Alienware Area 51 Ryzen Threadripper Benchmarks

#5460064 Posted on: 08/07/2017 09:12 AM

---

So basically:

For the reasons one might want a multi-core monster, the threadripper is great, especially for the price, and is the one to get, compared to Intel.

The reviews i'm seeing on places like newegg for the 7900x seem..... interesting. Things like:

"Cons: It's too cheap.

Other Thoughts: It should be more expensive."

#5460071 Posted on: 08/07/2017 09:24 AM

---

Didn't they get it to work with faster RAM?

#5460072 Posted on: 08/07/2017 09:25 AM

---

I hope the new 1900X also delivers.......I want those extra lanes and quad channel.....for someone who just play games mostly, a 1950X would be overkill. My savings are for the 1900X and a 2180Ti to replace my 6 years old Sandy Bridge of my signature

PS. Great idea Alienware!!!, make their customers to save some money using 2666MHz memory.....GENIUS!

#5460121 Posted on: 08/07/2017 12:42 PM

---

Still waiting to see benchmarks when the Threadripper gets to strectch it's legs on a full x399 motherboard and with a faster ram. Also want to see what happens when someone ponies up the money and puts in 1 tb of ram. Intel is really getting it's skirt pulled up around it's neck on this one.

#5460128 Posted on: 08/07/2017 12:55 PM

---

Threadripper "sux" for gaming, ROX for rendering

#5460138 Posted on: 08/07/2017 01:22 PM

---

Looks like AMD is having a hard time beating Intel where it counts (most game benchmarks is proof of that claim) and please, spare me from the whole "who knows, maybe in the future" crap, now is all that matters.

#5460140 Posted on: 08/07/2017 01:24 PM

---

Sorry but gaming is a small fragment of what computers are used for.

#5460141 Posted on: 08/07/2017 01:25 PM

---

threadripper 1950x: £999

i9 7900x: £850

Well as i'm solely a gamer with no picture/video editing needs i think i am more than happy to stay with Intel looking at these results. However time will tell with AMD bios/game updates

#5460147 Posted on: 08/07/2017 01:37 PM

---

More like they are close enough that taking AMD cpu is a good alternative. And better in other cases.

#5460156 Posted on: 08/07/2017 02:05 PM

---

My opinion-What you are seeing on the Gaming benchmarks is Majority of game devolopers are Coding For intel specificly so thats why you see that small gap in performance ect, Things are slowly turning around finally since Amd has shown it CAN compete in the Mid/high end gaming segment.Give it a couple years and things are in fact going to turn around.

#5460160 Posted on: 08/07/2017 02:08 PM

---

They tested the CPUs in gaming at 4K???

#5460168 Posted on: 08/07/2017 02:28 PM

---

I was waiting for monsters like this and I'm close to buying 1920x. Why noone says about real multi-tasking which for this rig should be build for, like leaving open but minimalised 100 tabs in chrome with realtime charts (BTC/ALTs), starting some sandboxed VMs systems (isolated wallets), mining in the background and playing some game in 4k in the same time.

#5460171 Posted on: 08/07/2017 02:36 PM

---

threadripper 1950x: £999

i9 7900x: £850

Well as i'm solely a gamer with no picture/video editing needs i think i am more than happy to stay with Intel looking at these results. However time will tell with AMD bios/game updates

Why do these results have anything to do with your derision if you are only a gamer? Who in there right mind even looks at a 16 core CPU and thinks gaming. Seriously guys AMD smokes Intel on the workstation stuff for now and that is all that should matter with these CPU's. AMD hs Ryzen for "gamers" or Intel has a 7700k or whatever else that isn't 10+ cores.

#5460196 Posted on: 08/07/2017 03:21 PM

---

Nobody game in 4k, because 60hz sux

#5460197 Posted on: 08/07/2017 03:21 PM

---

Keep in mind TR is likely going to have worse latency. You ought to get better minimum frame rates but worse maximum. Unless you're doing 3x Crossfire or SLI, the extra PCIe lanes won't do anything for you vs an AM4 build.
I'm guessing you meant 2080Ti?


Really, gaming is where it counts? That's all that matters when it comes to buying a CPU? Not only is that objectively wrong, but TR is not by any means a gamer's platform and I really don't understand where people think otherwise. Where you want to be spared of the "maybe in the future" excuse is enough proof of that. All that being said, sure, there is nothing wrong with using TR for gaming. It is a great platform if you do work and leisure, much like Nvidia's Titan series. But anyone who buys TR (or a Titan, while I'm at it) for gaming is, frankly in my opinion, an idiot, and I don't care who I offend in saying that. Again, people who have significant priorities other than gaming are exceptions. To clarify, I don't think TR is a bad gaming platform, it's just bad to use with gaming as the primary purpose.


In this day and age, I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been a more well-established multitasking benchmark. Most benches nowadays are strictly for a single process; multi-core CPUs are designed for multi-tasking, not necessarily parallel processing (that's what GPUs are for). But, I'd say 100 Chrome tabs wouldn't be much use - Chrome does a pretty good job at idling tabs that aren't being viewed, to spare CPU cycles. 100 tabs just simply eats up a lot of RAM.