Which Ryzen to Build

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Yogi2367

Yogi2367

Reputable
Mar 24, 2015
132
0
4,710
Recently I've been building office production units with a Ryzen 7 1700, 32GB RAM and a 1TB Samsung 850 EVO SSD. We do a lot of multi-tasking in our office, with anywhere from 8 to 12 programs running at a time. Switching among them needs to be quick and efficient. I find the 7/1700's work quite well.
Now, it's time to build one for myself. Mine needs to do all the same tasks as the 7/1700's but also needs to be available to operate as a back up server just in case something goes south with the IBM.
I have most of the build rounded out 64GB RAM, 6 SSD's, and a pair of GTX 950's since I already have them and I drive 4 monitors.
I'm down to choosing the CPU, the Mobo, and the cooling solution.
Stick with the 7/1700 or go for the Threadripper series? Thoughts?
I am really partial to ASUS mobo's, but if anyone has a better reason to buy something else I'd love to hear it.
I have had good luck using the Corsair H100i AOI coolers, but I have no idea if they will work adequately for the 7/1800X or Threadripper series. I could use some input on that part.
Thoughts and opinions are appreciated, just don't start out with "buy an Intel" ... LOL
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
bjornl

bjornl

Honorable
Mar 16, 2016
2,962
2
10,965
Not everything supports the threadripper; not everything supports that many cores. If you want better performance and want to spend an extra 600, get the 1800x instead along with some upgraded video cards.

update
I assumed you had been thinking about the 1950. The 1900x would have fewer problems with the "too many cores" thing, although still a possibility. It would however represent a potential cooling problem with its 180w TDP.

Have you read the review on the 1900x on this site?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965


Not sure you read all of his post, but this isn't for gaming. This is an office PC. True not everything will use the extra cores provided by Threadripper, but it isn't about a single program using the whole CPU. It is about the CPU running several taxing pieces of software simultaneously. Though quite a few productivity software utilities would be capable of using the full CPU too.

Really, I don't see any reason not to go for one of the Threadripper CPUs. Not much reason to go with the Threadripper 1900x, as it is basically a higher clocked Ryzen 7 1800X with extra PCI-E lanes and more cache. Instead, I'd look at the Threadripper 1920X or 1950X.

Personally, I like to build my PCs to last as long as possible (within reason). If you have the budget, the 32-core 1950X really sounds justified based on what you plan to use it for. The extra muscle will help postpone your next system build too.

For the motherboard, there isn't a bad OEM. Just depends on what you need and build quality. If you prefer Asus, go Asus. Really no reason to mark anyone off though.

For the cooler, I would personally go for a large air cooler. I've just had bad experience with water coolers. I once had a Corsair H110i. After using it for about a week, I took it off and replaced it with the mid-range Phanteks air cooler I had on before it. It cooled my CPU better, but if you prefer an AIO cooler go for it.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Yogi2367

Yogi2367

Reputable
Mar 24, 2015
132
0
4,710
Thanks IInuyasha74 ... the 1950X may very well be the way to go. That should also allow me to virtualize the whole machine, and run a couple instances inside as well. Probably want to upgrade the mobo to one that would accept 128GB RAM though. IBM servers run a CPU fan, or fans depending if it's single or dual Xeon's. I would think that this would not be a lot different. The alternative I would guess would be custom water cooling, but I have zero experience in building one of those.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965
It certainly would be the safe way to go. With 16 cores and 32 threads, it is essentially four of those Ryzen 7 1700 systems in one. Good idea on the RAM too. May not need that right off, but you probably want to keep the option of adding more RAM later if you feel the system needs it.

Yea custom water cooling is a totally different story, but it is very expensive. And time consuming. Just makes more sense to me that you grab a large air cooler and toss on it.

You could always consider going Xeon with a multi-CPU motherboard. That would be easier to cool, since the heat would be split between multiple physical processors. I haven't priced those recently though. It might not work price wise though, since Intel charges more for its processors and with this route you would need to buy two. I just mention it to keep all options on the table.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yogi2367

Yogi2367

Reputable
Mar 24, 2015
132
0
4,710
I've seen IBM server mobo's that take 4 Xeons. Imagine if you will ... a multi-CPU mobo that takes 2 or 4 Threadripper 1950X's !!! Truthfully, they're probably not really that far away from being available. Build your own Johnson Space Center for 20k ... LOL

I forgot to add ... if you are running dual or quad Xeon CPU's and you tank one, you have to replace them all because they need to come from the same lot to work together properly.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
theonerm2

theonerm2

Splendid
Dec 28, 2009
4,113
81
25,140


Wait a second. Isn't the 1950x 16 cores and 32 threads? Am I missing something here? It's single socket too. So 32 cores isn't possible on threadripper. With the EYPC 7601 it would be possible to have that many cores though. I'd go EYPC before going Xeon. You get dual socket CPU's with EYPC just like with Xeon. You need a lot and I mean a LOT of money for that much CPU power.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yogi2367

Yogi2367

Reputable
Mar 24, 2015
132
0
4,710
@theonerm2 ... this isn't a home build so the budget structure is a little different. The cap-ex is not as crucial as the ROI. That being said there is also a limit on the cap-ex, which would be less than the cost of keeping a spare server around. You are correct that there are not 32 physical cores, however, VMWare can take advantage of virtual cores by controlling the physical core and utilizing its dependent thread.
@okcnaline ... The daily tasks run just fine on the 7/1700's which consist mostly of 3 to 5 MS office apps, and, depending on role, 7 to 15 back office modules. The additional requirement, where the extra horsepower is really needed, is for use as a backup server. To run full out, that requires 11 virtual servers mostly chunking interdependent databases. At a bare minimum it would need to run 6 of those virtual servers, and their commensurate databases. Keep in mind that business cannot stop, which is why the system runs on its own electrical network backed up with UPS' and a Caterpillar generator, and enjoy redundant, fail-over, internet connections, from three different compass directions, routers, and managed switches. All client machine mobo's have dual LAN for a reason. To top it all off, it also needs to run as my personal client machine. Effectively, you run a pre-programmed script and essentially my overbuilt client machine becomes the defacto server in an emergency.
To answer your question though, in a nutshell, the more you virtualize your environment, the more physical cores you need.
In business environments, virtualization is everything. That's how you spool up a brand new physical server, complete with up-to-the-minute backups, in under 4 hours.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bjornl

bjornl

Honorable
Mar 16, 2016
2,962
2
10,965
11 VMs is quite the load. When I built a couple of VM intensive systems I went with a pair of Xeon E5-2699 v4 (22 cores each x 2 processors) as well as 128gb of ram (upgraded later to 196). The thing to do when planning how "big" is good enough to to look at the needs of every single VM and add a little head room. Don't forget the host. Also get lots of NICs (there are plenty of 4 port 1gb each NICs, sharing a NIC proved to be quite the bottleneck) and a nice switch.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965
@thenoerm2: You are correct, I typed it in wrong. My mistake, I was thinking about EPYC.

With that many VMs, a dual-socket Xeon system really might be what you should consider. The only thing there is that it is turning more into a server you use also use as a desktop, instead of an ultra high-end desktop you that also functions as a backup server. Are you able to purchase from anywhere? If so, we should probably start examining prices at this point to determine how much more that Xeon build would be and if it is a viable option.

Based on what you have said, however, I think everyone here would agree that the 1950X should be the minimum build you go with.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yogi2367

Yogi2367

Reputable
Mar 24, 2015
132
0
4,710


No, I drive 4 monitors in HDMI, and the mobo does not come with on board graphics. A single card does not fulfil the port requirements I have. Additionally our back office modules separate different items by different colours. I my experience good quality gaming cards do the best job of that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom