AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X CPU Review @ [H]

jkw said:
Going to get my AMD system put together this weekend. Got the parts sitting on my workbench.

Threadripper 1950X
Vega 64
ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme
Samsung 960 Evo M.2 1TB NVMe
EVGA Supernova 1300G2
8x 8GB Corsair 3333 RGB
Thermaltake 360 RGB AIO
Inwin 805 Infinity
Click to expand...
Hope you have a good camera. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkw
like this
Maybe Threadripper's extra PCIE lanes would enable me to revive my failed project, i.e. 3rd M60 wasn't detected...

Tiny Quadro 410 hiding in the shadows for 'graphics' :)

WP_20170630_12_44_29_Rich.jpg
 
tacos4me said:
Mostly, yeah. It's a 4K editing/live production workstation some of the time. I've also been experimenting with a whole-house game streaming setup with Nvidia Shield boxes.
Click to expand...

Would a Radeon SSG not absolutely munch this setup for that kind of workload? Admittedly I've not been following their pricing though, so may be out of reach ...
 
tacos4me said:
Looks good. Pulled the trigger on an EK block and fixings. H105 works for now though. Have proper cables coming as well. Not bothering w/ GPU blocks this time around. Surprisingly, this works fine for my purposes. Volta time I will for sure.

PdSweoR.jpg
Click to expand...


4x 1080ti does nothing.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
4x 1080ti does nothing.
Click to expand...
They sure do. I have 2x Ti here for local SLi/rendering or whatever, in addition, I plan on passing two of the cards through to virtual machines for the purpose of feeding Shield units in my home, perhaps even to a friend in town (GPON FTTH, baby).

They also mine quite well when they're not doing anything else :)
 
nlt25 said:
Would a Radeon SSG not absolutely munch this setup for that kind of workload? Admittedly I've not been following their pricing though, so may be out of reach ...
Click to expand...
Most cases, probably. I already had these though, and AMD stuff doesn't have the Gamestream + Shield experience.
 
tacos4me said:
Most cases, probably. I already had these though, and AMD stuff doesn't have the Gamestream + Shield experience.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know how passing those through like that works for you. I love streaming to the Shield TV, and being able to do multiple sounds very appealing for my house.
 
nlt25 said:
Assume the drivers won't play nice with each so that you can run both?
Click to expand...
No fault with the drivers really, game stream just wasn't intended to be used like this (multiple games running on same Windows install). You need a dedicated Windows environment w/ GeForce Experience installed to handle the game stream for each card.

I'll make a post with my experiences when I have some time to get it all set up.
 
tacos4me said:
Mostly, yeah. It's a 4K editing/live production workstation some of the time. I've also been experimenting with a whole-house game streaming setup with Nvidia Shield boxes.
Click to expand...
I still think an all in one solution is better than streaming. You've got tons of cores, and tons of bandwidth. Why not use it beyond one container? You can run many instances and achieve full utilization of the GPU's per container.
 
Let's see what Threadripper can do with proper cooling. Bring on the results Kyle!
 
I love the posts that talk about multiple GPU's, Cores..etc do nothing. All I have to say is there's more to computing than gaming.

I'm in a holding pattern right now. I want to see how Intel responds via $$$ and what the additional Core CPU's look like beyond the 7900x.

If they do nothing tangible and 16core Intel can't keep up due to lower frequency..etc then i'll pull the trigger on Threadripper. I'd also want to see where the thermals and power draws are as well. 7900x overclocked is a power hungry beast.

Until then, i'll live with my x99/5930k/1080Ti rig for now.
 
Vader said:
I love the posts that talk about multiple GPU's, Cores..etc do nothing. All I have to say is there's more to computing than gaming.

I'm in a holding pattern right now. I want to see how Intel responds via $$$ and what the additional Core CPU's look like beyond the 7900x.

If they do nothing tangible and 16core Intel can't keep up due to lower frequency..etc then i'll pull the trigger on Threadripper. I'd also want to see where the thermals and power draws are as well. 7900x overclocked is a power hungry beast.

Until then, i'll live with my x99/5930k/1080Ti rig for now.
Click to expand...
So you will be buying TR then. Intel doesn't usually price their products according to the competition. It's priced on what they want and that's what it is.
 
It's a matter of simple economics, not fanboi antics. If they start seeing marketshare being lost then they may be swayed. If they dig in, so be it. I honestly don't care as long as I can get better price/performance from one of the two.
 
Vader said:
I love the posts that talk about multiple GPU's, Cores..etc do nothing. All I have to say is there's more to computing than gaming.

I'm in a holding pattern right now. I want to see how Intel responds via $$$ and what the additional Core CPU's look like beyond the 7900x.

If they do nothing tangible and 16core Intel can't keep up due to lower frequency..etc then i'll pull the trigger on Threadripper. I'd also want to see where the thermals and power draws are as well. 7900x overclocked is a power hungry beast.

Until then, i'll live with my x99/5930k/1080Ti rig for now.
Click to expand...

The 7900X tells you all you need to know. It's already horrendously hot and power hungry, and frequently exceeds the socket specs (hence the photos of burned pins).

From the precipitously lower clocks of the higher core count SKL-X processors, it's painfully obvious that they're going to be very limited due to heat and power.

If AMD need to they can no doubt release a 20 core ... and it'll take minimal effort on their part re: conformance, firmware and virtually no product development. Moreover it'll only cost them marginally more to make than the 16 core. I don't even want to hazard a guess, once yields are factored in, at how much more the 18 core is costing Intel than the 10 core.

Maybe if you really need AVX512, there is some case for SKL-X. Maybe.

Regarding price, Intel have far less room for manoeuvre than AMD, as the latter's products cost a fraction of their Blue counterparts. I don't see what they can do until they get their own 'glue' on the market - a long time hence.
 
The 7900X tells you all you need to know. It's already horrendously hot and power hungry, and frequently exceeds the socket specs (hence the photos of burned pins).
Click to expand...

Isn't that when running avx512 instructions that AMD does not have yet?

Maybe if you really need AVX512, there is some case for SKL-X.
Click to expand...

The 7900X outperforms the 1950X more often than not. Although it is clear the TR4 platform is better than the X299 platform. So to me the decision is about if you need the better processor or the better platform.


With both of these said I will likely get the 1950X (even though the 7900X would be a better processor for a lot of my usage). I want ECC which 7900X does not have.

Regarding price, Intel have far less room for manoeuvre than AMD, as the latter's products cost a fraction of their Blue counterparts.
Click to expand...

Only if you are making the mistake of counting cores. I don't consider 1 AMD core to be equal to 1 Intel core.
 
Last edited:
drescherjm said:
Isn't that when running avx512 instructions that AMD does not have yet?



The 7900X outperforms the 1950X more often than not. Although it is clear the TR4 platform is better than the X299 platform. So to me the decision is about if you need the better processor or the better platform.


With both of these said I will likely get the 1950X (even though the 7900X would be a better processor for a lot of my usage). I want ECC which 7900X does not have.
Click to expand...


Mostly outperforms the 1950X? Virtually every review I saw showed the 1920X some way ahead of the 7900X in almost everything that wasn't gaming or AVX512 optimised.
 
Last edited:
This is probably why future Ryzens may well have the SMT/Hypertreading mode removed. It does throw more overhead on the schedulers than necessary just so you can have more CPUs showing up in your task manager performance page.
 
drescherjm said:
The 7900X outperforms the 1950X more often than not. Although it is clear the TR4 platform is better than the X299 platform. So to me the decision is about if you need the better processor or the better platform.
With both of these said I will likely get the 1950X (even though the 7900X would be a better processor for a lot of my usage). I want ECC which 7900X does not have.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing... Intel already has the 7900x beat on single core performance, and AMD has it beat on multi-threaded performance. Comparing an x299 cpu vs tr2 cpu is at best pointless in the current market. x299 was a trashfire from day 1, and despite the fanbois I think most people saw that. Intel doesn't really have anything that competes with the 2950x (or really 1950x) let alone the 2990wx as far as price and performance goes. Sure they have a similarly priced cpu, but at high thread-counts it loses, and it loses to lower end intel chips on the single-threaded apps as well. There's damn near 0 reason to buy an x299 cpu, and there hasn't been a reason since launch (other than "they'll eventually release something worth my money" which is a losing battle IMO.)
 
I have a simple question. Is it worth it to buy a 1920X for $400 now? Or wait for the 2920X?
 
IndyColtsFan said:
I’d buy a $400 1920x tomorrow if I could actually find one. I’m hoping the prices will update soon.
Click to expand...
Well shite, I missed it, went up to $500 again.

Well, maybe it's a good thing with the MB and a cooler it would've been close to $1000 anyway. Which is still more money than I care to spend on an upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top