Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Colorful iGame GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Advanced OC review
ASRock Z390 Steel Legend review
Corsair M55 RGB PRO gaming mouse review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Lexar NM600 NVMe M.2. SSD (480GB) review
Tech preview: Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - 7nm ZEN2
Patriot Viper VPN100 M2 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe M.2. SSD review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X review
Posted by: on: 08/10/2017 03:00 PM [
19 comment(s) ]
Next to the sixteen core Ryzen Threadripper 1950X processor AMD also has released its twelve core Ryzen Threadripper 1920X processor which we review in this article. So what's it gonna be for you, what does make more sense: 12 or 16 cores?
Read article
Advertisement
WhiteLightning
Posts: 27727
Posts: 27727
Posted on: 08/10/2017 03:40 PM
Its hammer time
Epic CPU's. These are great for streamers (who just want one rig to do it all).
Its hammer time
Contentteller
The MySQL database of this Contentteller Content Management System installation has encountered the following problem:
The MySQL database server is not reachable
Please try it in a few minutes again. We apologize for any inconvenience.
The MySQL database of this Contentteller Content Management System installation has encountered the following problem:
The MySQL database server is not reachable
Please try it in a few minutes again. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Epic CPU's. These are great for streamers (who just want one rig to do it all).
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Posted on: 08/10/2017 03:45 PM
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.
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.
Guru3dreader
Member
Posts: 27
Member
Posts: 27
Posted on: 08/10/2017 04:07 PM
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.
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.
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.
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8759
Senior Member
Posts: 8759
Posted on: 08/10/2017 04:07 PM
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.
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.
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11339
Senior Member
Posts: 11339
Posted on: 08/10/2017 06:36 PM
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.
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.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35320
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35320
Posted on: 08/10/2017 07:04 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8643
Senior Member
Posts: 8643
Posted on: 08/10/2017 07:22 PM
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?
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?
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35320
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35320
Posted on: 08/10/2017 08:30 PM
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.
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?
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.
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11339
Senior Member
Posts: 11339
Posted on: 08/10/2017 10:18 PM
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.
Oops I'm blind.
Thanks
Wonder if this would help those games that are poorly threaded, AKA old UE3 games and the like.
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.
Oops I'm blind.
Thanks
Wonder if this would help those games that are poorly threaded, AKA old UE3 games and the like.
The Edge
Member
Posts: 81
Member
Posts: 81
Posted on: 08/11/2017 08:59 AM
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 ?
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 ?
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Posted on: 08/11/2017 10:58 PM
Additional cores?
The 7900k wins out to a 7740k even though the 7740k has higher clocked speeds as well
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 ?
Additional cores?
The 7900k wins out to a 7740k even though the 7740k has higher clocked speeds as well
Taint3dBulge
Senior Member
Posts: 1126
Senior Member
Posts: 1126
Posted on: 08/12/2017 05:36 AM
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.
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.
The Edge
Member
Posts: 81
Member
Posts: 81
Posted on: 08/12/2017 12:19 PM
Additional cores?
The 7900k wins out to a 7740k even though the 7740k has higher clocked speeds as well
Makes no sense. It gets beaten by all those Ryzens 7 and 5 even overclocked to 4 GHz and has way more cores.
Additional cores?
The 7900k wins out to a 7740k even though the 7740k has higher clocked speeds as well
Makes no sense. It gets beaten by all those Ryzens 7 and 5 even overclocked to 4 GHz and has way more cores.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35320
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35320
Posted on: 08/12/2017 01:03 PM
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.
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.
The Edge
Member
Posts: 81
Member
Posts: 81
Posted on: 08/12/2017 02:48 PM
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...
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.
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...
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Posted on: 08/12/2017 09:12 PM
Makes perfect sense. The game apparently supports additional cores, but is not linear in terms of how much extra performance those cores give you.
Makes no sense. It gets beaten by all those Ryzens 7 and 5 even overclocked to 4 GHz and has way more cores.
Makes perfect sense. The game apparently supports additional cores, but is not linear in terms of how much extra performance those cores give you.
The Edge
Member
Posts: 81
Member
Posts: 81
Posted on: 08/13/2017 11:54 AM
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.
Makes perfect sense. The game apparently supports additional cores, but is not linear in terms of how much extra performance those cores give you.
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.
WaroDaBeast
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Posted on: 08/13/2017 12:46 PM
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.
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.
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2185
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