Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

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

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    42,507
    Likes Received:
    10,291
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    It is a combination of many factors. Mostly related to the things you have seen replied above.

    For Idle and low usage Threadripper simply uses a notch more power for the simple fact that is has two physical active dies. Two Ryzen 1800 die 8-cores if you will. Each of them uses roughly 40 Watts in Idle and you cannot turn one completely off, it's just there. Hence there's always a 40 Watt extra premium.

    For the higher TDP. It's weird yes, but the TDP is based on allcore-baseclock which is higher for Threadripper. However as it turns out, Threadripper dies have been binned, it is AMDs best 2% The advantage here is that they can do more with less. And less in the case is the amount of voltage needed per core. Voltage is relative to wattage is relative to heat.

    You can tell that Intel needs more volts per core as the second you tweak, the power consumption goes out of control, while up-to ~4 GHz AMD needs roughly 1.325 Volts on the CPU depending on ASIC quality. I noticed that some procs even can do an allcore 4 GHz at 1.275 Volts which is insanely little with 16 cores when you think about it. Intel however remains king of high frequencies with a small amount of threads.
     
  2. RooiKreef

    RooiKreef Master Guru

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    51
    GPU:
    MSI RTX3080 Ventus
    Very good performance for AMD. In actual fact I will go as far as to say the best there is atm. The thing is this is a workhorse CPU and that it does pretty well. Better than any competition can offer for that matter. Looking at the gaming side of things, 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.
    Anyway it is good to see AMD at the top again and shake Intel up a bit. Good work.
     
  3. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    @Hilbert: If you have the time, would it be possible to do some test with half the cores disabled? It might provide a good indication of how the 1900X will perform.
     
  4. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    2,517
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I'm a bit wary about the 1900X's gaming performance. Unless you're doing 3x Crossfire or SLI (note Nvidia seems to be leaning toward dropping triple-GPU support) the extra PCIe lanes will not contribute toward any significant or measurable difference. As stated in my last post, games don't utilize enough cores to warrant the need for the additional memory channels. Overall, the benchmarks seem to suggest the extra bandwidth has very little impact.
    The real concern is the [N]UMA situation. For the 1900X, enabling NUMA means you'd get 4c/8t for a game, where if a game demands more than that you might lose performance. But with UMA you might get latency issues. I figure a Ryzen 7 may end up being the better choice for gamers, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

    Well, it's the best in terms of price point and class. But there are Xeons that are more powerful, albeit, with price points not for the faint of heart.

    Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the POWER9 ends up being a serious contender to both AMD and Intel offerings. Even POWER8 (which is already available) goes up to 96 threads at 4GHz with 96MB of L3 and 128MB of L4.
     

  5. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    It's a consumer grade cpu that costs $1000. In aus It's over 1400. If you think that being disappointed that the gaming performance in the case of the game I mentioned being more than 10% slower than a cpu that has been superceeded by maybe 5 successors, all of which cost a third of the cpu reviewed today is unfounded then that just isn't true.

    This cpu has jumped light years ahead of what intel was spoon feeding us, and is also a big step backwards in gaming. As someone who really wanted this to be my next cpu, I am very disapointed. I never thought it was a ' gaming chip'. But I didn't expect that bad performance for the whopping $1400aus + the extremely expensive motherboard cost for ot, plus the cost of a quad channel ram kit.

    And the argument that buying an 8 core zyzen instead because of slightly higher clocks also doesn't hold up because they suffer from the same gaming performance. So here we have amd shaking the market up.....and still are left with intel ad the only rational choice for a gaming minded person. I really thought intel would see some true competition, but instead we just have 2 different target markets.

    Maybe the entire market will split that way, who knows, but for me as a gamer first it would have been nice to have options in terms of the best performance. Not just different levels of compromise in order to get insane performance doing things I will never use.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  6. wavetrex

    wavetrex Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX1080 AMP!
    I am quite sure that Zen 2 ( or Zen+ ) will not have higher IPC, but instead will clock much higher ( 4.5+ Ghz ), closing the gap in these gaming workloads (or eliminating it).

    It wouldn't surprise me if next year they'll release a TR version that will have equally or better multi-threaded performance, but also the low-threaded turbo to high clockspeeds.

    At this point it's all about fabrication tweaks.
    Who knows, they might be producing them right now... ?
     
  7. Prince Valiant

    Prince Valiant Master Guru

    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    90
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 ti
    I was hoping for a bit more as well but I reckon that Hilbert was a little overwhelmed with all the reviews he had to do.
     
  8. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Frankly, I think you are the only person who was expecting some ground-breaking improvements in gaming with Threadripper. It was plainly obvious that TR's gaming performance would be more-or-less similar to the other Ryzen chips at the same clock speed. Really now, what made you think that it would be different?
     
  9. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    The tidal wave of industry hype where every big hardware site made out like like AMD was going to steal majority market share and bury intel.

    Look at the comments in this thread. You have frenzied people saying 'R.I.P Intel' for the first whole lage and then 2 pages of people saying they are either disappointed or expected more...I think as the dust settles people will realise that almost everyone will buy the 6-8 core intel chips from either coffee lake or skylake x and only the absolute most fringe buyers will shell out the 1x kidney cost of threadripper.

    I wasn't expecting miracles from threadripper. I just wasn't expecting the same poor performance in gaming that ryzen has for $1400+ aus
     
  10. FM57

    FM57 Master Guru

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    73
    GPU:
    Palit RTX 2070
    HH, thanks for the review. I am sold on Threadripper.

    Hope Santa will be nice this year. I know what to ask.

    Merry Christmas everybody !
     

  11. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    2,517
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I still don't get why you'd expect any different. Not even all the cores in a Ryzen 7 are fully utilized by any games. Adding more cores to a task that will not use them will have a 0% performance improvement.

    Look at it in this way:
    Let's say you're a runner and you want the most comfortable, breathable, and durable shoes to handle your trek, do you buy sneakers or steel-tip shoes? Steel-tip shoes are more durable and more expensive. They're grippy and can handle all sorts of terrain. You can do a lot more with them than you can with sneakers. But despite all of this, you will not run as fast.

    Much like shoes, there is no CPU model that fits all needs. You can't just keep adding cores and expect that everything will scale linearly with absolutely no regressions. But also, how much does it really matter to you to shave off those extra seconds in your run time, if you get to use the same shoes for work and daily use? People who buy Zen-based CPUs are willing to sacrifice a few FPS here and there while dramatically increasing the productivity in their other tasks, without paying more. Is a 2% loss in gaming performance really that big of a dealbreaker to you?

    That's really only said by fanboys who have no clue how the market works. Everyone else knows to take AMD's claims with a grain of salt (though apparently, they were pretty spot-on with TR). Intel wouldn't have to release a new product for over a year and they'd likely still get more sales than AMD.

    I actually expect the exact opposite. The GHz limit seems to be due to a manufacturing issue, so unless AMD adjusts all the transistors to compensate for it (which would likely be WAY too complicated), or, if the facilities adjust their fabrication process (which they ought to do anyway), the OC potential is likely going to remain the same. Meanwhile, Zen was not a perfect launch, and it was somewhat rushed - there are many adjustments AMD needs to make that they can only learn from via experience. Usually whenever a new CPU architecture is released, it seems to get a substantial ICP increase after it's 2nd generation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  12. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    That goes without saying. This is a chip for the HEDT market, which is a niche market - it is NOT intended for the general consumer or gaming market. Just like the Core i9, Threadripper is for those consumers who need a lot of cores (e.g., content creators) and only a small number of people ever buy them. Chips like Ryzen 5 and 7 are supposed to compete in the consumer market for 6-8 core chips, not Threadripper.
     
  13. The Average

    The Average Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    RX470/4GB
    And Intel's $2000 cpu is way worse in gaming than the 300$ 7700K. So what's your point? price has nothing to do with performance in gaming. Look at intel's i9 10 core vs 12 vs 14 vs 16 vs 18. The higher the cores the lower the frequency. And you can expect less performance in gaming even though you will be paying more.
    Again this CPU is made with multitasking in mind and it excels on that. For gaming you should be looking elsewhere.
     
  14. sydefekt

    sydefekt New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    R9 Fury
    Good read, and great review :thumbup:

    I think throughout the review and especially in the last page of final thoughts/conclusion: the target market and what TR is supposed to be used for was addressed. I would definitely buy into this platform if I were upgrading.
     
  15. Prince Valiant

    Prince Valiant Master Guru

    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    90
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 ti
    It's not as if AMD has been hyping these up as Intel killers for games?

    The only hype swirling in relation to games that comes to mind was about the possibility of quad channel memory improving things a little. With that not being the case it's presumably latency and a need for patches.
     

  16. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,190
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    GPU:
    -
    Up until EPYC is released. At that point, a 32 core 2.2Ghz EPYC 7601 should hover around the same performance for $4200 vs Intels highest end 28-core 2.5Ghz Xeon Platinum 8180 $11,722 processor.

    Not to mention EPYC's 7551P, 32 core, 2.0Ghz for $2100

    But wait, weren't these already released?

    This, so this, like, i can't stress how much THIS

    Honestly, it's just sad people don't hold Intel to the same nonsensical scrutiny when it comes to "My higher-frequency/lower-core count processor does better at gaming then AMDs more expensive processors!"
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  17. varkkon

    varkkon Member Guru

    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    24
    GPU:
    Geforce 1080 Ti
    Amazing! This will be my next upgrade and CPU.

    Massive thanks for the review as always.
     
  18. Monchis

    Monchis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 950
    Yeah, you can tell in several games that it´s a bottleneck even at 1080p...

    ... this processor is a beast :)
     
  19. StewieTech

    StewieTech Chuck Norris

    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    916
    GPU:
    MSI gtx 960 Gaming
    Hats off to AMD, they really pulled a phoenix on the cpu market. They really at it i tell you. Massive win here. Respect.
     
  20. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,651
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    A lady V? :banana:

    On a serious note: 56, 64 or both?

    I bet Linus will do that (and get hate again for it)

    AMD said it was keen on improving Zen through the life of AM4 platform. What that means, we have to wait and see.

    They're certainly working and pushing 7nm research, so we might see more good tech in the next 2 years.
     

Share This Page