. My 1950X just arrived today (weekend deliveries are always nice), and I hope I won't have to repeat my prior experience. Here's hoping.

 

Power consumption goes through the roof @ 4ghz overclocked.

 

And still not that bad vs comparably performing Intel most likely.

 

I am agreeing with you, I actually support the idea of ryzen 5/7 is enough for gaming now and for years to come, that's why I ask how did that CPU do (I know how it would do, same/better than 1950x) at 4GHz because that result was excluded (would've made TR look silly at gaming price/perf)

edit: I am also happy with my PC @1080p @60fps V-sync. Not looking to make my gaming 2 times (figure of speech) more expensive by going 144Hz....

 

I'm in the same boat as you. Got my Threadripper last night, local shop only had 1. Now I just need the board. For now i'll just use my I7-5960x setup. Can't wait to sell that CPU. Always regretted buying it. AMD Fanboy I am. Just need to order a EKWB waterblock for it to hook to my Predator 360.

 

That says it all really when it comes to price - just look at the stupid prices Intel is looking for for all the ones below it... monopoly and rip off for far too long.

 

This. The massive number of PCIE lanes compared to Intels crap crippleware system is a massive advantage and the main reason I will be looking at these as my next CPU/chipset over any Intel based system.

I guarantee Intel will come out eventually with consumer CPU/chipset which has decent amount of lanes just to compete with this, but in this case I would say to Intel, you can go frack yourself now, you have been screwing us intentionally over this for years, crippling cheaper CPUs and only have the maximum lanes on your most expensive CPUs, and now you expect me to come crawling back when your business strategy bluff has been called? frack off.

It may not look like much to people now, but when the board manufacturers start really getting their teeth into this and seeing what they can actually do now with high-end motherboards with all those lanes, we will really see the difference between an Intel crippleware 28-lane limited board and an AMD 64-lane enabled board. Wait till you see.

And yes I am talking about more than mere gaming systems here.

 

Maybe you live on a different planet than I but you could always get a 5820k a couple years back for the same price as the 4790k or w/e and it had 28 lanes which is more than enough for 99% of gamers.
A 28lane for 340~ USD in 2015 is more than fair.

5930k for 500 with 40 lanes wasn't a bad deal either.
But here you are complaining about expensive Intel CPUs when you are looking to buy a 1K USD + CPU.

Regardless, 64 lanes and even 40 lanes is pretty much useless for consumers.