Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,501
    Likes Received:
    14
    AMD also releases their Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, which we review and test. This this is the 12-core part, the base clock is a notch higher at 3.5 GHz and the precision boost is also 4.0 GHz. With 24 ...

    Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
     
  2. Jagman

    Jagman Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both this and the 1950X are as expected....Awesome for the money but I do agree with you Hilbert this one needs to be 749 to be priced correctly as it were.

    Great reviews as always :)
     
  3. WhiteLightning

    WhiteLightning Don Illuminati Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,588
    Likes Received:
    3
    Its hammer time

    [​IMG]

    Epic CPU's. These are great for streamers (who just want one rig to do it all).
     
  4. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, basically, for $1000, if you go AMD instead of Intel, you can get a much, much faster processor, or for $200 less, you can still get a decently faster processor then going Intel.

    Yup.
     

  5. Guru3dreader

    Guru3dreader Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would love to see this. A 12 core Threadripper at $799 plus a GTX 1080 Ti, against an 7900X at $999 with a GTX 1080.

    Thanks for this review.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  6. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Awesome review as always Hilbert , thank you for the in depth review !

    Absolutely amazing performance , great to see AMD back in the top. Finally the Intel monopoly has been broken and that is a good thing as everybody wins here.
     
  7. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,606
    Likes Received:
    1
    H, can you test numa vs the other mode in AIDAI64 cache/latency test?

    Curious how much of a difference it makes, Intel can be less than 40ns depending on ram.
     
  8. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,501
    Likes Received:
    14
    I already did?

    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper_1950x_review,20.html

    But I also made the remark that AIDA needs to be updated. The numbers are not yet 100% right. UMA (Distributed) would site in the 90~100ns and NUMA (local) in the 60~70ns ranges.
     
  9. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,156
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanks HH, nice review. Is there an error in the Firestrike chart p27? The 7700k surely cant be doing that good vs all these high end multi-cores in this test?
     
  10. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,501
    Likes Received:
    14
    Firestrike is pretty sensitive to high CPU frequencies (which the OC already shows, far more so than Time Spy. The 7700k is doing well there thanks to its 4.5 GHz boost.
     

  11. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,606
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oops I'm blind.
    Thanks :)

    Wonder if this would help those games that are poorly threaded, AKA old UE3 games and the like.
     
  12. The Edge

    The Edge Active Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm wondering why is there a 13 FPS difference between the 1950X and 1920X in Hitman 1080p in favor of 1950X when the stock 1920X has even higher base clock ?
     
  13. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1
    Additional cores?

    The 7900k wins out to a 7740k even though the 7740k has higher clocked speeds as well
     
  14. Taint3dBulge

    Taint3dBulge Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for posting that video of the 1920x running BF1. That is interesting that the game can handle up to 12 threads but seems like only 4 really get used used more then 25%, and 1 of the 4 is at 100%. But then again, that 1 core is prolly handling alot of other things on top of the game. So that makes me wonder, why doesnt it push more processing power to a core that is only being 30-40% utilized?

    Anyways thanks again for spending time doing that.
     
  15. The Edge

    The Edge Active Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Makes no sense. It gets beaten by all those Ryzens 7 and 5 even overclocked to 4 GHz and has way more cores.
     

  16. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,501
    Likes Received:
    14
    Yeah I remember running the test several times, each time with the same outcome. No clue, I can only note down what I measure. With upcoming X399 reviews I'll again revisit and re-check that though.
     
  17. The Edge

    The Edge Active Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it might be the difference between distributed and local RAM mode. But then I thought you tested both threadrippers in the same mode. Strange...
     
  18. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1
    Makes perfect sense. The game apparently supports additional cores, but is not linear in terms of how much extra performance those cores give you.
     
  19. The Edge

    The Edge Active Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man are you looking at the same charts as I do ? Your theory makes no sense, which even Hilbert just confirmed above. The 1920X is loosing to fricking Ryzen 5 - 6 core and it is loosing to it even when overclocked.
     
  20. WaroDaBeast

    WaroDaBeast Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,961
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nicely written and thoroughly tested. Thanks, Hilbert.

    Also, thank you for the feedback to other forum members. It's always nice to be able to discuss benchmark results.
     

Share This Page