Threadripper or 3900X - mixed use.

[lopoetve]

Finally got my Ryzen 1700 stable, but all the research I was doing in the back of my head is still rattling around.

Uses:
1. School work. I'm doing a masters program, so lots of word/excel/usual bullshit for school work; multiple screens of sources/etc, but it's all "light" work that anything could do.
2. Video editing. This is for work-work and my personal blog. Technical demos, whiteboards, all recorded via a nice professional mic and logitech webcam (and zoom), and then editing them together. Transcode it, upload to youtube/website. Still building this all out.
3. Gaming - I have a dedicated gaming system, but from time to time I need a break from whatever I'm doing on #1, so I fire up subnautica or UT for a bit to build things or shoot things, depending on how I'm feeling.
4. Transcoding. Plex server feeding, basically - from raw data.
5. VMs for programming/fiddling/whythehellnot. All minor side-project things, 1-2 at a time, one Windows 10, one linux, one ~sometimes~ plex server on BSD for fiddling.

Looking at either a 3900X on x570 w. 32G, or a 3960X on MSI Creator. Cost is about double for the TR setup; trying to decide if the extra horsepower is worth the extra $1700 or so (mobo/CPU+RAM/cooler). Tend to normally buy systems for 3-5 years; before the Ryzen I had a Bulldozer setup, replaced that in 2018. This is early only because I have the itch I'm justifying it because I could leave a lot of whatever else running when I game if I upgrade. And I want an internal BDROM drive, which won't fit in the current system (stupid case is stupid).

I generally do ~not~ overclock anymore; I haven't seen a need in a while as I'm not competitively gaming, just playing for fun, and I'd rather have super-reliable results on the transcoding/etc.

 

[bobzdar]

Why not split the difference and go 3950x? Imo, tr only makes sense if you make money using it or have a use case needing a lot of pcie lanes. Even then, most that say they "need" the pcie lanes just want a lot of high speed storage but could just as easily go to a tiered solution.

 

[thesmokingman]

Looking at either a 3900X on x570 w. 32G, or a 3960X on MSI Creator. Cost is about double for the TR setup

The cost of TR is not double though, its more like 3.5x the cost and that is just in the cpu/mb cost ALONE. TR is for production rigs imo, supporting a career unless you are building an epeen machine and don't care about cost. I don't really see anytrhing in your workload to suggest you needing TR setup.

 

[mnewxcv]

I also think a 3950x would fit the bill. You will get at least 75% of the performance of the 24 core TR for about 50% of the price (cpu cost). It will be 30% faster than your 1700x in everything up to 8 cores, and if you really load it up, it will be quite a bit more than 2x the performance. No slouch by any means.

 

[lopoetve]

Why not split the difference and go 3950x? Imo, tr only makes sense if you make money using it or have a use case needing a lot of pcie lanes. Even then, most that say they "need" the pcie lanes just want a lot of high speed storage but could just as easily go to a tiered solution.

4 more cores isn't quite worth the double CPU cost, I'd think?

3900 - $33 per core
3950x - $41/core, add one VM or so.
3960x - $59/core, but you're going all the way to 24 cores which would (in my mind at least) double the number of running VMs, vs one more. Or transcode and game at the same time, etc. In my mind, of course. Not sure if that's sane, this is a new market for me, and I'm trying to think it through.

Motherboards are about the same cost right now; since I won't do anything but a higher-end x570 board. Crosshair VIII Formula or Meg Ace both end at around $600 right now, the MSI creator is $700. RAM is the same, cooler is the same, case is the same... only difference is the CPU.

 

[thesmokingman]

He doesn't need more than a 3900x. Ya don't need more than 12 cores for youtube production.

 

[lopoetve]

I also think a 3950x would fit the bill. You will get at least 75% of the performance of the 24 core TR for about 50% of the price (cpu cost). It will be 30% faster than your 1700x in everything up to 8 cores, and if you really load it up, it will be quite a bit more than 2x the performance. No slouch by any means.

Not a 1700x, only a 1700

The cost of TR is not double though, its more like 3.5x the cost and that is just in the cpu/mb cost ALONE. TR is for production rigs imo, supporting a career unless you are building an epeen machine and don't care about cost. I don't really see anytrhing in your workload to suggest you needing TR setup.

Motherboard is $100 more, CPU is $800 more (yay microcenter bundles!). And the TR stuff is even in stock

Valid point. It does support my career, but it's not directly monetized by any means.

 

[thesmokingman]

4 more cores isn't quite worth the double CPU cost, I'd think?

3900 - $33 per core
3950x - $41/core, add one VM or so.
3960x - $59/core, but you're going all the way to 24 cores which would (in my mind at least) double the number of running VMs, vs one more. Or transcode and game at the same time, etc. In my mind, of course. Not sure if that's sane, this is a new market for me, and I'm trying to think it through.

Motherboards are about the same cost right now; since I won't do anything but a higher-end x570 board. Crosshair VIII Formula or Meg Ace both end at around $600 right now, the MSI creator is $700. RAM is the same, cooler is the same, case is the same... only difference is the CPU.

You are just throwing money away. Those high end boards are a waste of money. Most ppl don't even know how to find their chips maximum FIT voltage, so they end up running stock anyways for fear of degradation and hell sometimes its not fear and just plain common sense. Thus... throwing money away.

Let me put that in real world terms. You don't need a ripoff 700 buck x570 motherboard with the same vrms as a 280 buck board to run a 105w-150w TDP cpu.

 

[lopoetve]

You are just throwing money away. Those high end boards are a waste of money. Most ppl don't even know how to find their chips maximum FIT voltage, so they end up running stock anyways for fear of degradation and hell sometimes its not fear and just plain common sense. Thus... throwing money away.

Let me put that in real world terms. You don't need a ripoff 700 buck x570 motherboard with the same vrms as a 280 buck board to run a 105w-150w TDP cpu.

Vendors are also better at bios updates, boards are built better and last longer, etc. I've been bitten by WAY too many cheap boards over the years; I keep systems till they die 90% of the time - they just move on from being a primary to my wife, on to a server, NAS, etc. Last time I went budget on a board was one of the ones that hit the list here as "worst motherboards of all time", and my fancy X370 board has only a really shitty cheap BIOS update for Zen2 because MSI doesn't care when you bought a $150-200 board.

Vice versa, every time I've bought a high end board, it's lasted at least 10 years and done everything I could have ever asked of it, even if some of the stuff wasn't used for the second half of its life. My Core2 system just finally gave up the ghost about a year ago. Was doing duty as a small NAS in the end.

That's one place (the other is the AIB GPU I buy) I'm very particular. I just want shit to ~work~, and high end boards tend to just ~work~.

 

[thesmokingman]

Vendors are also better at bios updates, boards are built better and last longer, etc. I've been bitten by WAY too many cheap boards over the years; I keep systems till they die 90% of the time - they just move on from being a primary to my wife, on to a server, NAS, etc. Last time I went budget on a board was one of the ones that hit the list here as "worst motherboards of all time", and my fancy X370 board has only a really shitty cheap BIOS update for Zen2 because MSI doesn't care when you bought a $150-200 board.

Vice versa, every time I've bought a high end board, it's lasted at least 10 years and done everything I could have ever asked of it, even if some of the stuff wasn't used for the second half of its life. My Core2 system just finally gave up the ghost about a year ago. Was doing duty as a small NAS in the end.

That's one place (the other is the AIB GPU I buy) I'm very particular. I just want shit to ~work~, and high end boards tend to just ~work~.

That doesn't have anything to do with real world MBs today. $200 motherboards will run a 3900x the same as a $300 board, the exact same as a ripoff $700 CH8. Hell the $280 Strix-E has the same vrms, same ROG bios for less than half the cost. You need to get real man, you are suggesting an EPEEN setup. Do whatever you want, its your money. But don't come on suggesting you have to overpay for the same thing just because of poor rationalizing. The x370 boards are known to be missing future support because they are damn old. C'mon man...

 

[thesmokingman]

I'd also add that AM4 days are numbered as we are that close to the switchover to AM5 in 2021. Will you complain when your 700 buck board is obsolete in a year?

 

[tom_ozahoski]

what mobo you have now? Why not just drop in a 3900-3950 and sell your 1700, then you double or triple your performance for a couple hundred?

 

[lopoetve]

I'd also add that AM4 days are numbered as we are that close to the switchover to AM5 in 2021. Will you complain when your 700 buck board is obsolete in a year?

Nah. I spent $400 on the board for my gaming system (mATX 6600k) when I bought it; it does what I bought it for the same as it did on the first day I built it. Still has the same GTX 1080 I bought it for, although I'm debating on swapping to a 2080TI and moving the 1080 to the wife's system (she has a 1060). The only reason I'm thinking about upgrading now is that I spent a month tracking down stability problems and was about to swap everything out, and like the idea of adding more storage capabilities and the like - otherwise I wouldn't be paying attention at all right now. I live in the server world day-to-day, not consumer.

I buy for what it does, not what it ~could~ do. I don't upgrade CPUs once a system is built - the board and CPU live and die together forever. Haven't done CPU upgrades since Athlon64 -> X2 on 939, would rather buy a complete system that is designed from the start to work together, and then use that till it won't do what I need it to do anymore. It's not like the board stops working, or the processor isn't just as fast as it was the day I bought it - it's that the rest of the world gets better too. I buy for a need or a use, and then use it. If this system hadn't thrown issues, I'd be using it till 2022 or so.

I've been doing this since the 286 days. There's always something new on the horizon, and it's always coming "soon" - you can wait forever, or buy right when they come out and play the "oh fun bugs" game. I buy when it seems right to buy, and then use the living daylights out of it till it's useless. I don't do upgrades anymore, except GPUs. Once built, it stays together unless something dies. I used to swap parts every year, now things tend to be good enough to last a long time. That's GOOD, especially for me - things are useful for a LONG time. Remember when it was less than 2 years between the 100mhz Pentium and the 233? I do. Sucked balls.

That doesn't have anything to do with real world MBs today. $200 motherboards will run a 3900x the same as a $300 board, the exact same as a ripoff $700 CH8. Hell the $280 Strix-E has the same vrms, same ROG bios for less than half the cost. You need to get real man, you are suggesting an EPEEN setup. Do whatever you want, its your money. But don't come on suggesting you have to overpay for the same thing just because of poor rationalizing. The x370 boards are known to be missing future support because they are damn old. C'mon man...

And in two years, X570 boards will be damn old. x670 will be damned old 2 years after it comes out - are you going to complain if you have to upgrade motherboards for Zen 4? My Sandy Bridge system lasted me 4 generations, sold that one. Bulldozer lasted me till Ryzen as a workstation, now runs as my wife's gaming system (she'll get my 1700 system, I'll move the Bulldozer to a NAS in my lab until it lights on fire, and then I'll celebrate - that system was SHIT). Before that, I had a Phenom - it's my main Plex server now, and needs an upgrade, which will likely come from the gaming system when it gets rebuilt next year. Before that was a random pre-built I got on super sale. Can't even remember what it was.

That's what happens. The Formula has twice the USB ports, back plate, better cooling, etc. You get something for that cash - value there is determined by the buyer, of course, but for me that stuff is worth it (especially the USB ports, which I tend to feed a LOT of things). And there's a higher chance for a BIOS update on a higher-end board 4 years from now to fix an issue than there is on a cheaper one. EG: My 370 Carbon Pro Gaming got 4 updates total. The same 370 chipset on their high-end board got 8. And is still getting updates. Not for gaming uses, necessarily, but for whatever comes up. Of course, my 990FX-UDA3 got 40 updates, but that's because it was absolute garbage. They ended on the 12th or so revision of that board

You have valid points, they just don't fit how ~I~ use systems. I think of them almost like consoles that have swappable GPUs. And a #%@!% ton of storage for things. Then they move on to a second use case, and finally into the lab, where they help feed various bits and pieces and the [H] DCC group until they die. Sell of the parts that are left or put them in spares, and move on.

 

[lopoetve]

what mobo you have now? Why not just drop in a 3900-3950 and sell your 1700, then you double or triple your performance for a couple hundred?

x370 Gaming Pro Carbon. Bad Zen2 support on it, only with a REALLY crappy bios update that loses you a lot of other things (good fan control, etc). Plus, I'd rather pull the GPU, put in the 1060 from my wife system and give it to her, and then upgrade the 1060 when I do the gaming system next year (or when 3XXX comes out).

 

[atp1916]

You know you want the 3960x.


Yolo

 

[tangoseal]

As a 3960x owner and heavy ass user.... your wasting money getting a TR unless you can use that system to make a living wage on daily.

As much work as Indo on my 3960x It also idles as much. Sometimes I wished I had just stayed with my 3900x only because I dont make money with my system.

3900x is a mo ster and if youre willing but apprhensive on 60x id say get a 50x and load up on way more ram. Id max a 3950x ram capacity out as youll see more benefit in vid rendering thatn more cores.

Trust me my 32GB is Anemic in Davinci resolve but I have a killer ass CPU lmao. But my wife and I took a financial blow from the scamdemic so I cant buy more ram right now at least comfortably in the back of my mind.

 

[kirbyrj]

I would buy the X570/3900x combo. $1700 is a lot of money. thesmokingman might not have the best tact, but I agree with him in one sense...you don't really need to spend over $300 on an X570 motherboard. Personally, I tend to buy Asus because I like the fact that they are more proactive with bios updates, sometimes years after release. I had a CH8 and it was complete overkill for what I was doing. I downgraded to the Prime-X570 Pro board and it doesn't feel any different (other than saving myself about $150). I think a good middle ground is that Strix-E board as it is 97% of the CH8 but $299 instead of $379 (or whatever they go for now).

As for TR, if you have to think about whether or not you'd use it to its fullest advantage, you're better off saving money and not buying it, IMO.

 

[lopoetve]

I would buy the X570/3900x combo. $1700 is a lot of money. thesmokingman might not have the best tact, but I agree with him in one sense...you don't really need to spend over $300 on an X570 motherboard. Personally, I tend to buy Asus because I like the fact that they are more proactive with bios updates, sometimes years after release. I had a CH8 and it was complete overkill for what I was doing. I downgraded to the Prime-X570 Pro board and it doesn't feel any different (other than saving myself about $150). I think a good middle ground is that Strix-E board as it is 97% of the CH8 but $299 instead of $379 (or whatever they go for now).

As for TR, if you have to think about whether or not you'd use it to its fullest advantage, you're better off saving money and not buying it, IMO.

I really like Asus for AMD - most of mine have been Asus and they've been great.

Fair enough, and I take ya'lls point with the ThreadRipper.

3900 it is. Now to find a board in stock that I like.

 

[Keljian]

Have you considered using NVENC for your encoding needs? If you used it, and it was suitable, a 3800x or a 3700x would be more than sufficient, and you could potentially get more memory, or storage.

 

[lopoetve]

Have you considered using NVENC for your encoding needs? If you used it, and it was suitable, a 3800x or a 3700x would be more than sufficient, and you could potentially get more memory, or storage.

Plex server has it (or will) for real time encoding, but the system has a 5700XT in it. Might get a Radeon 7 pro if I get far enough down. Try to keep one box with the second best video cards in it, and right now this system drew that straw.

Also would still need the cpu; vm and other stuff use those not the GPU.

 

[lopoetve]

I would buy the X570/3900x combo. $1700 is a lot of money. thesmokingman might not have the best tact, but I agree with him in one sense...you don't really need to spend over $300 on an X570 motherboard. Personally, I tend to buy Asus because I like the fact that they are more proactive with bios updates, sometimes years after release. I had a CH8 and it was complete overkill for what I was doing. I downgraded to the Prime-X570 Pro board and it doesn't feel any different (other than saving myself about $150). I think a good middle ground is that Strix-E board as it is 97% of the CH8 but $299 instead of $379 (or whatever they go for now).

As for TR, if you have to think about whether or not you'd use it to its fullest advantage, you're better off saving money and not buying it, IMO.

Oh. My issue with the Strix: not enough USB ports. I’d already have all but one filled today, and I don’t have any of my backup drives connected yet.

 

[Iratus]

If you don’t know you need it, you don’t.

Just get a 3950x, worst case if you find it’s not enough then it’s got good resale value and 4000 series TR will be out. If TR is overkill you’ve spent the money and will take a much bigger hair cut.

Everything you’re describing as doing can be done with even a quad core. Sure you’ll not be able to max a vm and you might wait a bit longer for video to transcode but I’d be surprised if you’re doing so much that it cant take 25% longer to transcode, and if that were true you’d be making enough money off it for it to not even be a question.

 

[Keljian]

Agree with the sentiment that a 3900x would be enough, 4 cores for vms is ample (and overkill) if required, 8 cores for everything else. Spend the extra on 64 gig memory (ryzen can be picky when/if you go to 64 gig or above, get stuff from the QVL on the motherboard you are going for)

If the money is burning a hole in your wallet, go the 3950x, but honestly I think you would generally be hard pressed to see the difference between the two in what you do beyond benchmarks.

To give you a point of reference, I have an old i7-4790 in my server running about 8 vms who’s load is much higher than you are intending, sure it has 32 gig of ram, but it could get by on about 16.

It may, and I stress may, be worthwhile considering a 1650 for NVEnc on the box as a secondary card if you’re doing a lot of encoding, for the power savings if nothing else.

 

[lopoetve]

Heh. My definition of “VMs” is a bit different than y’all. Couldn’t do this on a quad core- I got bulldozer back in the day for the extra cores for a reason. But the point is taken.

 

[CraigHB]

Have you considered using NVENC for your encoding needs?

Sounds like the OP is doing video library stuff rather then live streaming. I keep a video library and shoot for smallest file size with highest quality. Software encoding does the best there, but also takes longer. The hardware encoders specialize in speed at the cost of some quality and file size, ideal for live streaming.

I haven't tried the latest nVidia encoder since I have a GTX 1660 and the latest one is only included with the RTX series, but at this point I get the best results for library stuff with software encoding which is CPU intensive. Both AMD and Intel CPUs have hardware encoders, but they have the same pros and cons as the nVidia hardware encoder. They say the nVidia encoder is the best one as far as hardware encoders go.

 

[lopoetve]

Sounds like the OP is doing video library stuff rather then live streaming. I keep a video library and shoot for smallest file size with highest quality. Software encoding does the best there, but also takes longer. The hardware encoders specialize in speed at the cost of some quality and file size, ideal for live streaming.

I haven't tried the latest nVidia encoder since I have a GTX 1660 and the latest one is only included with the RTX series, but at this point I get the best results for library stuff with software encoding which is CPU intensive. Both AMD and Intel CPUs have hardware encoders, but they have the same pros and cons as the nVidia hardware encoder. They say the nVidia encoder is the best one as far as hardware encoders go.

Have a TON of experience with the Nvidia one from a vGPU perspective; it's amazing, but it's shooting for (as you said) a balance of speed vs quality, and in general, speed is the priority (since it's effectively live-streaming a desktop). You're correct, I'm encoding for a massive video library and for archival purposes of certain things, and I'm going for the highest quality possible while still being a reasonable file size (I'm not even trying for smallest; storage is cheap), which ends up being CPU. That normally locks down a system for as long as it takes to encode, and I'd like to be able to keep doing real things while it's working on that.

I do plan on using NVENC on the resulting media server - when you're transcoding to a destination, speed again becomes the priority - but the higher the quality the source, the more options it has to work with and the higher the quality the output.

 

[Dan_D]

4 more cores isn't quite worth the double CPU cost, I'd think?

3900 - $33 per core
3950x - $41/core, add one VM or so.
3960x - $59/core, but you're going all the way to 24 cores which would (in my mind at least) double the number of running VMs, vs one more. Or transcode and game at the same time, etc. In my mind, of course. Not sure if that's sane, this is a new market for me, and I'm trying to think it through.

Motherboards are about the same cost right now; since I won't do anything but a higher-end x570 board. Crosshair VIII Formula or Meg Ace both end at around $600 right now, the MSI creator is $700. RAM is the same, cooler is the same, case is the same... only difference is the CPU.

First off, there isn't a 1:1 core relationship between VM's and physical resources. The architecture allows you to over commit resources and still perform adequately. So, a 3950X doesn't just do one VM more than a 3900X because you gave that one VM 4 cores to work with. That's just not how it works. Also, when it comes to performance, it isn't as though you get 4 cores and that's it. The 3950X does boost slightly higher than the 3900X and therefore, does perform a little better in single-threaded applications.

Also, the 3950X isn't double the price of a 3900X. The 3950X can be had for $699.99 at Microcenter and about $430-$450 on the 3900X if you shop around. Even at $749.99, the 3950X still isn't double the price of the 3900X. It's not super far off, but if you were seriously entertaining buying a Threadripper 3960X, then that really shouldn't make any difference. There is nothing you've described in your use case that suggests you would benefit from the added memory bandwidth, extra PCIe lanes, or additional CPU cores.

Your costs for the motherboard may be similar, but the CPU is twice as much as a 3950X. RAM isn't exactly the same either. You need four memory modules instead of two. That's not huge by itself, but it adds up. The power requirements and heat dissipation needs of a 3960X are also greater. These should be factored in as well. AIO's on Threadripper are basically varying levels of shit and an air cooler on them isn't really ideal either.

 

[lopoetve]

First off, there isn't a 1:1 core relationship between VM's and physical resources. The architecture allows you to over commit resources and still perform adequately. So, a 3950X doesn't just do one VM more than a 3900X because you gave that one VM 4 cores to work with. That's just not how it works. Also, when it comes to performance, it isn't as though you get 4 cores and that's it. The 3950X does boost slightly higher than the 3900X and therefore, does perform a little better in single-threaded applications.

Also, the 3950X isn't double the price of a 3900X. The 3950X can be had for $699.99 at Microcenter and about $430-$450 on the 3900X if you shop around. Even at $749.99, the 3950X still isn't double the price of the 3900X. It's not super far off, but if you were seriously entertaining buying a Threadripper 3960X, then that really shouldn't make any difference. There is nothing you've described in your use case that suggests you would benefit from the added memory bandwidth, extra PCIe lanes, or additional CPU cores.

Your costs for the motherboard may be similar, but the CPU is twice as much as a 3950X. RAM isn't exactly the same either. You need four memory modules instead of two. That's not huge by itself, but it adds up. The power requirements and heat dissipation needs of a 3960X are also greater. These should be factored in as well. AIO's on Threadripper are basically varying levels of shit and an air cooler on them isn't really ideal either.

I'm probably more familiar with virtualization than anyone on this board, given where I work My requirements are not normal VMs for some of what I do - I'm simulating specific hardware in some cases, including stuff that's not available to the public (beta software releases, beta hardware, NVDIMM, NVMeOF, etc). That part requires core counts (one of the workloads effectively locks 6 cores to it - as that's what the hardware has if you install it bare metal, and it sets a 100% reservation). I don't need to run those odd balls often, but I do need to from time to time - and they don't actually play well being run in ESXi (Type-2 on NVMe is more effective, with source data stored on NFS).

Let me put it this way - my current plan is to dedicate an entire 2TB NVMe drive to VMs - plus the 10TB NAS I have sitting here. There's a second NAS for my normal stuff. The point on TR is absolutely spot on though - I probably don't need the extra lanes or memory bandwidth, since this is a simulation, but the extra cores MAY be useful.

Pricing on the 3950 X was showing $700, but I found the 3900 for $380 with motherboard bundles, which is what I used for those calculations. The 3960 was $1200 with bundle (total bundle). Always planned on running 4 modules - I'm at 32G now, and this would get 64 for certain (which I'm digging into for compatibility) if not 128. I've got 128G of ECC sitting around here somewhere, but I'm still researching how that would even play with Ryzen OR ThreadRipper, and there's a pair of 2690 V4s that I had it slated for instead if I can ever find a motherboard I like for those (going back into the Lab, I have need for that system). At a minimum, the VMs in question ~require~ 24G of RAM (leaves me with 8 free right now), but those only run once or so a month. The rest of the time it's more normal stuff.

Work and home blend a bit for me, but I don't get paid for what I do directly on this system - it leads to what I DO get paid on though.

Heat - I thought the AIOs for TR had gotten better by now? The top-end corsair / etc aren't good enough?

 

[Keljian]

Ok you didn’t tell us that before, so that is why we had to make assumptions. I’m leaning towards the 3950x now for your specific use case.

 

[lopoetve]

Ok you didn’t tell us that before, so that is why we had to make assumptions. I’m leaning towards the 3950x now for your specific use case.

Core counts matter, but the rest, not so much. Thinking it through still - there's a tipping point. 8 cores lets me run a simulation like I have since Bulldozer came out (massively chopped down versions of the workloads, except the core storage one that takes the 6). 12 cores would let me run one "real" worker (8c instead of 6), and the front-end stuff. 16 cores would let me add another front-end server for those, but that's about it - can't fit two workers with that (they're each 8 cores/16G of ram, 100% reserved on the memory since they're simulating an NVDIMM). 24 cores though, that would get me to a full 3 workers (full minimal deployment), although I'd need 48G of memory for it. I could fake the front end stuff then... To really get it all up and going, I'd need more like 32 actual physical cores (8x3 for the workers, 6 for front-end, 2 for the rest of the system) but that way lies madness - the 3970X is more than I really want to spend on this - I'd be better off trying to track down physical hardware at that point.

I still think you all are right - this is infrequent enough that the simulation is fine, and 12 or 16 cores would still let me run a single full-scale worker if I needed to (the hack to simulate an NVDIMM also works to let you ignore the requirement for 3 workers), and 64G of ram gives me breathing room.

 

[RamonGTP]

My work load is very similar to yours and my 3900x has been more than enough for it. The only time anything has taken longer than I'd like is processing 4K content using H265, with color grading, image stabilization, lens correction, HDR all being done in post. Once I upgrade my 1080Ti to a 3080Ti i'll be using NVENC to assist, that should speed things up immensely. I hear 2000 series is pretty good in terms of quality output so 3000 should be at least as good.

 

[Iratus]

I do love it when people assume. Maybe you are gods gift to virtualisation. Pretty big board though so it’s a bit presumptive. I know there is an AWS level 7 from ec2 product team for example. I’ve done VMware since 2005, had vExpert, have done kvm for years but I honestly don’t know what he’s talking about if he gets on that shit.

Anyway, don’t really know what you’re doing, it looks like you’ve got some pretty niche stuff. I’d have thought those would guide you anyway, demoing nvmeof I’d assume you use nvme pass through on a guest and just map it as a target through a vswitch. Point being drive for that, drive for your vms (make sure you need nvme) If you had graphics in there too you’re gonna be pushing it on lanes so maybe headroom does make sense

ECC works fine with threadripper btw, just depends on degree of critically whether it’s worth it. Farm machines we use it as a job can take more than 24 hours and one app in particular is a single context, non-distributable monstrosity. Bit slower vs losing a day is an easy calculation

Standard workstations we don’t. Just test them when they come in and if someone gets a crash they’ll lose nominal time unless they’ve been stupid.

It sounds like you want someone to say yes, (we’ve all been there), speaking for myself I went with it for home PC (am waiting for my water block)

For me I know I’m right on the borderline of it making sense and the stuff running is pretty...hefty

Host
Gaming VM
Multiple windows client vms (otherwise pita when you have logins for lots of companies)
K8s Cluster (utilities, maven cache, remote development containers etc)
Pytorch w/gpu
Database server, uses 90gb of ram. Fuck you very much jvm.

I already know 16 cores is enough for that as I don’t use everything together, 4:1 ratios are fine as my workflow doesn’t drive contention and I just switch shit off if I need to run ‘big’ and don’t want the cpu queue issues that big vms cause. Plus big stuff can just take a bit longer if needed. I need 128gb, 32gb dimms get me there, I need 10gbe which is a factor but solvable on an x570.

In the end it just came down to the fact I’m buying this for a 5 year machine and want a single box to replace a couple, plus I’m pretty sure I’ll hit the lane limit on Ryzen by the time I get the updated optane etc. Supported by the fact that whilst I’m not one to spend needlessly, it’s not a problematic amount of money.

Of course my real preference would be to not have shit internet so I could just pay a few bucks an hour for the times I need most of that

We can rationalise anything to ourselves with time but Threadripper very much does not make sense for almost everyone. There’s no getting round that. Its basically “do you earn money from it”, and then “does it make you more money”, if answer is no, you don’t need it. You just want it, which is good and what [H] is about but it’s not rational.

So if you want it, go for it. If you’re still not sure, flip a coin. If you’re disappointed with the answer then you’ll know.

 

[warhol76]

Just want to echo that the 3900x sounds as though it will more than supply what you need. I think the points made here about the threads and such as it relates to VMs is valid. But, based on what you have described, you will be good to go. Good luck finidng a mobo in stock right now. its brutal right now.

 

[thesmokingman]

We can rationalise anything to ourselves with time but Threadripper very much does not make sense for almost everyone. There’s no getting round that. Its basically “do you earn money from it”, and then “does it make you more money”, if answer is no, you don’t need it. You just want it, which is good and what [H] is about but it’s not rational.

So if you want it, go for it. If you’re still not sure, flip a coin. If you’re disappointed with the answer then you’ll know.

I built a 3970x production rig last fall and that build added up to 8K before the gpus. It's a media production machine and was built to support that. I tried to stretch the funds as best as possible but still there's no avoiding the large cost multiplier of TR. And the other thing with TR is that if you're not using up those lanes... you're not maximizing use of that platform. And thus we made sure to use up them lanes with the storage system with an 8TB gen 4 nvme RAID 0 array, bucko bucks. 15GB/s read and write on the array is insane. Add cooling, blocks, rads, pump, etc etc and it rung out to 8K. And then we added another 64gb of B-dies... smh. The cost multipliers with TR is just really stupid high.

Just want to echo that the 3900x sounds as though it will more than supply what you need. I think the points made here about the threads and such as it relates to VMs is valid. But, based on what you have described, you will be good to go. Good luck finidng a mobo in stock right now. its brutal right now.

This too. Stock is super bad right now. Moments ago I saw that tech jesus even made a video about the horrid state of stock.

 

[swingdjted]

I had to buy a mobo that was a big step up in price and not much step up in terms of what I wanted, just to have a motherboard for the 3900x that I bought. And even then I had to wait weeks for it to be in stock with the scalpers, and an additional 2 days for it to be in stock with the actual retailer itself (didn't want to buy from a scalper). Just after buying, it went out of stock, so I must've gotten the last one. It's due to arrive a couple days from now. I plan on doing video editing, and I'm sure the 3900x will be plenty for what I need to do. I'm hoping someday in the future I can also use it for virtual reality too, and it'll be more than sufficient for that as well. I can't think of a use for any stronger processors unless you're in a large commercial setting.

 

[DeChache]

Right now I'm about ready to pull the trigger on a 3960X and board just because its in stock.......

 

[lopoetve]

I had to buy a mobo that was a big step up in price and not much step up in terms of what I wanted, just to have a motherboard for the 3900x that I bought. And even then I had to wait weeks for it to be in stock with the scalpers, and an additional 2 days for it to be in stock with the actual retailer itself (didn't want to buy from a scalper). Just after buying, it went out of stock, so I must've gotten the last one. It's due to arrive a couple days from now. I plan on doing video editing, and I'm sure the 3900x will be plenty for what I need to do. I'm hoping someday in the future I can also use it for virtual reality too, and it'll be more than sufficient for that as well. I can't think of a use for any stronger processors unless you're in a large commercial setting.

The only thing in stock that hits my port needs is the top of the line. :-/

 

[dook43]

Go 3900x. It is significantly faster than your 1700 in games due to higher clock speed, larger L3 cache, and in content creation, due to extra cores and threads.
I dropped one into my X370 mainboard that has previously run a 1700 and 2700 and not sad I did it.

It has better price/perf than the 3950x while offering better game performance. If your workload leans more toward content creation, and you have the mainboard and cooling to support, then go with the 3950X.

 

[DeChache]

To add to this... I just found out Ryzen 3000 supports 128GB of RAM..... I need to count PCI-e lanes but that does change some stuff for me.

 

[lopoetve]

Go 3900x. It is significantly faster than your 1700 in games due to higher clock speed, larger L3 cache, and in content creation, due to extra cores and threads.
I dropped one into my X370 mainboard that has previously run a 1700 and 2700 and not sad I did it.

It has better price/perf than the 3950x while offering better game performance. If your workload leans more toward content creation, and you have the mainboard and cooling to support, then go with the 3950X.

This system is more towards content creation, less towards gaming (gaming is a "I need a break - fuck it, UT/Subnautica on a 30 minute timer so I get back to work"). I got the 5700 only because the old 580 had weird issues (works just fine for the guy I sold it to on here though). That got it stable My main gaming system has a 1080 in it.