AMD Announces Ryzen Threadripper 1900X @ [H]

I don't really need to upgrade my 5820K yet, but the 1900X is still rather tempting. If I had a weaker CPU I would probably be all over it. There are a few TR4 boards that I've been drooling over.
 
CAD4466HK said:
Well I blame the AGESA 1006 change log for saying "including support for 4000MHz RAM", now people are treating it as gospel whether its AMD TR certified or not.
Click to expand...


it all comes down to the IMC's and whether or not they'll hit those speeds.. anything above 3200mhz can take a lot of tweaking and voltage changes within the memory settings.. if you're willing to spend the time fiddling with it 3600+ is do-able but not if you're trying to use set and forget it intel settings which have much different voltage settings within the profiles that are not within AMD's IMC specs..
 
I'm interested in the 1900x because I want an ECC based system and the 1950X is too rich for me, price and power draw.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
The one thing I really need is a few more PCI-E lanes... Not sure the higher cost/power consumption is worth it for these chips though.
Click to expand...

This. The problem with Ryzen is you literally cannot use more add-in cards. In my instance, can't use my my two raid cards along with my Txp. I'm forced to use TR4. That said, power consumption should be much less with lowered core count. And this new idea that TR4 is power hungry is sort of a new far fetched thing. There have been very power hungry chips that eclipse these new TR chips easily with a 1/3rd as many cores. It's like ppl forgot how silly of a power draw a 3930K at 5ghz was. In case anyone wants to remember these things idled at 150-160w stock system and at max oc pushed power draws over 500w system.
 
CAD4466HK said:
It's not behaving that well with 4 either from what I've seen, if you want fast RAM, you need to run 2 sticks, just like Ryzen it seems...but you lose out on QC smh.
Click to expand...

More rumor mongering, do you own a threadripper?

I have ZERO problems running at full xmp profile speed using quad channel.

As far as thermals... I am using an EK block and I'll try an Xspc once I can get one. With proper radiator setup and a good pump and good fans and good TIM application you can see temps in the 50s max with all cores running. I get hotter temps if I isolate to just 8 cores using thread management software. But if I load shed between all 16 cores my temps drop more because the heat is more uniformly dispersed.

Anyways I'm loving all the negative feedback and reviews we get on these forums from people that do not even own the setups.
 
Last edited:
pcunite said:
I'm interested in the 1900x because I want an ECC based system and the 1950X is too rich for me, price and power draw.
Click to expand...
Power draw really?

Never owned a measly 6 core Sandy Bridge before? At 4.6ghz I was hitting over 500 watts just at the CPU. For a massive amount of computing power more than the old 6 core 3930k I had my software is reporting like 120 to 140watts on avg power usage.

Another rumor monger based assumption. Not to mention has anyone looked at how much power a simple 7700k draws at 4.8ghz with its whopping 4 cores? Anandtech measured a test showing 179 watts. Then modified the test a little and the chip settled at 122 watts.
 
Power draw really?
Click to expand...

For someone that wants a system that is on 24/7 am concerned that the idle power draw of TR is too much. This is the main reason why I want the to use a 1700 for my linux based pvr / file server (that never powers down).
 
drescherjm said:
For someone that wants a system that is on 24/7 am concerned that the idle power draw of TR is too much. This is the main reason why I want the to use a 1700 for my linux based pvr / file server (that never powers down).
Click to expand...

Yea, there's a cost to keeping all those cores and memory channels idle however TR is pretty damn efficient comparatively. If you idle a lot Ryzen is a better fit but you give up all those cores and pcie bandwidth. I'm contemplating the same issue of sorts but anything is better than the 3930K I've got running server duty. That pos chugs 150-160w idle and any kind of load (file transfers in background) at a paltry OC of 4.2ghz the draw jumps to 250w ish. Compared to TR, TR is a sipper idling at 50w ish, maxing out at 180w and Ryzen draws even less. When you think about it, my ole 3930K at idle draws almost as much as TR does at max usage, roflmao.
 
tangoseal said:
More rumor mongering, do you own a threadripper?

I have ZERO problems running at full xmp profile speed using quad channel.

As far as thermals... I am using an EK block and I'll try an Xspc once I can get one. With proper radiator setup and a good pump and good fans and good TIM application you can see temps in the 50s max with all cores running. I get hotter temps if I isolate to just 8 cores using thread management software. But if I load shed between all 16 cores my temps drop more because the heat is more uniformly dispersed.

Anyways I'm loving all the negative feedback and reviews we get on these forums from people that do not even own the setups.
Click to expand...

No I do not own TR but I have helped to set up a few builds for clients, if you had bothered to read all my post in this thread, you would see I was meaning RAM speeds ABOVE 3600MHz with 4 DIMM's that people are having trouble with.

Meanwhile, your paltry 3000MHz is nothing to write home about. I love how people automatically assume that a person who doesn't own a particular piece of hardware, happen to absolutely know nothing about it. Adding to the fact that people who do own a certain piece of hardware proclaim themselves as experts in that area and refuse to hear any input on it from non-owners of said hardware.

Excuse me for relaying my hands on experience with hardware I do not own on a public hardware forum.
 
CAD4466HK said:
No I do not own TR but I have helped to set up a few builds for clients, if you had bothered to read all my post in this thread, you would see I was meaning RAM speeds ABOVE 3600MHz with 4 DIMM's that people are having trouble with.

Meanwhile, your paltry 3000MHz is nothing to write home about. I love how people automatically assume that a person who doesn't own a particular piece of hardware, happen to absolutely know nothing about it. Adding to the fact that people who do own a certain piece of hardware proclaim themselves as experts in that area and refuse to hear any input on it from non-owners of said hardware.

Excuse me for relaying my hands on experience with hardware I do not own on a public hardware forum.
Click to expand...

ok maybe I was little too quick to snap judgment but you are coming here in telling folks not to buy something simply because of a sky high expectation. There was NEVER any hope, except maybe misinformed false hope, that 128GB of 3600 would ever stick on any platform. There is just too many points of stability across the whole spectrum of RAM to IMC to power delivery to bit stability etc... when discussing that high of an overclock with that much ram density.

Most servers that are running LARGE volumes of ram run at JDEC speed ratings and nothing more which in most cases tops out at 2400 mhz in almost all large volume cases. Our technology system and market wide is not there yet to allow such high volume overclocking.
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
ok maybe I was little too quick to snap judgment but you are coming here in telling folks not to buy something simply because of a sky high expectation. There was NEVER any hope, except maybe misinformed false hope, that 128GB of 3600 would ever stick on any platform. There is just too many points of stability across the whole spectrum of RAM to IMC to power delivery to bit stability etc... when discussing that high of an overclock with that much ram density.

Most servers that are running LARGE volumes of ram run at JDEC speed ratings and nothing more which in most cases tops out at 2400 mhz in almost all large volume cases. Our technology system and market wide is not there yet to allow such high volume overclocking.
Click to expand...

Not to derail this thread any further, but I'm not trying to get people not to buy anything. It's my own opinion that a 1900X is lacking enough in the specs to consider an upgrade to
TR4, rather than going with an 1800X. But there are a few posters in this thread that the 1900X would offer benefits to, even if they are niche user scenarios.

And I agree that there are a lot of misinformed users expecting 64-128GB 3600MHz and up, to be simply plug n' play. If it appears that I'm bashing TR, you are mistaken, in fact I will be going this route instead of Ryzen, 1920X matter of fact. I respect your opinions tango and I was just adding another data point to the discussion.
 
CAD4466HK said:
It's not behaving that well with 4 either from what I've seen, if you want fast RAM, you need to run 2 sticks, just like Ryzen it seems...but you lose out on QC smh.
Click to expand...

3466 @ C16 here - 1000% HCI coverage. You just have to be willing to set the timings yourself and not rely on the Intel derived XMP timings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top