AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review

AMD has made no attempt of stealth with the release of Ryzen Threadripper, instead adopting the “tease and repeat” campaign style that Radeon has utilized in recent years for this release. The result of which is an already-knowledgeable group of pre-order ready consumers; not a coincidence. Today I will summarize the data we already know for those of you just joining us and dive into the importance of the new information we can provide today. That includes interesting technical details on the multi-die implementation and latency, overclocking, thermals, why AMD has a NUMA/UMA issue, gaming performance and of course, general system and workload benchmarks.

[ricksadler]

Yay Threadripper
Numa numa mode
Numa numa mode
Numa numa numa mode.

[BornYooper]

Great video. I appreciate the good analysis without the hype and fanboyism on the other channels.

[Biga]

Excellent job going into the platform itself. It is nice to knew how things are put together, and you did a good job explaining it. Can't wait to see more! Off to the article now.

[TerabitTech]

Other tech channels and sites showed different power values: actually the most of them said AT LEAST power consumption ON PART with the 7900X. Both Hardware Unboxed and Gamer Nexus (two sources that I trust as much as PCPer) showed a lower power consumption, with the i9 7900X consuming significantly more.

[ChaosPootato]

Gotta love all them comments "hurr durr didn't watch but I bet he didn't try that/say that", just be quiet and watch the damn thing

[FFTech]

Would love to see some VM performance. Not sure how you would test it though?

[musinclind]

I believe your power consumption numbers are skewed because you're talking total system power not the processors themselves. If you added six more cores to the 7900X it would be way more Inefficient over what threadripper uses.

[cryptoinvertor]

i normally create virtual network environments using VMware where i have many firewalls, routers, loadbalancers and some server both windows and Linux however the average load is low from the CPU and Memory consumption most of the time. All this is Lab environment to test network solutions and features.
I currently have a i7-4960X platform that is i am planning to upgrade. I also play at lot at 1440p demanding games trying to achieve 144 fps while keeping all my Virtual environment running.
should i consider this CPU or maybe it is too much power for what i will do with it?

[RyeinGoddard]

I'm getting one. This is awesome.

[TerabitTech]

I suggest doing VM tests and something related to RAID, virtualization, NAS and other more server-related and coding-related stuff

[PaulTheFox]

An extra 6 cores and 12 threads for only ~30w of power consumption compared to skylake-x is pretty damn impressive, but still, 268w of power consumption just for the cpu is crazy.
Let's now see how the 16 core skylake-x does for power consumption when they get released, maybe all those years of power consumption refinements (read, sitting on their hands) will pay off.

[Xaluber]

Strange that you're showing the 7900X beating the 1950X in power consumption when all the other reviews I've seen show the opposite.

[Camhin]

All the VMs you could run on all those cores. *drools* also what do the iommus look like on x399?

[BornYooper]

So the Elmer's glue adds latency?

[IMemoryMI]

Does any one knows if the DMI equivalent on the x399 platform is limited in terms of pcie lanes and by how many exactly ? or better, if on-board m.2 storage are connected directly to the cpu pcie lanes ?

[RCTestKid]

You might want to re-run your power consumption results.
They seem to differ a LOT from other more reputable sources (Hardware Unboxed + AdoredTV).

[NaderSl]

I am a game & hacks developer, and in my eyes, for my needs, i7900X still wins that is because
although it has less cores than both TRs (10 cores) each core has a significantly higher performance, and from an experienced programmer point of view, there are hell lots of applications that are highly focused on single core for the most tasks rather than multi-threading, which vouches for i7900X.

For gaming AMD definitely still lags behind i7900x based on all kind of benchmarks, sometimes with a whopping 30 FPS difference, however, most of those are benchmarked on OpenGl/D3D, on Vulkan the architecture differs a bit and they are almost performing the same, but its not common to find a Vulkan based game.

Concerning heating, i7900x heats up a little less since it has less cores and they are same CPU, while AMD's architecture just glues up two cpus and merge their outcome, which explains more PCI lanes as well and more L3 Cache.

The only thing that annoys me with intel i7900x is the cheap thermal interface they are using which acts like a double ended isolator and prevents some cooling from kicking in, also the board x299 is rushed, so you need a pretty damn cooling system
perhaps from ekwb.

Conclusion after intensive research:
1) If you are just in for gaming, then skip all new architectures and go for 7700k or 6900k if you can afford, they are both great with 6900k higher performance specially for gaming due to the old bus ring architecture in broadwell which is faster.

2)if you have big work loads, it will depend on the type of work load you have, if you create content, use lots of vms, compile code, etc.., then google programs you are running and check whether it leans to single or multi-threading tasking, for single threading, go i7900x, otherwise investigate how many cores it utilizes and so, if it utilizes more than 10 then you might want to go threadripper, otherwise still stick to i7900x.

[mrlithium]

it says PC Perspective now instead of pcper.

[larrywhite]

Thanks Ryan, when your looking at thread counts please max out the boards M.2's U.25's at least two GPU's Thanks.

[DiplomatGaming]

I enjoy watching this guy's honest reviews compared to many youtubers who like to brown nose AMD fanboys just to get likes and views. AMD really needs to improve their single core and IPC performance instead of just adding more cores.