AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X & 1920X Review: Core i9 Killer

[Julio Franco]

It's finally time to see if Threadripper can bring competition to the high-end desktop segment while delivering the value and efficiency we've come to expect from other Ryzen processors.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1465-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x/

 

[RevD14]

For a second I thought that picture was stretched out.

 

[Puiu]

Great in-depth review as always. AMD created a monster HEDT platform.

Now I really want to see how the non-x variants will do. If they will be similar to the R7 then we'll get some pretty impressive CPUs at great prices.

 

[pawel04]

Thanks for this in depth review! Great amount of detail and unbiased opinions. Its great to see AMD doing so well, as has been said many times before, this is the competition us consumers needed. Looking forward to building an R5 1600 build to replace my 2500k, now if only Asus releases a mini ITX strix board for AM4...

 

[amstech]

If you judge these chips by gaming performance (which is immature and silly as gaming engines are not coded to use everything todays CPU's have to offer, even new games) you may be a little disappointed. A Ryzen 1700/1700X seems to be the sweet spot for all around performance and gaming. That being said I am impressed from the skin to the bone.

With AMD there was always a catch to saving money with their GPUs or CPU's...poor single threading performance, no overclock ability/high temps, poor software/architectural coding, bugs/issues or poor gaming performance. With Ryzen there really is no catch and it will be interesting to see how long Intel can ride out their reputation before AMD buyers increase.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Causes me to wonder... will there ever be Pareto Principal Pricing: I.e., 80% of the benefit at 20% of the cost. The article points out the price/performance of the $215 Ryzen 5 1600 - sounds good to me.

 

[dirtyferret]

Beyond what I need at the moment or what I would ever spend on a CPU but nice to see some competition in the CPU market. That said my question is how come the single thread performance is so higher on Threadripper then on Ryzen? Historically the more cores you cram into a CPU the less single thread performance you create.

 

[madboyv1]

Beyond what I need at the moment or what I would ever spend on a CPU but nice to see some competition in the CPU market. That said my question is how come the single thread performance is so higher on Threadripper then on Ryzen? Historically the more cores you cram into a CPU the less single thread performance you create.

I'd imagine that threadripper having almost double the memory performance than Ryzen (which makes sense since it's quad channel vs dual channel), has something to do with that. Also, it's not like they crammed more cores onto the same sized die. They practically glued two Ryzen dies together and put a heat spreader on top. XD

 

[Boilerhog146]

Well ,going back and looking at a few older review like your dual xeon rig , seems that just got swept off of the table as any kind of an option ,certainly those xeons will be even cheaper to buy now ,Awesome review steve, and KUDOS to AMD ,from an Intel devotee,at the least ,now for sure Intel will have no choice but to seriously look at its pricing. I want to buy a new intel setup but going from 3930K on rampage 4 Extreme ,I'm still happy. so I'll wait until this plays out,anyone looking to upgrade.now is the time to sit and wait just a little bit longer ,for the kneejerk.
Intel is gonna do a kneejerk ,just watch..

 

[Boilerhog146]

Intel.."Sue them,"

Lawyers, "we are suing them"

Intel, "Well ,SUE THEM SOME MORE DAMNIT" (not a miss spelling)

I read a post ,recently that acquiring ATI was the worst thing AMD ever did ,but I now Regress ,"YOU HAVE NO CLUE"

The ATI deal is only now ,showing what a great buy it was .most, when they think of it ,think only about the GPU.
but the biggest piece of the puzzle ,IMO was and is still the CHIPSET ,which is now on every AMD system running.you no longer see and nForce or Via chips on AMD mobo's you see AMD chips..oh, my K6 266/300 has an ATI chipset AND Gpu on the mobo.why licence when you can buy and own..? well done AMD .build a fab in Canada ,and I'll buy,er ,build, an AMD system,ATI selling out still hurts.LOL

 

[Puiu]

Beyond what I need at the moment or what I would ever spend on a CPU but nice to see some competition in the CPU market. That said my question is how come the single thread performance is so higher on Threadripper then on Ryzen? Historically the more cores you cram into a CPU the less single thread performance you create.

Single threaded perf isn't really that much higher, but you should note that AMD is binning these CPUs and only the top 5% are chosen. This potentially means better XFR boost speeds (it's why both have a 200MHz XFR on 1 to 4 cores) and better OCing. The extra memory bandwidth should also help in some situations.

PS: Some motherboard manufacturers are saying that they are working on bios updates that will help with more than just bugs/weird quirks, like lowering the voltage needed to OC which could potentially allow the CPUs to hit 4.0+ (4.1-4.2 on all cores) at workable voltages and temps. some reviewers hit 4.1 stable on the 1920x already with a good cooler and others had trouble reaching 4.0 on the 1950x (3.95GHz stable)

 

[Magistus]

Could you please add Overwatch benchmarks? Speculating from 1600vs7800 scores, I guess it will be a TR win.

 

[Amet Monegro]

Good review, great CPU, nice work AMD

 

[ZackL04]

Beyond what I need at the moment or what I would ever spend on a CPU but nice to see some competition in the CPU market. That said my question is how come the single thread performance is so higher on Threadripper then on Ryzen? Historically the more cores you cram into a CPU the less single thread performance you create.

Single threaded perf isn't really that much higher, but you should note that AMD is binning these CPUs and only the top 5% are chosen. This potentially means better XFR boost speeds (it's why both have a 200MHz XFR on 1 to 4 cores) and better OCing. The extra memory bandwidth should also help in some situations.

PS: Some motherboard manufacturers are saying that they are working on bios updates that will help with more than just bugs/weird quirks, like lowering the voltage needed to OC which could potentially allow the CPUs to hit 4.0+ (4.1-4.2 on all cores) at workable voltages and temps. some reviewers hit 4.1 stable on the 1920x already with a good cooler and others had trouble reaching 4.0 on the 1950x (3.95GHz stable)

I hope your right about the bios updates. Or are you talking threadripper only motherboards? I would like to get my 1600 beyond 3.8ghz....

 

[JudasSheep]

Excellent review! Makes me want to upgrade my 6800k already.

 

[Vulcanproject]

It's raining cores

 

[Puiu]

I hope your right about the bios updates. Or are you talking threadripper only motherboards? I would like to get my 1600 beyond 3.8ghz....

on a stock cooler? it sounds to me like you just got unlucky in the silicon lottery. a better cooler might be able to help to get 3.9GHz or more, but my question for you would be: do you need the extra 100-200MHz?

 

[Versutus]

It's a beast!

 

[axiomatic13]

Suggestion. I have found that the Civ VI "AI Benchmark" is a little more useful when testing CPU's than the "GPU Benchmark" is? It's not a very GPU intensive game.
Have a good day Techspot.

 

[Jagjit Natt]

If you judge these chips by gaming performance (which is immature and silly as gaming engines are not coded to use everything todays CPU's have to offer, even new games) you may be a little disappointed. A Ryzen 1700/1700X seems to be the sweet spot for all around performance and gaming. That being said I am impressed from the skin to the bone.

With AMD there was always a catch to saving money with their GPUs or CPU's...poor single threading performance, no overclock ability/high temps, poor software/architectural coding, bugs/issues or poor gaming performance. With Ryzen there really is no catch and it will be interesting to see how long Intel can ride out their reputation before AMD buyers increase.

Anyone serious about gaming is going to game at resolutions over 1080p and with settings cranked. 1440p is sort of minimum nowadays. I would like to see how these processors handle 4k resolution at ultra settings. I am sure the difference between AMD and Intel would shrink to 1-2% in MOST games which is negligible.

Going forward we might even see AMD beating Intel at newer games at those resolutions.

 

[wiyosaya]

I am not in the market for a new build right now, however, this is the kind of workload that I most often use. If I were, I would be considering TR at this point.

Personally, I think it will be interesting to see benchmarks against the higher end i9 parts.

As I have said elsewhere, IMO, AMD is smart to go after this market segment because of the segment's size. However, when the next gen of these parts come out, my bet is that we will see improved gaming performance.

 

[amstech]

Anyone serious about gaming is going to game at resolutions over 1080p and with settings cranked. 1440p is sort of minimum nowadays. I would like to see how these processors handle 4k resolution at ultra settings. I am sure the difference between AMD and Intel would shrink to 1-2% in MOST games which is negligible. Going forward we might even see AMD beating Intel at newer games at those resolutions.

Steam 2017 results showed that most people still game at or around 1080p.
1440p/2K is picking up steam but I believe it was no more then 5-8%, and 4K was below 2-3%.
Steam's June/July Survey 2017 results are in, google them and take a peak, the data they have is pretty awesome.

As far as CPU gaming comparisons I don't see AMD catching Intel with this generation. With higher resolutions the GPU takes over more so the results might get closer but lower resolution tests give you the real story on what CPU's are holding their own better. Intel's threading and architecture has been more commonly supported by most gaming platforms and engines, this is not something an overnight update will fix. Also, some games that are based on calculation and frequency dependent games will just run better on a CPU that can hit 5.0GHz, sometimes it does come down to raw clock speed. Not saying Intel is better or worse, but that's basically how it played out in the last 10+ years. That will now start to change.

 

[GreenNova343]

At 1440p & 4K resolutions, the CPU stops being the main driver of performance & it switches over to the GPU. I don't mean, of course, that you can ignore your GPU choice at 1080p or lower settings; a GTX 1060 or RX 580 is still going to kill a GTX 750TI, or especially a Radeon HD 6450. But when even a GTX 1080TI or the latest GTX TItan X will struggle to hit 60FPS minimums & averages in some games at 4K, which CPU is behind it doesn't matter quite as much.

The only game I've seen Techspot test at 1440p for CPU testing was Dark Souls III, & that was because, with its hard-coded 60FPS cap, they found that a) they only needed an R9 290 or GTX 780TI to hit the cap (both well below the top-level 980TI they were using for testing at the time), & b) even an R9 270X & GTX 760 were right at 40FPS on Max Quality (https://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page2.html). Hence their use of 1440p for CPU testing in that game...& even there, with a GTX 980TI their FX-8350 CPU managed to hit 52FPS minimums & hit the 60FPS cap for average performance; even an FX-4320 managed 44FPS minimum/51FPS average performance.

But other than that exception, 1080p resolution on the most powerful GPU available is still the best way to test actual CPU performance.

 

[Kenrick]

What a productive cpu. Hopefully, someone can make a mitx mboard for this, my money is ready. I wont change my inwin 901 case. If not then, ill be set to the next ryzen or coffee lake.

 

[namesrejected]

I don't trust those results....

I think Techspot should send me the Threadripper to verify.