The Ryzen "ThreadRipper"... 16 cores of awesome

[.vodka]

Overclocking is about getting extra value out of a CPU by running it at high speed. If the CPU is already priced at a value overclocking shouldn't be a needed requirement of enthusiasts usage. On top of that you are looking at a 16 core CPU that can probably OC to 4GHz. Name another "enthusiast" solution that can pull that off.

The alternative would be the upcoming $1699 i9 7960x, 16C32T at "165w" TDP

Getting that to all core 4GHz and higher would require delidding (and risking killing the CPU), applying CLU to get heat transfer right, then a beefy custom loop, and you'd probably also want a VRM waterblock to go with that. Pair that with a >1000w Titanium PSU and you can go crazy, all core 4.5GHz and higher if you want and don't forget getting the mesh clock high enough to compensate relative to BDW-E, but you probably risk tripping a breaker somewhere if you pair that with a couple of Titans (or Vegas if you are crazy enough). You can do the same for the $2000 i9 7980XE 18C/36T, but then you'd risk burning the house down if pushing so hard while stress testing.

Too much hassle and a blatant rip off $1699, no thanks.


TR comes soldered, you'd only need to take care of the custom loop to (definitely) handle two Zeppelins at 3.9/4GHz. High end air cooling or a top AIO could handle that, too. We'll see what Pinnacle Ridge does next year for clock speeds, though. The AM4/TR4 derivatives should be great if they can break the 4GHz barrier.

 

[Aenra]

I wouldn't generalize with the word/term "overclocking".

1) Took me over a week to make sure i had (manually, personally, from BIOS) a stable 4.5GHz clock on my 6900K. And that's after the cooling cost, which is way over the top, be it in time invested to sort it out, money needed to purchase, or patience overall.
I know what you know, i read what you read. I still believe that most people just don't bother, not to this extent. Not when, barring the "cool and edgy" remarks, i see scores of people complaining about a measly $400 set of RAM, but somehow, in that very same paragraph, brag about 40% OCs and ultra custom loops (meaning about $1K just for said loop); reality screams

2) What most folks define as "OCing" boils down to two things:
i) press the 'buttan', be it from the UEFI or Windows and "enjoy" the ready-made, failproof meagre "OC"; meagre by necessity, because how else can Asus/MSI/etc guarantee you a successful OC with just one click? By overvolting, while simultaneously demanding a low clock boost. No other way.
ii) a ""safe"", non-aggressive config that is neither cost-friendly (still more heat, still a need for better equipment), neither goal-oriented (fear of killing the chip). I see it everywhere, even on "eXXXtreme" forums.. page after page with questions and theories when he has a 1.35vcore OC, lol

Which leads me to: (sadly):

3) Mentality. Most don't know..care..? And never shall; be it because of time, money, or the actual unwillingness to take risks.
They just want the cool stuff, just so they can say they have it. Not because they utilize it or exploit it/take it to its max.

So, to get to the point, when i see the stereotypical by now "Ryzens can't OC!" remark.. i kinda take a long breath and move on.

- Because of all of the above
- And on top of it, because lack of reason. Why complain about lack of OC when at 3.9-4.0ish gigs it's already as good or better than my 6900K? Did you not have your fan OCing it? Did it not take as much time, knowledge and care as it would have on any other? Did it not have benefits? Does it not, at said "wall", function good enough? What? You want cherry on top AND half price AND better OC?

(better is always good; 'bestest' and cheapest or fail? That's.. different)

 

[Topweasel]

That's kind of my point. The 16c SL-X is going to struggle with clocks getting to mid 3GHz. The power and heat is going to be insane to get 4GHz. I'll believe in a 4 GHz OC on that when I see it.

 

[corinthos]

I saw some Cinebench R15 Multi-Core results for Thread Ripper 1950X that showed a score of around 3000 or so. Dual Intel Xeon 2683v3 2.0Ghz/3.0Ghz Turbo processors (14 cores, 28 threads) score slightly higher around 3100.

Xeon supports ECC and supposedly Thread Ripper should too. Pricing wise, they are roughly the same. The 1950X Thread Ripper will sell for about $999 + 200-300 for motherboard. Dual Xeon 2863v3 can be had for about $840 total and Xeon motherboards run about 300-400.

So I'm wondering what would be distinct advantages of one over the other with multi-core performance being about equal and both supporting ECC. I think the Thread Ripper 1950X might have an edge in games and single threaded applications due to the higher base clock (3.4ghz vs Xeon 2.0ghz) and turbo (4ghz vs Xeon 3.0ghz).

Does this sound about right? Anything I'm missing?

 

[Topweasel]

Tons of reasons. Not requiring Registered memory. Supporting ECC is something people like to bring up. But the other way applies as well.

Motherboard choice. You go dual Xeons you have to with pro level motherboard with limited options.

IO options. With all of this IO and meant for gamers it means many 16x slots and several NVME ports.

 

[shabby]

So I'm wondering what would be distinct advantages of one over the other with multi-core performance being about equal and both supporting ECC.

If cinebench is all you do then yes both setups are equal, if you do other things then who really knows if multi threaded performance will be equal.
Frankly if prices are similar for both setup's i would rather go for the modern setup unless for some reason you need some of those 2 socket server mobo features.

 

[tamz_msc]

A dual-socket LGA 2011v3 motherboard means limited options for the case, two kits of quad channel memory, and a more expensive power supply. Overall costs would increase quite a bit.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel has a small IPC advantage. AMD has a small SMT advantage. In the consumer market, Intel's biggest advantage is clockspeed. But do you honestly think the 16 core Slylake-X is going to get over 4Ghz? The thermals on the 10 core part are a disgrace as it is.

What does any of this have to do with me lamenting the general lack of IPC improvement and clockspeeds in the CPU market?

 

[scannall]

What does any of this have to do with me lamenting the general lack of IPC improvement and clockspeeds in the CPU market?

Until they go to some other material clockspeed has pretty much hit a brick wall. As far as IPC goes, Intel has wrung out about as much as they are going to get from the Core architecture. How much low hanging fruit is there on the Zen architecture? I don't know, but there's bound to be some. Only time will tell there. Interesting times ahead.

 

[Timmah!]

I think the best chip for people who like to overclock from this year´s "generation" will be the 7920x, under condition it will come soldered. I would hazard a guess it could be OCable almost as high as 7900x (4,6+), cause only 2 more active cores, thanks to the possible solder not as difficult to cool, and overclocked on par with 1950x performance-wise (more or less, if 7900x can get ~2500 CB points at 4,5, then 7920x will no doubt attack 3000).

Granted, it will be slightly more expensive and less efficient/more power-hungry (but you never know, perhaps HCC dies will be for whatever reason superior in this regard to the LCCs, although i doubt it), but in regard to overclocking and top attainable clocks, probably way more fun than Threadripper.

 

[crashtech]

I think the best chip for people who like to overclock from this year´s "generation" will be the 7920x, under condition it will come soldered...

I don't think we've seen CPUs of a given socket come both ways, for example LGA1155 were all soldered, and LGA1150 were all polymer TIM. Is there any evidence that any LGA2066 CPUs are soldered?

 

[Timmah!]

I don't think we've seen CPUs of a given socket come both ways, for example LGA1155 were all soldered, and LGA1150 were all polymer TIM. Is there any evidence that any LGA2066 CPUs are soldered?

There is no evidence, its just a possibility IMO. Regarding the socket thing, i dont think you can rely as much on what once was, as you could before. Nobody expected 7900x not to be soldered either, since HEDT CPU always have been soldered. So as i said, we shall see. I am certainly curious what happens next month

 

[wildhorse2k]

I think the best chip for people who like to overclock from this year´s "generation" will be the 7920x, under condition it will come soldered. I would hazard a guess it could be OCable almost as high as 7900x (4,6+), cause only 2 more active cores, thanks to the possible solder not as difficult to cool, and overclocked on par with 1950x performance-wise (more or less, if 7900x can get ~2500 CB points at 4,5, then 7920x will no doubt attack 3000).

Granted, it will be slightly more expensive and less efficient/more power-hungry (but you never know, perhaps HCC dies will be for whatever reason superior in this regard to the LCCs, although i doubt it), but in regard to overclocking and top attainable clocks, probably way more fun than Threadripper.

Since this is Threadripper topic, I will answer about Threadripper here and Skylake-X in its own topic.

Since we already know Ryzen works at 4Ghz and Threadripper will have 2 of them with double surface, it should be possible to cool them. Single Ryzen 1800X scores about 1600 CB points, Threadripper 1950X about 3000 points. Ryzen at 4Ghz scores about 1700 CB points, Threadripper will thus score about 3200 points at 4Ghz. Threadripper performance at $999 will be unbeatable. A CPU that will last for many years (5+ at least).

I don't think you have a chance to approach 3000 points with 7920X, but we can discuss it in Skylake-X topic.

 

[Timmah!]

I don't think 7920X will be a good choice at all for OC:

• 7800X doesn't seem to consume that much less power than 7900X, as if those disabled cores couldn't be completely disabled. This would mean power consumption of 7920X won't be very good either.
• 7900X has quite high L3 latency, almost as high as cross CCX of Ryzen. 7920X is expected to have the same latency like 7980X, which will be more than 7900X. You are buying just 2 extra cores with worse latency.
  
• with practical upper limit of 7900X about 4.5Ghz (due to thermal issues), 7920X will be maybe 4.2Ghz for all core clock without delid
• its questionable whether 12-18C will be delidable, they will have bigger die
  
• at high clocks Skylake-X is inefficient, I'm not sure you want to have a case next to you with fans at maximum (even water cooling)

If you can afford the 7980X and OC it:

• I think you will get better performance increase with OC, due to this CPU having lower frequency where it is more efficient. Increase of 100Mhz brings less heat increase (per core) than with 7920X. Percentage wise you will get more performance for each 100Mhz, due to base being lower.
• use DDR4 4000 memory (instead of low latency 3600) to get good bandwidth as this CPU might be bandwidth starved (unlike its 6 channel Xeon brother)
• you may even get better performance than Xeon 28C / Epyc 32C with extreme OC (as they both have low clocks and are locked)
• you tune turbo 1-2 core frequency to be about 4.3Ghz (and downclock the rest, even below stock) and still may get ok performance for few thread applications

In my opinion the 2 most interesting CPUs are 7900X (high clocks, decent for gaming and work, can get performance like 12C) and 7980X (potentially crazy performance like Xeon 28C when OCed), but the price of 7980X playing against it.

- you mention delidding, my whole premise of 7920x being good chip for OCers was based on the possibility it would be soldered (as would the rest of HCC line-up)
- because of that (solder) there would be no thermal issues like with 7900x, so the same 4,5GHz OC might be possible
- regarding worse latency, i am pretty sure there are many workloads where those "just 2 extra cores" are more important than higher latency
- high clocks being inefficient, thats true, but i dont think enthusiasts care that much

finally, you expect 12C to have practical clocks 4,2GHz max, then you go on to say 7980xe will overclock better? If that 2 core difference between 7900x and 7920x means 300 MHz lesser overclock, than what about another 6 cores on top of that in case of 7980xe?

I kinda agree that 7900x and 7980xe might be the most interesting chips simply based on the fact they are both full fat dies, but i think if 7920x is soldered, thus potentially keeping the possibility of max clocks in the 7900x range, it could be even more interesting to some people, cause unlike 7900x, this one would on par with 16C Threadripper. Which 7900x cant be, no matter what. I mean, if you go on to pay extra for Intel product, it better be at least on par with AMD offering performance-wise, all around.






This is an AMD Threadripper thread, not an Intel thread. Please stick to the topic, or create a separate Intel thread for discussion. Or post in the Skylake thread.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[crashtech]

Knowing if Skylake-EP models are soldered would inform whether any X series could be soldered; it's not something that can be implemented on a whim.

 

[Abwx]

Ryzen at 4Ghz scores about 1700 CB points, Threadripper will thus score about 3200 points at 4Ghz.

Ryzen 1800X score 1613 at stock frequency...

Core scaling in CB is closer to 99%, TR score 3062 at 3.4GHz, at 4GHz it should be at 3550.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-07/ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x-preis-ryzen-3/

 

[wildhorse2k]

Ryzen 1800X score 1613 at stock frequency...

Core scaling in CB is closer to 99%, TR score 3062 at 3.4GHz, at 4GHz it should be at 3550.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-07/ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x-preis-ryzen-3/

That would make it even better, I assumed same clock like Ryzen 1800X which is wrong. I know stock Ryzen scores ~1600 points. AMD Turbo boost is not all core like Intel, so there is room for improvement. At 4Ghz 3500-3600 score should be doable.

 

[dnavas]

Ryzen 1800X score 1613 at stock frequency...
Core scaling in CB is closer to 99%, TR score 3062 at 3.4GHz, at 4GHz it should be at 3550.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-07/ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x-preis-ryzen-3/

Right. What should we make of the 1920 score, which is a bit of an outlier (1613 * 12 / 8 * 3.5 / 3.6 = 2352; the 1950 is much more in-line with expectations ~ 3046). The score is a lot closer to what I'd expect for 3.6G.

 

[Shivansps]

- And on top of it, because lack of reason. Why complain about lack of OC when at 3.9-4.0ish gigs it's already as good or better than my 6900K?14

The main issue to me, and this is the reason why im holding my 2500K upgrade, is that Ryzen at about 3.9 is not better than Sandy Bridge at about 4.2-4.5Ghz on ST, and we are talking about something that is 6 years old. And Ryzen also losses some power efficiency when pushed past 3.8Ghz.

Yeah, more cores is great, but i dont want to pay for a Ryzen 1700 and end up with the same or worse ST perf than my 6 year old 2500K. Hell people with a 2600K even gives it a good fight in gaming as well, not that well as a 7700K.

Thats why some of us want more than a 3.9 or 4.0ghz on Ryzen, and i dont see anything wrong with wanting that.

 

[Eric1987]

2500k thought process is a little daunting. I came from one and its a huge upgrade. You don't realize how much those cores matter.

 

[Shivansps]

2500k thought process is a little daunting. I came from one and its a huge upgrade. You don't realize how much those cores matter.

Thats because 4/4 is not enoght for a lot of things howdays. Im not saying is not a huge upgrade, it is, but ST perf is still a little low, mostly because of low clocks.

 

[Eric1987]

Thats because 4/4 is not enoght for a lot of things howdays. Im not saying is not a huge upgrade, it is, but ST perf is still a little low, mostly because of low clocks.

True but anything multi threaded and the 2500k gets demolished. I love seeing my cores get maxed out its great. Emulators like RPCS3 run GREAT on my CPU. Love it! Couldn't see myself getting anything less than 8 cores for future upgrades, too. I hope the next gen ryzen chips can run on their AM4 socket and come higher clocked. Would be a dream come true. Right now the underdog has all the momentum. I am glad I waited for Ryzen tbh.

 

[tamz_msc]

The main issue to me, and this is the reason why im holding my 2500K upgrade, is that Ryzen at about 3.9 is not better than Sandy Bridge at about 4.2-4.5Ghz on ST, and we are talking about something that is 6 years old. And Ryzen also losses some power efficiency when pushed past 3.8Ghz.

Yeah, more cores is great, but i dont want to pay for a Ryzen 1700 and end up with the same or worse ST perf than my 6 year old 2500K. Hell people with a 2600K even gives it a good fight in gaming as well, not that well as a 7700K.

Thats why some of us want more than a 3.9 or 4.0ghz on Ryzen, and i dont see anything wrong with wanting that.

What kind of single-threaded scenarios are you talking about? I hope it's not gaming because a 2600K@4.5GHz, a Ryzen 8-core@4ghz and a 7700K at 5GHz perform more or less identically in real-world gaming, barring a few exceptions. By real-world I mean not something silly like a running 1080Ti at 1080p.

 

[ddogg]

Even at 1080p, the differences now are very slim (single digit %) as ryzen keeps getting optimized. The massive Delta we saw at 1080p between the 7700k and the 1700/1800 at launch has all but vanished.

 

[Shivansps]

What kind of single-threaded scenarios are you talking about? I hope it's not gaming because a 2600K@4.5GHz, a Ryzen 8-core@4ghz and a 7700K at 5GHz perform more or less identically in real-world gaming, barring a few exceptions. By real-world I mean not something silly like a running 1080Ti at 1080p.

For example i play Stellaris and X3 Albion, Stellaris is 90% ST dependant, and X3 is old and pure ST game.
Some other games, like Empyrion Galactic Survival are Unity3D Games that are pure ST dependant, on top of that im using Unity3D to develop a game.
I also play Age2HD another pure ST game.

As for programs, almost everything is ST limited, even web browsing, except for very specific high workload tasks.

As i said earlier, it is a huge upgrade, but is a shame that ST perf is about the same than a OC SB cpu, and thats is not because the IPC is bad, is because the max clock is low.

Then again i need to upgrade, because im going to play SC in the following years and SC devs are recomending Ryzen or anything with a high number of cores. And i also do streaming ocasionally.