Conclusion
Final Words
Right then, and that was our 2nd Threadripper review already. For the Threadripper 1920X as tested today you will need to pay 799 USD. So that's 200 bucks off compared to the 1950X model. Honestly, if you go for the X399 + Threadripper combo, you might as well go for the sixteen core version in our opinion. Sure you save 200 bucks, but you drop 4 cores and 8 threads, and really mega-core tasking is what Threadripper is all about we feel. They perform more or less the same per core wise in less threaded applications, the 1920X will even win here and there as the base-clock is a 100 MHz higher, and that is 12x100= 1200 Mhz of more computation raw horsepower. For the 1950X that is tweaked out in 5 seconds + you get 4 more cores. The threaded performance of course remains staggering, it's like consumers can finally get their hands in that forbidden cookie jar. For gaming my advise stands as-is, you will not need a 12 or a 16 cores processor for your fragging needs. Contrary my friend, a nice Ryzen 6 or 8-core processor tweaked to 4 GHz will get you the very same (or at least close to) results. And that does save you a lot of money you could invest in a faster GPU. But never ever has any consumer been able to purchase a 12 or 16 core processor in this price range as that was exclusive to a very expensive server market, AMD has turned the market up-side down. For the guys and girls that have pro-workstations and do a lot of video editing, this stuff right here is so incredibly sexy at prices that are in reach for a consumer. For content creation again this is amazing. For the extreme ones that stream, edit, browse and do it all at once, this is terrific stuff.
Performance
Obviously threaded applications will fly in terms of relative performance. And make no mistake, single threaded performance is really good as well, Threadripper can boost towards 4.0 GHz with an extra 200 MHZ XFR allowance as well. You can clock and thus tweak all cores on this proc to 4 GHz as well. Albeit you do need to wonder if that is fair in terms of extra heat levels and power consumption. But sure, if you want to, you could. No, unless you have very specific workloads or crave the need for the extreme, you do not need a 12 or 16-core processor, I have stated it many times already, I feel that 6 and 8-core processors are the 2017 sweet-spot. But realistically, long term a platform like this might last your many MANY years. You have the performance, the threads and let's not forget the connectivity with the many PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes available.
The Experience
I am happy to report that with the launch BIOS and motherboard we really did not run into any significant enough issues. The memory compatibility and stability was truly good. If you pick your memory right, you will not have any issues as the Initial Ryzen releases already has removed the launch issues. In the BIOS simply enable the XMP SPD profile and you'll boot straight into Windows with your new timings and frequency. I've mentioned it a couple of times already, but please read up in this article for some good memory recommendations. These memories work on Ryzen, and will work just as well on Threadripper as well.
A quick video recording of Battlefield 1 running on a GeForce GTX 1080 @ 2560x1440 with Ryzen Threadripper 1920X 12c/24t to demonstrate the thread distribution, allocation and utilization.
Game performance then, it's fine. Yes you'll be able to perhaps gain 10% more perf at 1080p in a CPU bound situation from a faster clocked Intel counter-part. How important that is to you is totally up-to you. My advise, take the money you save on the AMD platform and invest that in a faster GPU. That's what I call a double whammy. Think about it. Stability then, no problems whatsoever. The PC boots at XMP into windows instantly, we didn't have a single crash or weird instability whatsoever.
The Memory
We mentioned DDR4 memory a couple of times already; the new AGESA 1006 based BIOSes have improved a lot, Threadripper is getting AGESA 2006 at launch, the same stuff. 3200 MHz is a non-issue with the right memory, we recommend 2933 MHz or better when you build a gaming rig. Obviously with quad-channel you could go a little slower as you gain more bandwidth. All previously AGESA 1006 and newer firmware approved memories as we have tested should be fine to us. It is however a new platform and chipset, hence please do give AMD and their motherboard partners a little time to iron out any inevitable bugs and launch issues (but we haven't ran into anything significant enough really).
The Power
This processor now fabbed at 14 nm FinFET the TDP sticks to roughly 180 Watts. A full PC at idle will sit in the 93 Watt range with a dedicated graphics card installed (GeForce GTX 1080 / 16 GB memory / SSD and the motherboard). When we stressed the processors with a Prime 1024M run we reached roughly 212 Watts, that's low enough for what it needs to be. This is impressive to see with twelve CPU cores, especially compared to what we have seen from Intel more recently. When we game we hover at ~320 Watts which is a notch higher than we are used to, but that's the 2nd CPU die that adds that extra 40~50 Watts, also and obviously that factor is dependent on the type of graphics card you use of course as well as how many CPU cores the game utilizes. So yeah, these are a notch higher, but overall good enough values with this mega-core product.
The Negatives
As you probably have heard, Intel made a bit of sting in one of their media processor slides, calling Threadripper glued together. The reality is, there is some merit to that statement. In the end there are two dies active under that big heatspreader. That engineering choice does come with consequences and in the end compromises. First and foremost is the idle power consumption. You have two 8-core dies, obviously one of them isn't mysteriously shutting itself down when in idle. As a result your idle power consumption nearly doubles and sits just under or around a hundred watts. In the year 2017, really you want to see say 50'ish Watt there. Intel on their 10-core parts (with the newest firmware) sits a good 25 Watts lower at the 70 Watt range, not great either. So yes, I am not happy about idle power consumption. Average and peak utilization power consumption is fine. The UMA (distributed) / NUMA (local) memory modes toggles are just embarrassing really. I mean, why oh why is there always some sort of compromise to be made with AMD Memory solutions? With Ryzen it was the need for faster clocked memory, not for the clocks but the infinity fabric connecting it all uses the same memory multiplier. For Threadripper really, you don't want to switch in-between less or more threaded modes, the sum of all parts and performance there should be equal in all circumstances. I also need to mention is gaming. Do not expect your Threadripper setup to run faster due to the many cores or quad-channel memory. It is the same Ryzen architecture and you will need to invest in expensive high-frequency memory to get that all up-to snuff. I do not consider the Threadripper platform to be an ultimate gamers platform whatsoever, not even all the PCI-Express Gen 3 channels will make that much of a difference. It however is as good as regular Ryzen 5 and 7. So if you are after more bang for buck, your value is to be found at regular Ryzen setups. Last but not least, tweaking remains to be a bit of a conundrum. You can achieve an allcore tweak to 4.0 GHz. Intel goes higher in their clocks and often can reach 4.5 to 5 GHz. That's where some residual games perf is found in CPU bound situations. It also would have been nice to see a per core or even per CCX (per 4 cores) tweak. Say four cores at 4200 MHz, four at 4000 MHz and the rest at 3700 MHz. That way you can balance heat and energy consumption better while getting more perf in your main and prioritized threads. The fact that you can clock 16 cores at 4.0 GHz stable at fairly low voltage however is pretty amazing stuff. And that's where we land in the following chapter.
The Tweak
Anything Ryzen architecture based, goes up to roughly a max of 4 GHz, but will also end there with an allcore tweak. This is the same for Threadripper. Apply a 40x multiplier. Use a voltage offset that gets you close or just at 1.325 volts and you should be able to rock and roll. Now, 4.1 and even maybe 4.2 GHz can be achieved, but requires voltage in the 1.40 volt ranges. And to be brutally honest with 12 or 16 cores, that's not where you want to be for reasons of heat and energy consumption. Be advised though, tweaking creates more heat and thus make sure you have enough cooling. We surely recommend some form of liquid cooling. On the cooling-block / processor surface area coverage we said enough, it's not an issue. None whatsoever. Obviously tweaking also will increase your power consumption (when the PC is stressed), please do keep that in mind.
The conclusion
Personally I find the Threadripper 1920X harder to position than the 1950X. I can understand why you would purchase a 16-core processor at 999 USD. I cannot see why you would buy a 12 cores version for 20% less money though. The folks that will want Threadripper care only about as many CPU cores as possible. And if you plan to purchase a 350 USD mobo and can choose between a 799 or 999 USD proc, I doubt the extra 200 bucks would prevent you to make that decision? See, people that want Threadripper are the mega-taskers, the ones with a heavy need for incredibly fast raw threaded multi-core processing. E.g. video editors etc. That thesis doesn't make the 1920X less impressive though, AMD delivers what they promised with Threadripper, mind boggling threaded raw processor performance with a processor series with a choice of up-to sixteen cores and thirty-two threads. Oh, one argument that could help the 12-core / 24 threaded product is the fact that it has slightly better power consumption, especially when tweaked that makes quite a bit of a difference.
I am also not going to state that everybody should get a PC like this either, as realistically who really needs 12 or 16 cores in their PC? And sure, in that respect I also have to state that this is not a gamers platform in the sense that is offers value for money (specific to gaming though). The UMA/NUMA configurations are a bit silly, but I can live with them and agree on that. However quad-channel memory does not bring in additional performance gaming wise (aside from Tomb Raider). So strictly speaking, really you are better off with a 4.0 GHz tweaked Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 5 proc as a gamer. You could argue and throw multi-GPU at two x16 configured lanes at me, but realistically over two x8 lanes gen 3.0 you're not going the see much difference there either as the PCI bus is not data flooded. But is surely is nice to have all that PCIe bandwidth for sure. That said: X399 has a lot to offer, certainly more than what Intel offers with X299. Much like I mentioned in the 1950X review, the folks that do benefit from all this crazy core madness and will adore Threadripper are content creators: video-editing, 3D content rendered on the CPU, megatask 'o' maniacs that play games, record and stream at the same time (albeit an 8-core would probably be sufficient here as well). I also see benefits for developers and programmers whole like to run many virtualized OSes and so on. So the ones that do have a need for many (mega) threads and processors is a really enthusiast yet rather specific maybe even professional crowd. But sure they will justifiably go wild about this release alright. At twelve or sixteen cores you also cannot beat the value that Threadripper brings to the table compared to team blue. If you decide to invest in one, it's going to last you so many years. And with software slowly getting more and more threaded, it might even be a wise investment. That said, purely for gaming and everyday usage this investment really doesn't make much sense. But let me throw another mindfrack at you: Does it have to make sense? It's a question I have asked myself a number of times while writing this review. See, this is x-factor stuff, it's for the same reasons that you spend mo' money on a factory tweaked graphics over a reference one. The same people that buy the most expensive graphics cards. My point, it doesn't always have to make sense.
Most, and certainly all important variables are good including price, performance and the ability to tweak all the cores on the processor. The X399 motherboards are going to sit in the same price ranges as the X299 boards from Intel. They'll start at the 300 USD marker and work their way upwards from there-onwards, and will be a lot to choose from alright. Tweaking wise, I am sure that all Threadripper processors cores will reach 4 GHz on all cores, really the chance and likelihood they can do that is very probable, but even a 100 MHz higher can be problem-some to achieve to that allcore overclock. Regardless, with 64-PCIe-Express gen 3.0 lanes, quad-channel memory and the biggest smile on your face in years, I do know this: you'll love your Threadripper PC.
While I find the Threadripper 1920X harder to recommend as I believe that mega-taskers would drop the extra 200 bucks and get the 16-cores model, but I also have to acknowledge that 12 cores and 24 threads is pretty frickin' amazing. Again, gaming wise it is all more or less the same with Ryzen once you tweak the procs to that 4 GHz level. So that alone is not enough to drop that dough on this terrific platform. But if you need that bit of an extra bite while rendering that video of yours or intend to do many things simultaneously .. sure that's where this all can make sense. It runs and works beautifully though, and as such the Threadripper 1920X is definitely worth a recommendation (for the right end-user). But for the extra 200 bucks, don't you really want that 16 core part ? Hey, watching 32 logical processors in your task manager might already be worth that alone ;-)
ATH +++
- Hilbert out
- Sign up to receive a notice when we publish a new article
- Or go back to Guru3D's front page.
“A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge.”
