Latest from Tom's Hardware in Amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x

CPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy 2026: CPU Rankings

Jake Roach — Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:25:13 +0000

Exceptional Prime Day CPU deals

the best

If you're after the ultimate in gaming performance, there's no better option than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. Thanks to its 93MB of L3 cache, this 8-core/16-thread processor can push out class-leading frame rates in every game out there. With only a 120W TDP, it even stays cooler than the competition, saving you a few extra bucks on that expensive AIO purchase.

Click the coupon box for the $20 discount.View Deal

Get Intel's latest and greatest processor, the 270K Plus, at an all-time low price. The 8p/16e core processor has plenty of oomph to plow through any workflow and games well, too.View Deal

Here are standout CPU deals from the Prime Day event, which is currently taking place.

CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Tom's Hardware

In the album above, you can see our master charts for gaming, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance for CPUs. For games, all of our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 5090 FE, and for applications, our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti FE. For applications, no compute is actively running on the GPU; it’s a glorified display output that shares a driver with our gaming GPU. You can find a full breakdown of the test benches we used at the end of this article.

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026
CPU / (MSRP)	Street Price	1080p Gaming Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Ryzen 7 9850X3D ($500)	$499	100%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D ($480)	$464	97%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X3D ($700)	$676	95.7%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D ($600)	$530	86.9%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D ($450)	$399	85.6%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D ($700)	$650	83.9%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D ($300)	$246	80.6%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Core i9-14900K ($550)	$469	78.2%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ($300)	$350	77.5%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 7 7900X3D ($600)	Out of Stock	77.1%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X ($650)	$520	76.9%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Core i9-13900K ($590)	Out of Stock	76.8%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Core i7-14700K ($410)	$340	76.4%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Core i7-13700K ($410)	Out of Stock	75.8%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 9900X ($500)	$439	73.9%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus ($200)	$220	73.3%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Core i5-14600K ($320)	$300	72.8%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Ryzen 5 9600X ($280)	$188	72.6%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Core Ultra 9 285K ($590)	$557	71.8%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7950X ($700)	Out of Stock	71%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Core i5-13600K ($320)	$319	70.9%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Ryzen 7 7700X ($400)	$249	70.6%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Core Ultra 7 265K ($400)	$284	70.3%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7900X ($550)	$299	69.2%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170W / 230W
Ryzen 5 7600X ($300)	$180	67.3%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W
Core Ultra 5 245K ($320)	$202	67.1%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i7-12700K ($410)	$285	65.8%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core Ultra 5 225 ($183)	$180	62.5%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Core i5-12600K ($290)	$185	60.8%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Core i5-14400 ($220)	$250	58%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W

You can see the relative score for AMD and Intel CPUs above, measured against the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, which is the fastest gaming CPU on the market, per our testing. So, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D offers 97.04% of the performance of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 69.28% of the performance. You can set any CPU as a baseline for comparison with Bench, which is available in Tom’s Hardware Premium.

All of our gaming tests were run with the RTX 5090 FE at 1080p with a mixture of High and Ultra settings. We run each test multiple times — usually between three and five — and pick the median result. In other words, the results we use are real, recorded runs, not an average of several different runs. This is important as some games, such as Far Cry 6, show great CPU scaling but are otherwise inconsistent run-to-run.

In addition to consistent hardware (test benches at the end of this article), we use a consistent test image between platforms. That means the same GPU driver, the same Windows install, the game version, etc. We also tested with Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) turned off, Resizable BAR turned on, and automatic overclocking features disabled. That includes the Intel Extreme power profile and AMD’s PBO, both of which aren’t covered under standard warranty.

For this refresh, we tested 17 games and then calculated a geometric mean of the results. A simple average would provide skewed results with such a large test pool. A geomean provides a more realistic view of how each CPU compares to the others.

Here are the games that we used for testing:

Counter-Strike 2
The Last of Us Part One
Cyberpunk 2077
Starfield
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Hogwarts Legacy
F1 24
Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
Baldur’s Gate 3
Monster Hunter: Wilds
Final Fantasy XIV
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
Doom: The Dark Ages
Oblivion Remastered
Far Cry 6
Hitman 3
Minecraft RTX

We’re constantly evaluating new games to include in our test suite — see our recent stories on Resident Evil Requiem CPU scaling and Crimson Desert CPU scaling — but we maintain a list of tried-and-true benchmarks for our hierarchy rankings. We want to avoid including brand-new titles, which may see many updates, to keep our rankings as true to reality as possible. If you want more about the rationale behind our game choices, see our behind the scenes look at our CPU hierarchy testing.

Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

2026 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus	100%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 9 285K	98.5%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 7 265K	96.8%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core i9-14900K	95.4%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus	94%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Ryzen 9 9950X	93.3%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 7 9850X3D	93.2%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X3D	92.8%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Core Ultra 5 245K	92.5%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i9-13900K	92.4%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 9900X	92.2%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D	90.8%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9700X / 105W TDP	90.6% / 90.5%	Zen 5	8 /16	3.8 / 5.5	65W / 88W
Core i7-14700K	90.1%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP	89% / 88.9%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D	87.6%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 225	87.3%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Core i7-13700K	86.7%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Core i5-14600K	85.8%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D	85.4%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X	85.2%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 7900X3D	84%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 7700X	84%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Core i5-13600K	82.4%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Core i7-12700K	79.7%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core i5-12600K	78.6%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D	77.3%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Core i5-14400	75.4%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D	73.2%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Ryzen 5 7600X	71.5%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W

We run hundreds of tests for each CPU, but only a small subset of those tests factor into our single-threaded rankings. We use the mp3 encoder LAME with a single thread (both standard and extended), Cinebench 2026 and 2024’s single-threaded test, the ray-traced renderer POV-ray, and WebXRT4, which runs a series of browser-based applications written in various languages.

The fastest chip in the pool here is the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which scores 100%, with every other chip scored relative to it. The Core i9-14900K offers 95.4% of the single-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the Ryzen 5 9600X offers 89% of the performance, and so on.

Most real-world workloads aren’t strictly single-threaded, which is why we include it on a subset of the total tests we run. The goal is to see what relative performance looks like in lightly-threaded applications, as well as look into the overall architecture of different CPUs. Single-threaded performance exposes a lot about the architecture in a way that heavily-threaded applications tend to mask.

We’re, of course, looking at performance on a single core, favoring high clock speeds and IPC (instructions per cycle). However, single-threaded performance also says a lot about what’s going on elsewhere inside the CPU, from the speed of the IMC (integrated memory controller) to the fabric/ring speed. That’s why we see things like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus outperforming the Core Ultra 9 285K, despite the latter sporting higher clock speeds.

Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

2026 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Ryzen 9 9950X3D	100%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9950X	96.8%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus	95.6%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 9 285K	88.7%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7950X	88%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D	84.4%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Core i9-14900K	83.9%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core i9-13900K	81%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 7 265K	78.9%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D	77%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9900X	76.7%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Core i7-14700K	75.1%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus	70.9%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Core i7-13700K	67.1%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 7900X3D	63.9%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9850X3D	57%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D	56.9%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 245K	55.8%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i5-14600K	53.9%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Core i7-12700K	51.9%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core i5-13600K	50.3%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Ryzen 7 9700X / 105W TDP	47.2% / 53.2%	Zen 5	8 /16	3.8 / 5.5	65W / 88W
Ryzen 7 7700X	46.8%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D	44.5%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP	39.7% / 41.7%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Core i5-12600K	39.5%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Core Ultra 5 225	38.5%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D	33.1%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Core i5-14400	32.7%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W
Ryzen 5 7600X	31.3%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W

Similar to single-threaded rankings, we use a subset of the total tests we run for CPU reviews in ranking multithreaded performance. Cinebench and POV-ray show up here again, this time using as many threads as possible, alongside VRay, four Blender tests, and Handbrake using various codecs. Although most applications will leverage multiple threads these days, we’re specifically looking at applications that will take as many threads as possible to maximize compute.

Compared to single-threaded workloads, heavily-threaded tasks are less concerned with clock speed and put a greater emphasis on interconnects and core-to-core latency. Core count is obviously important, as well, though it’s been somewhat undermined by Intel’s hybrid architectures over the last several generations.

Given that we’re spanning multiple nodes, core count alone isn’t indicative of higher multithreaded performance. Yes, higher core counts within the same generation will usually provide higher multithreaded performance, but a slew of other factors can increase performance, as well, from all-core and uncore frequencies to higher transistor density. Because of the wide swath of factors, you can see much more aggressive scaling with our multithreaded rankings compared to single-threaded rankings.

Integrated GPU Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Tom's Hardware

iGPU Performance relative to Ryzen 7 5700G
	1280x720	1920x1080
Ryzen 7 5700G B550-E	100%	100%
Ryzen 5 5600G	96.3%	96%
Ryzen 7 4750G	92.9%	94.1%
Ryzen 3 5300G	85.8%	87.2%
Ryzen 5 3400G	83.5%	84.1%
Ryzen 3 3200G	77.1%	78.1%
Intel UHD Graphics 750 32 EU (11600K, 11700K)	58.3%	~48.9%
Intel UHD Graphics 730 24 EU (i5-11400)	51.7%	42.9%
Intel UHD Graphics 630 24 EU (10600K)	36.0%	34.4%

Here's our list of gaming performance with integrated graphics on several of the leading APUs available. We've split this into two different price ranges, so be sure to flip through all of the performance charts. For a bit of commentary and analysis of these results, head to our Ryzen 7 5700G, Ryzen 5 5600G, and Ryzen 3 5300G reviews. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it.

How to Benchmark your CPU

It’s important to know how to benchmark your CPU. It gives you a way to compare performance after an overclock or a CPU upgrade, and it allows you to check if you’re getting the full performance out of your system. Maybe a poor CPU cooler mount is limiting your performance, or maybe your BIOS settings aren’t optimal. Using benchmarks to compare your results lets you see where your rig stacks up, not only for leaderboard purposes, but also basic troubleshooting.

The key to benchmarking your CPU is consistency. The only variable that should change is your CPU, be it a new CPU or an overclock/undervolt. Before starting, make sure to close any applications running in the background. That’s not only to net peak performance, but also to avoid any inconsistencies between runs. Background apps can gobble up threads inconsistently, making it difficult to compare your results from run to run.

If you want more consistency, you can optionally run the following command before benchmarking in an elevated command prompt:

Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks

This will force Windows to perform the background tasks it normally does when your PC is idle. It’s not essential, but it’s a good sanity check to make sure there’s nothing interfering with your results.

For applications, you want to test the apps you actually use. If you use the Adobe suite, for example, you can download and use PugetBench for free and compare your results with Puget’s database. A lot of apps don’t have these easy-to-use benchmarking tools and databases, so you need to find a proxy. For instance, Procyon Office measures Microsoft Office performance, but a license costs nearly $1,600 per year. PCMark 10 Basic, which is free, measures open-source office applications. Below, we have some of our favorite free benchmarks for comparing CPU performance.

In games, you can take two approaches: manual or automated. Some modern games include built-in benchmarking tools, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom: The Dark Ages, and although they aren’t perfect, they’re easy to run and highly repeatable. The best way to measure CPU gaming performance, however, is manual benchmarking.

That involves finding a scene where you can go over a specific path repeatedly. That could be starting from a specific checkpoint that you can reload or resorting to a manual save where you start from the exact same position. Regardless, it’s important to avoid randomness in your testing. Keep the path consistent — for example, a walking path through a town — and try not to swing the camera around.

For measuring performance in games, you’ll need a performance monitoring tool. There are simple apps like Nvidia’s FrameView, which logs a ton of information but is a little cumbersome to deal with; it exports data to spreadsheets. CapFrameX is a good alternative, which uses the same backend as FrameView (Intel’s PresentMon), but comes with a user-friendly GUI and extra features like the ability to generate charts right in the app.

After you run your benchmarks, you need a comparison point. Databases like Puget are your best resources on that front. If you’re comparing results to reviews, forum threads, or other systems, keep in mind the variables that can influence performance. It’s not a good idea to compare performance with uncontrolled variables unless you have a wide swath of comparison points.

Best CPU Benchmarks You Can Run

Cinebench 2026 – Cinebench is the quintessential CPU benchmark, used almost universally in reviews, and it’s completely free to download and use.
Geekbench 6 – Geekbench has a number of issues, but it offers a massive database for comparing your system against other similar systems. And it’s free to download and run.
Blender – Blender has a benchmarking utility with a GUI that’s free to download, as well as a large database of results.
PCMark 10 Basic – The main PCMark 10 benchmark is free to use with the Basic edition, allowing you to test productivity performance with open-source office apps, as well as compare your scores with UL’s database.
Handbrake – Handbrake is a powerful, free, and open-source video transcoding tool, and it’s easy to run benchmarks with. Use any video file, make sure your settings are the same, and start a stopwatch to measure the time encoding takes. Lower is better.
WebXPRT 5 – WebXPRT runs a variety of web applications directly in your browser, for free, and with a database to compare results to. It takes a while to run, however.
JetStream 2 – JetStream is a faster browser-based benchmark, though it doesn’t have a database of results.
CPU-Z – CPU-Z isn’t a reliable benchmark for real-world performance, but it includes single- and multithreaded tests, it’s easy to run, and you’ll find results online almost as commonly as Cinebench results.
Y-cruncher – This test calculates Pi with digit extraction, and it’s accelerated with SIMD instructions like AVX. You can only run it from a command line, but it’s relatively straightforward.
PugetBench – Puget includes benchmarks for the biggest apps in the Adobe suite, as well as DaVinci Resolve. The benchmark itself is free, and Puget maintains a large database. You’ll need a license for the applications it tests, however.

2026 CPU Benchmarks Test System and Configuration

2026 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup
Intel LGA 1851 (Arrow Lake and Refresh)
Motherboard	ASRock Z890 Taichi
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200
Intel LGA 1700 (Raptor Lake, Alder Lake)
Motherboard	MSI MPG Z790 Carbon Wi-Fi
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200
AMD AM5 (Zen 5, Zen 4)
Motherboard	MSI MPG X870E Carbon Wi-Fi, Gigabyte Aorus X870E Elite X3D ICE
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-6000
All Systems
Gaming CPU	Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition
Application GPU	Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founder’s Edition
Cooler	Corsair iCue Link H150i RGB
Storage	2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus
PSU	MSI MPG A1000GS, Gigabyte UD1000GM PG5 V2
Other	Arctic MX-4 TIM, Windows 11 Pro, Alamengda open test bench

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

You can find our rankings of the most current-gen systems on the previous page. The results below are from our legacy benchmarks, using a different GPU and test systems than our current CPU benchmark rankings. However, this provides great historical context and also includes other previous-gen CPUs not included in our new test suite. You'll also find our even older legacy rankings further below. These date back over the last decade.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Rankings - Windows 10 and 11

Tom's Hardware

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Gaming CPU Benchmarks Ranking

Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 11
	1080p Gaming Score	1440p Gaming Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost GHz	TDP - MTP
$589 - Core i9-13900K	100.00%	100.00%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.0 / 5.8	125 / 253W
$409 - Core i7-13700K	96.09%	97.09%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125 / 253W
$365 - Ryzen 7 5800X3D	94.42%	97.45%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.4 / 4.5	105W
$319 - Core i5-13600K	90.03%	92.94%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125 / 181W
$474 - Ryzen 9 7900X	87.40%	90.52%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170 / 230W
$569 - Ryzen 9 7950X	87.25%	90.27%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170 / 230W
$349 - Ryzen 7 7700X	87.13%	91.55%	Zen 4	8 /16	4.5 / 5.4	105 / 142W
$329 - Ryzen 7 7700	86.19%	88.88%	Zen 4	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.3	65 / 88W
$429 - Ryzen 9 7900	84.75%	88.46%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170 / 230W
$249 - Ryzen 5 7600X	83.62%	88.44%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105 / 142W
$229 - Ryzen 5 7600	79.74%	85.97%	Zen 4	6 / 12	3.8 / 5.1	65 / 88W
$550 - Ryzen 9 5950X	72.04%	77.51%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
$350 - Ryzen 9 5900X	71.69%	78.95%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
$235 - Ryzen 7 5800X	70.90%	78.19%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
$210 - Ryzen 7 5700X	69.50%	76.65%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.4 / 4.6	65W
$165 - Ryzen 5 5600X	67.52%	74.68%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
$189 - Core i5-12400	66.62%	73.53%	Alder Lake	6 / 12 (6+0)	2.5 / 4.4	65 / 117W

Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10
	1080p Gaming Score	1440p Gaming Score	CPU	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP	Buy
Intel Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5	100% / 93.51%	100% / 95.86%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W	Core i9-12900K
Intel Core i9-11900K	92.48%	97.26%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W	Core i9-11900K
Intel Core i7-12700K DDR4 / DDR5	97.71% / 91.23%	99.8% / 97.30%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	3.6 / 4.9	125 / 190W	Core i7-12700K
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	90.98%	93.18%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W	Ryzen 9 5900X
Intel Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	90.89% / 84.32%	96.94% / 92.33%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W	Core i5-12600K
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	90.22%	95.32%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W	Ryzen 9 5950X
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	88.71%	89.71%	Zen 3	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	280W	Threadripper Pro 5975WX
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	88.51%	91.79%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W	Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	86.85%	91.72%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W	Ryzen 7 5800X
Intel Core i7-11700K	86.3%	92.0%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	125W	Core i7-11700K
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	86.12%	84.79%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W	Threadripper Pro 5995WX
Intel Core i9-10900K	85.01%	91.5%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W	Core i9-9900K
Intel Core i9-10850K	84.6%	91.07%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W	Core i9-10850K
Intel Core i5-11600K	84.06%	90.43%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.9	125W	Core i5-11600K
Intel Core i5-11400	80.98%	87.77%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W	Core i5-11400
Intel Core i7-10700K	80.66%	87.88%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W	Core i7-10700K
Intel Core i9-10980XE	78.04%	84.04%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W	Core i9-10980XE
Intel W-3175X	76.93%	82.58%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 4.3	225W	@Newegg
Ryzen 7 5700G*	76.61%	83.1%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W	N/A
Intel Core i9-9900KS	76.12%	84.85%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W	Intel Core i9-9900KS
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W	Intel Core i7-10700
Intel Core i5-10600K	75.42%	82.57%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.8	125W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-9700K	73.62%	81.12%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-9900K / F	73.41%	84.85%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W	Core i9-9900K
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	72.63%	78.58%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 3970X	72.44%	77.99%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W	AMD Threadripper 3970X
AMD Threadripper 3960X	72.07%	77.12%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	71.99%	76.76%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W	Ryzen 5 5600G
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	71.78%	79.28%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper 3990X	71.68%	77.94%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	71.67%	78.55%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W	Ryzen 9 3900XT
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	~	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W	@B&HPhoto
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	105W	OEM only
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	71.43%	79.08%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W	Ryzen 7 3700X
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	71.3%	78.67%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W	Ryzen 7 3800X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	70.62%	77.75%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	68.63%	75.59%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-7960X	~	~	Skylake	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.2	165W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-8700K	68.47%	76.41%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	68.41%	75.60%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	67.63%	74.42%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W	Threadripper Pro 3975WX
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	67.49%	74.6%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-9600K	67.06%	75.11%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	66.18%	69.28%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W	Threadripper Pro 3995WX
Intel Core i5-8600K	65.84%	73.4%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-8700	65.57%	73.66%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W	Core i7-8700
Intel Core i7-8086K	65.05%	73.5%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W	Core i7-8086K
Intel Core i5-9400 / i5-9400F	64.85%	72.08%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-8400	63.96%	71.2%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W	@Newegg
Core i3-10100	61.88%	69.08%	Comet Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W	Core i3-10100
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	59.19%	66.55%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W	@Newegg
Ryzen 7 4750G*	58.43%	66.46%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W	Ryzen 7 4750G
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	57.75%	64.21%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i9-7980XE	~	~	Skylake	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.2	165W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-7900X	~	~	Skylake	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	140W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	57.55%	65.33%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W	@Amazon
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2990WX (GM)	~	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-7820X	~	~	Skylake	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.3	140W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2950X (GM)	~	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 2700	~	~	Zen+	8 / 16	3.2 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 1900X (GM)	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.0	180W	@Amazon
Intel Core i7-7700	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 2600	~	~	Zen+	6 / 12	3.4 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-7800X	~	~	Skylake	6 / 12	3.5 / 4.0	140W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-7600K	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.8 / 4.2	91W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 1950X (GM)	~	~	Zen	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.0	180W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper 1920X (GM)	~	~	Zen	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.0	180W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-9350KF	56.42%	65.19%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / 4.6	91W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	55.54%	62.68%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W	OEM Only
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	53.86%	60.83%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-7600	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.5 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-8100	~	~	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7500	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.4 / 3.8	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7400	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.8 / 3.9	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	~	Zen +	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 1700	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.0 / 3.8	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-8350K	53.84%	61.82%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W	Core i3 i3-8350K
Intel Core i3-9100	51.96%	60.1%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	49.99%	57.28%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1600	~	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	48.81%	55.73%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7400	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-8100	48.43%	59.7%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	45.96%	52.98%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	44.84%	50.67%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X	~	~	Zen	4 / 8	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-7350K	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	4.2 / -	60W	@Newegg
Intel Pentium G5600	~	~	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	42.16%	48.56%	Zen+	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-7300	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	4.0 / -	51W	@BH&Photo
Intel Pentium G5600	37.52%	44.7%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W	@Intel
Intel Pentium G5400	36.57%	43.31%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-7100	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1400	~	~	Zen	4 / 8	3.2 / 3.4	65W	@Amazon
Intel Pentium G4620	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W	@Newegg
Intel Pentium G4560	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W	@Newegg
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 240GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 1200	~	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.1 / 3.2	65W	@Amazon
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W	N/A
AMD A10-9700	~	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W	@Newegg

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. We measured performance for the 1080p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Hitman 2, Far Cry 5, Project CARS 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We measured performance for the 1440p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Project CARS 3, Far Cry 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy - Windows 10
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP
Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)	100% / 99.57%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	95.31%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
Core i9-12900K DDR5 / DDR4	95.16% / 94.64%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W
Core i7-11700K	94.29%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	93.69%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	92.84%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i5-11600K	92.56% / 89.67%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.9	125W
Intel Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4	91.60%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	3.6 / 4.9	125W / 190W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	89.25%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	89.19%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
Ryzen 7 5700G	88.92%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.4	65W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	88.48%	Zen 3	64 / 128	3.6 / 4.5	280W
Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	87.85% / 87.82%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W
Intel Core i9-10900K	86.68%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	85.75%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i9-10850K	84.87%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W
Intel Core i9-9900KS	83.13%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W
Intel Core i5-11400	83.09%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i9-9900K	82.63%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
Intel Core i7-10700K	82.31%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	81.51%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i7-9700K	80.36%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	79.75%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	79.11%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	78.86%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i5-10600K	78.79%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.	125W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	78.37%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	78.18%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	77.68%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W
Ryzen 7 4750G	77.2%	Zen 3	8 /16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	76.52%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	76.42%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	76.36%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W
Intel Core i7-8700K	76.32%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	76.29%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i7-8086K	76.21%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	75.85%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	75.72%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / 4.6	91W
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	75.62%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i5-9600K	75.41%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	75.24%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	75.10%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W
Intel Core i7-8700	74.66%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	74.20%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	73.02%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W
Intel Core i5-8600K	71.08%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W
Core i3-10100	70.80%	Coffee Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	69.53%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W
Intel Core i3-9100	69.20%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	67.74%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W
Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F	67.67%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	67.51%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 3.8	225W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	66.78%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W
Intel Core i3-8350K / -8350KF	66.71%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W
Intel Core i5-8400	66.03%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W
AMD Threadripper 2950X	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	64.86%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	63.62%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	61.99%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	60.90%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	60.79%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W
Intel Pentium G5600	60.13%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W
Intel Core i3-8100	60.12%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	57.09%	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Pentium G5400	56.79%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W
AMD A10-9700	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W

These results are from our 2022 test bench. We calculate the above single-threaded CPU benchmark rankings based on a geometric mean of the Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME CPU benchmarks. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

Legacy: Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10
	Multi-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	112.53%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	100.0%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	97.59%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	93.14%	Zen 3	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	82.59%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	75.74%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	64.76%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	59.95%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 4.3	225W
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	53.58%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	47.32%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	45.89%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	43.06%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	38.69%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	38.66%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5	38.39% / 38.11%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W
Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)	36.01% / 37.07%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W
Core i7-11700K	34.26%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	125W
Intel Core i9-10900K	33.79%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	33.48%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i9-10850K	33.38%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W
AMD Threadripper 2950X	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	65W
Ryzen 7 5700G	29.73%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W
Intel Core i9-9900KS	29.11%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W
Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4	28.77% / 28.77%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	2.7 / 3.8	125 / 190W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	28.49%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	28.25%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W
Intel Core i7-10700K	28.17%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W
Intel Core i9-9900K	27.78%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	27.47%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i5-11600K	26.79%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.9	125W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	26.15%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 4750G	26.06%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W
Intel Core i5-11400	24.46%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	23.33%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W
Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	2308% / 23.07%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W
Intel Core i7-9700K	22.81%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	22.28%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	21.76%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	21.41%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	21.59%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W
Intel Core i5-10600K	20.83%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.8	125W
Intel Core i7-8700K	20.23%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W
Core i7-8700	20.04%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W
Core i7-8086K	19.30%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	19.17%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	16.96%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W
Intel Core i5-9600K	16.60%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W
Intel Core i5-8600K	15.93%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	15.83%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	15.55%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	15.16%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W
Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F	15.04%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W
Intel Core i5-8400	14.76%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	14.17%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W
Core i3-10100	13.37%	Rocket Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	11.76%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0/4.6	91W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	11.31%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i3-8350K	10.74%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W
Intel Core i3-9100	10.70%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	10.56%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W
Intel Core i3-8100	9.61%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	8.66%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	7.99%	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Pentium G5600	5.43%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G5400	5.13%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W
AMD A10-9700	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. The multi-threaded workload column is based on CPU benchmarks performance in Cinebench, POV-ray, vray, Blender (four tests - Koro, Barcellona, Classroom, bmw27), y-cruncher, and Handbrake x264 and x265 workloads. These CPU benchmarks represent performance in productivity-focused applications that tend to require more compute horsepower. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these benchmarks in Windows 10.

Legacy 2023 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup
Hardware
AMD Socket AM4 (400- 500-Series)	AMD Ryzen 2000- 3000- 5000- series processors
	MSI MEG X570 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
Intel LGA 1151 (Z490)	Intel Comet Lake processors
	MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)	Ryzen 1000-series processors
	MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium
	2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667
Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)	Intel Coffee Lake, Kaby Lake processors
	MSI Z270 Gaming M7
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
Intel LGA 2066	Intel Skylake processors
	MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
All	Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle
	2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
	EVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600W
	Windows 10 Pro version 2004 (build 19041.450)
Cooling	Corsair H115i

Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks

Recognizing that a lot of older platforms are going to be paired with graphics subsystems multiple generations old, we wanted to define the top of our range to encourage balance between host processing and complementary GPUs. At this point, anyone with a Sandy Bridge-based Core i7 would realize a gain from stepping up to Coffee Lake or Kaby Lake, for example. And putting AMD's top FX CPUs next to a handful of Core i7s and those older Core i5s represents an upgrade to their status.

Currently, our hierarchy consists of 13 total tiers. The bottom half of the chart is largely outdated; you'll notice those CPUs dragging down performance in the latest games, whether you have one of the best graphics cards or not. If you own a CPU in that range, an upgrade could really take your experience to another level.

Really, it's the top five tiers or so that remain viable. And in that top half of the chart, an upgrade is typically worthwhile if it's a least a couple of tiers higher. Otherwise, there's just not enough improvement to warrant the expense of a fresh CPU, motherboard and RAM (not to mention the graphics card and storage solution you'd be considering as well).

Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-8700K
Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i9-7960X
Intel Core i9-7980XE
Intel Core i7-8700K
Intel Core i7-7740X
Intel Core i7-7700K
Intel Core i7-7820X	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Intel Core i7-7700	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Intel Core i5-8400	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Intel Core i7-7800X	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Intel Core i7-7700T	AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
Intel Core i7-6950X	AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Intel Core i7-6900K	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Intel Core i7-6850K	AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Core i7-6800K	AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Intel Core i7-6700K	AMD Ryzen 5 1400
Intel Core i7 6700	AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
Intel Core i7-5960X	Ryzen 5 2400G
Intel Core i7-5930K
Intel Core i7-5820K
Intel Core i7-5775C
Intel i7-4960X
Intel Core i7-4930K
Intel Core i7-4820K
Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-4770K
Intel Core i7-4790
Intel Core i7-4771
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-3970X
Intel Core i7-3960X
Intel Core i7-3930K
Intel Core i7-3820
Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i5-7640X
Intel Core i5-7600K
Intel Core i5-7600
Intel Core i5-7500
Intel Core i5-7400
Intel Core i5 6600K
Intel Core i5-6600
Intel Core i5-6500
Intel Core i5 6402P
Intel Core i5-6400
Intel Core i5-5675C
Intel Core i5-4690K
Intel Core i5-4670K
Intel Core i5-4590
Intel Core i5-4670
Intel Core i5-4570
Intel BX80646I54460
Intel Core i5-4440
Intel Core i5-4430
Intel Core i5-3570K
Intel Core i5-3570
Intel Core i5-3550

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-990X Extreme
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme
Intel Core i7-2600K
Intel Core i7-2600
Intel Core i7-965
Intel Core i5-3470
Intel Core i5-3450P	Intel Core i7-7700
Intel Core i5-3450	AMD FX-9370
Intel Core i5-3350P	AMD FX-8370
Intel Core i5-3330	AMD FX-8350 w/Wraith
Intel Core i5-2550K	AMD FX-8320
Intel Core i5-2500K	AMD FX-8300
Intel Core i5-2500	AMD FX-8150
Intel Core i5-2450P
Intel Core i5-2400
Intel Core i5-2380P
Intel Core i5-2320
Intel Core i5-2310
Intel Core i5-2300
Intel Core i3-7350K
Intel Core i3-7320
Intel Core i3-7300
Intel Core i3-7100

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-980
Intel Core i7-970
Intel Core i7-960
Intel Core i7-875K
Intel Core i7-870
Intel Core i3 6320
Intel Core i3 6300
Intel Core i3-6100	AMD FX-6350
Intel Core i3 6100T	AMD FX-4350
Intel Core i3-6098P	AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition
Intel Core i3-4360	AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition
Intel Core i3-4350	AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980
Intel Core i3-4340	AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 975
Intel Core i3-4170
Intel Core i3-4160
Intel Core i3-4150
Intel Core i3-4130
Intel Core i3-3250
Intel Core i3-3245
Intel Core i3-3240
Intel Core i3-3225
Intel Core i3-3220
Intel Core i3-3210
Intel Core i3-2130
Intel Core i3-2025
Intel Core i3-2120
Intel Core i3-2105
Intel Core i3-2100
Intel Pentium G4620
Intel Pentium G4600
Intel Pentium G4560
Intel Pentium G4500
Intel Pentium G4400

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD FX-8370E
	AMD FX-8320
	AMD FX-8120
	AMD FX-6300
	AMD FX-6200
	AMD FX-4300
	AMD FX-4170
	AMD Phenom II X6 1075T
Intel Core i7-950	AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition
Intel Core i7-940	AMD Phenom II X4 965
Intel Core i7-930	AMD Phenom II X4 955
Intel Core i7-920	AMD A10-7890K APU
Intel Core i7-860	Intel A10-7870K
Intel Core i5-3220T	AMD A10-7860K
Intel Core i5-2405S	AMD A10-7850K
Intel Core i5-2400S	AMD A10-7800
Intel Core i5-760	AMD A10-7700K
Intel Core i5-750	AMD A10-6800K
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	AMD A10-6790K
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770	AMD A10-6700
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650	AMD A10-5800K
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650	AMD A10-5700
	Intel A8-7650K
	AMD A8-7600
	AMD A8-6600K
	AMD A8-5600K
	AMD A8-3870K
	AMD A8-3870
	AMD A8-3850
	AMD Athlon X4 880K
	Intel Athlon X4 870K)
	Intel A10-7870K
	AMD Athlon X4 750K
	AMD Athlon X4 740
	AMD Athlon X4 651K
	AMD Athlon X4 645
	AMD Athlon X4 641
	AMD Athlon X4 640

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD FX-6100
	AMD FX-4130
	AMD FX-4100
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850	AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800	AMD Phenom II X6 1045T
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	AMD Phenom II X4 945
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450	AMD Phenom II X4 940
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400	AMD Phenom II X4 920
Intel Core i5-680	AMD Phenom II X3 740
Intel Core i5-670	AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition
Intel Core i5-661	AMD A8-6500
Intel Core i5-660	AMD A8-5500
Intel Core i5-655K	AMD A6
Intel Core i5-650	AMD A6
Intel Core i3-2120T	AMD A6-3670K
Intel Core i3-2100T	AMD A6-3650
	AMD Athlon II X4 635
	AMD Athlon II X4 630

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500	AMD Phenom II X4 910
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	AMD Phenom II X4 910e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7600	AMD Phenom II X4 810
Intel Core i3-550	AMD Athlon II X4 631
Intel Core i3-540	AMD Athlon II X4 620
Intel Core i3-530	AMD Athlon II X3 460
Intel Pentium G3470
Intel Pentium G3460
Intel Pentium G3450
Intel Pentium G3440
Intel Pentium G3430
Intel Pentium G3420
Intel Pentium G3260
Intel Pentium G3258
Intel Pentium G3250
Intel Pentium G3220
Intel Pentium G2130
Intel Pentium G2120
Intel Pentium G2020
Intel Pentium G2010
Intel Pentium G870
Intel Pentium G860
Intel Pentium G850
Intel Pentium G840
Intel Pentium G645
Intel Pentium G640
Intel Pentium G630

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E8300	AMD Phenom II X4 905e
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200	AMD Phenom II X4 805
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190	AMD Phenom II X3 710
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500	AMD Phenom II X3 705e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400	AMD Phenom II X2 565 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850	AMD Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750	AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition
Intel Pentium G620	AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition
Intel Celeron G1630	AMD Phenom II X2 545
Intel Celeron G1620	AMD Phenom X4 9950
Intel Celeron G1610	AMD Athlon II X3 455
Intel Celeron G555	AMD Athlon II X3 450
Intel Celeron G550	AMD Athlon II X3 445
Intel Celeron G540	AMD Athlon II X3 440
Intel Celeron G530	AMD Athlon II X3 435
Intel Celeron G3950	AMD Athlon II X3 425
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3900

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9850
	AMD Phenom X4 9750
	AMD Phenom X4 9650
Intel Core 2 Duo E7300	AMD Phenom X4 9600
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200	AMD Phenom X3 8850
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	AMD Phenom X3 8750
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550	AMD Athlon II X2 370K
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540	AMD Athlon II X2 265
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6700	AMD Athlon II X2 260
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6600	AMD Athlon II X2 255
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E650	AMD A6-5500K
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6300	AMD A6
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5800	AMD A4-7300
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5700	AMD A4-6400K
Intel Pentium G9650	AMD A4-6300
	AMD A4-5400K
	AMD A4-5300
	AMD A4-4400
	AMD A4-4000
	AMD A4-3400
	AMD A4-3300
	AMD Sempron 2650
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9550
	AMD Phenom X4 9500
	AMD Phenom X4 9450e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	AMD Phenom X4 9350e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420	AMD Phenom X3 8650
Intel Core 2 Duo E4700	AMD Phenom X3 8600
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600	AMD Phenom X3 8550
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500	AMD Phenom X3 8450e
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5400	AMD Phenom X3 8450
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5300	AMD Phenom X3 8400
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200	AMD Phenom X3 8250e
Intel Pentium Dual-Core G620T	AMD Athlon II X2 250
	AMD Athlon II X2 245
	AMD Athlon II X2 240
	AMD Athlon X2 7850
	AMD Athlon X2 7750
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9150e
	AMD Phenom X4 9100e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	AMD Athlon X2 7550
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320	AMD Athlon X2 7450
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400	AMD Athlon X2 5050e
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300	AMD Athlon X2 4850e/b
Intel Celeron E3300	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300	AMD Athlon X2 6550
Intel Core 2 Duo E5500	AMD Athlon X2 6500
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2220	AMD Athlon X2 4450e/b
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200	AMD Athlon X2 4600+
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2210	AMD Athlon X2 4400+
Intel Celeron E3200	AMD Athlon X2 4200+
	AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Intel Celeron 1600	AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Intel Celeron G440	AMD Athlon X2 4050e
	AMD Athlon X2 2300 Black Edition

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
Intel Celeron E1500
Intel Celeron E1400
Intel Celeron E1200

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Threadripper 1920X Selling at Its Cheapest Price: $200 for 12 Cores

Zhiye Liu — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 17:27:04 +0000

(Image credit: Newegg)

If you need a CPU with an abundant number of cores, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X may be the perfect fit. The 12-core chip, which has been selling for about $260 over the past few weeks is seeing one of the best tech deals right now. The high-end desktop (HEDT) chip is currently selling at the lowest price we've ever seen for this CPU, $200 at Amazon.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - was $360, now $200 @ Amazon
AMD has moved on to third-generation Threadripper chips, but its first generation Threadripper is selling for its lowest price ever. It boasts 12 cores, 24 threads and 3.5. GHz base clock that boosts up to 4.0 GHz. The HEDT CPU has come a long way since debuting at $800 in 2017. View Deal

Part of AMD's first-generation Ryzen Threadripper lineup, the Threadripper 1920X boasts 12 cores, 24 threads and up to 32MB of L3 cache. The processor has a 3.5 GHz base clock and a boost clock that hits 4 GHz. It comes with a completely unlocked multiplier, so you can overclock the core-heavy monster to gain even more performance.

AMD Threadripper 1920X vs. Threadripper 2920X vs. Ryzen 9 3900X

Model	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost Clock (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe	Unlocked Multiplier	DRAM	TDP	Price (at time of writing)	Price Per Core
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	64	PCIe 4.0 x 24	Yes	Dual DDR4-3200	105W	$499	$41.58
AMD Threadripper 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	PCIe 3.0 x 64	Yes	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$377.43	$31.45
AMD Threadripper 1920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.0	32	PCIe 3.0 x 64	Yes	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$199	$16.58

As you would expect from a HEDT processor, the Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel memory and RAM speeds up to 2,667 MHz. When paired with the right X399-based motherboard, the Threadripper 1920X can support up to 256GB of memory, so you can open tabs to your heart's content and still have plenty of memory leftover. The Threadripper 1920X also supports to 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and you can run multiple graphics cards configurations, PCIe storage arrays and a good number of PCIe-based expansion cards without worry.

AMD Threadripper 1920X Hits All-Time Low $199.99

Zhiye Liu — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:25:00 +0000

(Image credit: Newegg)

If you need a CPU with an abundant number of cores, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X may be the perfect fit. The 12-core chip, which usually sells for over $350, can be yours today for just $199. That's the lowest price we've ever seen for this CPU.

Get the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X for $199.

Part of AMD's first-generation Ryzen Threadripper lineup, the Threadripper 1920X boasts 12 cores, 24 threads and up to 32MB of L3 cache. The processor has a 3.5 GHz base clock and a boost clock that hits the 4 GHz. It comes with a completely unlocked multiplier, so you can overclock the core-heavy monster to gain even more performance.

With a discounted price of $199, the Threadripper 1920X is currently the cheapest 12-core chip in AMD's arsenal and on the market.

AMD Threadripper 1920X vs. Threadripper 2920X vs. Ryzen 9 3900X

Model	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost Clock (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe	Unlocked Multiplier	DRAM	TDP	Price (at time of writing)	Price Per Core
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	64	PCIe 4.0 x 24	Yes	Dual DDR4-3200	105W	$499	$41.58
AMD Threadripper 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	PCIe 3.0 x 64	Yes	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$377.43	$31.45
AMD Threadripper 1920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.0	32	PCIe 3.0 x 64	Yes	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$199	$16.58

As you would expect from a HEDT (high-end desktop) processor, the Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel memory and memory speeds up to 2,667 MHz. When paired with the right X399-based motherboard, the Threadripper 1920X can support up to 256GB of memory, so you can open tabs to your heart's content and still have plenty of memory leftover.

In regards to PCIe connectivity, the Threadripper 1920X supports to 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes. You can run multiple graphics cards configurations, PCIe storage arrays and a good number of PCIe-based expansion cards without worry.

Should You Buy This CPU?

We highly recommend you check out our in-depth AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X review before opening your wallet.

You can also review our CPU buying guide for help. To see where this processor ranks among others currently available, including from rival Intel, check out our CPU hierarchy page. And for other CPUs we love, see our favorite gaming CPUs and favorite CPUs for productivity performance.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX Review: 24 Cores on a Budget

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 13:00:00 +0000

The Value-Oriented WX-Series Option

AMD's second-gen Ryzen Threadripper family was introduced to the world in the form of a 32-core, 64-thread 2990WX model priced at $1800. It set new performance records across workloads able to exploit the chip's copious resources. However, the flagship Threadripper chip's unique architecture also causes odd results in more common desktop applications. Consequently, we only recommend the 2990WX to professionals running certain workstation-class software.

The $1300 Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX includes 24 cores and 48 threads. It bears the same WX suffix meant to signal an affinity for heavy multitasking and professional workloads. Moreover, the 2970WX boasts more on-die resources than Intel's $2000 Core i9-7980XE, which offers 18 Hyper-Threaded cores.

Similar to Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, two of the 2970WX's dies aren't connected directly to main memory. So, the CPU delivers great performance in threaded workloads that aren't sensitive to memory throughput, but less impressive results in bandwidth-hungry applications that don't scale well with extra cores. AMD introduced Dynamic mode to its Ryzen Master software in an effort to minimize the architecture's compromises, but it isn't always effective.

Given its similarities to the 2990WX, it's no surprise that Threadripper 2970WX demonstrates a lot of the same behaviors in our benchmark suite. You still need a particular type of workload to maximize its potential. Fortunately, if you have the right software, Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX offers a much less expensive route to 2990WX-like performance.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Earlier this year, AMD retooled its mainstream Ryzen line-up with new Zen+ optimizations that included 12nm manufacturing, improved memory and cache latency, higher clock rates, and enhanced multi-core Precision Boost frequencies. Those changes carry over to the company's newest Threadripper models, too.

AMD also split its Threadripper portfolio into the WX and X families. The two WX models are geared toward intense multitasking workloads, 3D rendering, media encoding, and cinema mastering. That makes them attractive to software developers, video/audio engineers, and content creators.

	Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX	Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX	Ryzen Threadripper 2950X	Threadripper 2920X
Socket	TR4	TR4	TR4	TR4
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	24 / 48	16 / 32	12 / 24
Base Frequency	3.0 GHz	3.0 GHz	3.5 GHz	3.5 GHz
Boost Frequency	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Memory Speed	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)
Memory Controller	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)
Integrated Graphics	No	No	No	No
Cache (L2 / L3)	80MB	64MB	40MB	32MB
Architecture	Zen+	Zen+	Zen+	Zen+
Process	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo
TDP	250W	250W	180W	180W

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is AMD's second quad-die processor for high-end desktops. Again, it sports 24 cores and 48 threads. A 3 GHz base frequency stretches as high as 4.2 GHz via AMD's XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) algorithms. The processor also features an improved Precision Boost 2 technology for achieving more aggressive multi-core turbo clock rates compared to the first-gen models.

Each of the WX CPU's four dies boast eight physical cores and 16MB of L3 cache. Thus, Threadripper 2990WX and 2970WX are both armed with 64MB of L3 cache. That's generous on AMD’s part, since Intel typically disables cache as it turns off cores to create lower-end models. Of course, AMD does carve out two cores per die to create the 2970WX's 24-core configuration, though. And like the 2990WX, Ryzen Threadripper 2970X is rated at 250W.

The dual-die X-series Threadrippers are better suited to enthusiasts and gamers. AMD launched its Ryzen Threadripper 2950X in September, but now there's a 12C/24T Threadripper 2920X available as well. It includes six cores per die and the same 32MB of L3 cache as the 16C/32T 2950X. Both X-series models are rated at 180W.

	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe 3.0	DRAM	TDP	MSRP	Price Per Core
TR 2990WX	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1799	$56
TR 2970WX	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1299	$54
Core i9-7980XE	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.4	24.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1999	$111
TR 2950X	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$899	$56
TR 1950X	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.4	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$750	$47
Core i9-7960X	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.4	22	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1699	$106
TR 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$649	$54
TR 1920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$399	$33
Core i9-7920X	12 /24	2.9 / 4.4	16.50	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1199	$100
Core i9-7900X	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	13.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$999	$99
Core i7-8700K	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	12	16	Dual DDR4-2666	95W	$359	$60
Ryzen 7 2700X	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	16	16	Dual DDR4-2933	105W	$329	$41

AMD ships all Threadripper CPUs with an Asetek bracket that provides partial coverage of the expansive heat spreader using compatible closed-loop liquid coolers. According to AMD, this partial coverage is fine for stock operation. But we found that full-coverage coolers work better. AMD also collaborated with Cooler Master to develop the Wraith Ripper heat sink/fan combo for its Socket TR4 interface. It's sold separately, though.

Of course, AMD uses Indium solder between its dies and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel employs thermal grease and recommends liquid cooling for its Skylake-X processors. AMD says that's not necessary for Threadripper. Intel recently added Indium solder to its Core i9 series, so we may see this feature work its way up into the HEDT segment before long.

All of the second-gen Threadripper processors are backward-compatible with existing X399 motherboards. But older Socket TR4-equipped boards may struggle under the power requirements of AMD's 250W Threadripper WX series chips, particularly if you try to overclock. Consider shopping for a new X399-based platform if tuning is on the menu.

DIMM Config	Memory Ranks	Official Supported Transfer Rate (MT/s)
4 of 4	Single	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-2133
4 of 4	Dual	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-1866

Familiar AMD value-adds abound on the 2970WX: you get an unlocked ratio multiplier for overclocking, the new Precision Boost Overdrive automated overclocking feature, Ryzen Master software, and 60 lanes of third-gen PCI Express (plus four lanes attached to the supporting chipset). Copious connectivity could come in handy for multiple add-in graphics cards, but it's also useful for high-performance storage and networking.

Threadripper CPUs feature independent dual-channel memory controllers located on two dies, which combine to provide quad-channel support with varying data transfer rates based upon your configuration. With the second-gen Threadripper processors, AMD bumps its maximum specification to DDR4-2933 (up from DDR4-2666). The platform supports ECC memory and up to 256GB of capacity, but it can accommodate up to 2TB as density increases.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Benchmark Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Dynamic Mode, Overclocking and Test Setup

AMD’s Threadripper processors employ a unique Multi-Chip Module (MCM) architecture that enables impressive modularity, but also hurts performance in certain workloads. The company masks much of this on the dual-die X-series chips. However, its WX series' four dies present new challenges. We previously covered the design's specifics. In short, though, two of the four dies are only used for their x86 cores, while the other two have active memory and PCIe controllers.

Windows' round robin thread scheduling mechanism tends to push important threads off of the I/O dies, requiring memory-hungry applications to access another die during execution, thereby hurting performance. AMD originally created a couple of operating modes to let its customers tailor the way they wanted Threadripper processors to behave. This did help side-step some of those compromises. But switching between the two modes required rebooting. Moreover, they didn't completely solve AMD's performance issues.

A new Dynamic Local Mode, which is strictly for Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 2970WX processors, runs as a background service inside the operating system and automatically detects memory-starved application threads (the top 13 to 16). It dynamically assigns them to dies with local memory controllers. Or, it can detect threads that aren't as sensitive to memory latency and move them to dies without memory controllers, thus optimizing the processor’s execution resources.

This new implementation is transparent, and can be switched on without rebooting. AMD doesn't quantify the overhead of this service. However, we observed ~0.5% processor and 1MB memory utilization during normal use with the 2970WX.

For now, the service is enabled in AMD's Ryzen Master software. But the company plans to bake this functionality in to its chipset at some point in the future. The program works best with "mid-threaded" applications (as opposed to lightly-threaded ones). It also ignores apps that run on all cores and threads.

The performance measurements in the above chart were generated by AMD. We have our own tests on the following pages.

Overclocking

We tested several configurations, but stuck with Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) for all of our tuned Threadripper WX-series configurations. This automated feature overclocks the processor to to its fullest based upon available current, power, and thermal headroom. Due to cooling and power delivery constraints, we ran through our full test suite at stock settings and with PBO activated, rather than using an all-core overclock. Our PBO-enabled configurations did benefit from higher memory transfer rates, as detailed in the table below. As with any overclocking feature, using PBO voids your warranty.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i9-7980XE

Intel Core i9-7960X

Intel Core i9-7900X

Test Setup

We tested the second-gen Threadripper models with MSI's MEG X399 Creation motherboard.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper Gen 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 RGBIntel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066 Intel Core i7, Core i9 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)U.S. AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper Gen 1 & 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3200, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7960X, -7980XE, -7900XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466All Systems EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	GermanyAMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly KryonautU.S.Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark, AotS: Escalation and Dawn of War III

Test Notes

Unlike AMD's previous-gen Threadripper models, the WX-series CPUs include a Game Mode preset in the Ryzen Master software that disables three of four dies. Company representatives tell us this facilitates optimal performance in games. But AMD also provides toggles that allow experimentation with two- and four-die configurations. For this review's gaming benchmarks, we tested the Threadripper processors with Game Mode enabled. Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX consequently becomes a 6C/12T CPU for those tests.

Dynamic Local Mode is a new feature that debuts with the 2970WX, and it only applies to the WX-series models. We include a second bar chart for each game to quantify performance with this feature enabled or disabled at stock settings (labeled Creator/DM).

Gaming performance is measured at 1920x1080, minimizing graphics bottlenecks. Of course, as you step up to 2560x1440 or 3840x2160, the differences between processors shrink.

We have application test results with an overclocked Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, but weren't able to run that chip in its tuned state through our game benchmarks before it stopped working. Once we're able to get it back up and running, we'll update the gaming charts.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX's Game Mode drops the 24-core chip's count down to six active cores, but also prevents bandwidth-starved execution resources from handicapping performance during the DX11 and DX12 tests. Nevertheless, the 2970WX drops to the bottom of our chart. A dual-die 2920X easily beats the 2970WX, so it's clear that the quad-die CPU's topography is the issue.

UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS. Precision Boost Overdrive yields a 13.6 FPS gain for the Threadripper 2970WX.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that normally scales well with thread count.

Again, Ryzen Threadripper 2920X facilitates better performance than the 2970WX at stock settings. If there's a silver lining here, it's that PBO pushes today's subject beyond a stock 2990WX.

The second slide shows us that Dynamic Local Mode, which we used in tandem with Creator mode, imposes a slightly lower frame rate. Dynamic Local Mode's background process avoids shuffling threads that fully utilize the CPU's resources. Ashes of the Singularity does this, so the result isn't entirely surprising.

It is clear, however, that the 2970WX doesn’t scale linearly as cores and threads are added in Creator mode. You'll get similar (or better) performance in Game mode with just six cores active.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Threadripper processors perform well in this title. The 2970WX lands close to the top with PBO enabled, though the much cheaper Ryzen 7 2700 isn’t far behind.

The 2970WX in Game mode is faster than the same chip in Creator mode, even after we enable AMD's new Dynamic Local Mode. The company touted that switch's ability to improve performance "up to 49%,” but remember that those gains happen in Creator mode. You probably don't want to game in Creator mode.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V and Hitman

Far Cry 5

Intel's Core i9-9900K is fastest in Far Cry 5. But Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is also impressive after a bit of overclocking. Really, though, there aren't big differences between most of our test field.

While Far Cry 5 is one of the most repeatable metrics in our suite with a variance of less than 0.5 FPS between runs, we did notice some oddities after enabling Dynamic Local Mode. For instance, the results alternated between 60 and 65 FPS. This repeatable phenomenon persisted after several retests. We also recorded much lower 99^th percentile frame rates and uneven gameplay with the feature active. AMD tells us that Dynamic Local Mode is still being optimized for a broader selection of applications and games, so our observation will likely by rectified in the future. For now, Game mode is the go-to choice, as evidenced by the test results.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

An overclocked Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX slides past the Core i9-7900X, while the 2990WX doesn’t benefit as much from tuning. Once again, Game mode proves to be the obvious choice for gaming (despite a larger gain from Dynamic Local Mode this time around).

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.

Hitman responds well to high core counts and clock rates, so it isn’t surprising to find the overclocked Core i9-7960X in first place. The Core i9-9900K is impressive even in stock form, and the Ryzen 7 2700X proves to offer great bang for the buck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War and Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Shadow of War leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see large deltas between the fastest and slowest CPUs. The same observation applies to our experiments with Creator mode, Dynamic Local Mode, and Game mode.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect frame rates. If you’re gaming in Creator mode, the Dynamic Local feature serves up a big speed-up. But the standard Game mode still offers the best performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office and Productivity

Test Notes

We tested all Threadripper processors in Creator mode during our application benchmarks.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most Web browser workloads, single-threaded performance reigns supreme.

AMD's second-gen Threadripper line-up goes a long way to improve the performance of lightly-threaded workloads, but Intel still leads in these tests.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX lags the 2990WX in our Krakken benchmark, but automated overclocking functionality does deliver a solid improvement. Meanwhile, there's little to no improvement in the lightly-threaded Krakken from enabling Dynamic Local Mode. This feature does seem to help in MotionMark and WebXPRT.

Productivity

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX benefits from Dynamic Local Mode at stock clock rates, but still trails the 2990WX right out of its box. Interestingly, the 2920X and 2950X yield the best performance from any Threadripper CPU. Other desktop processors like the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i9-9900K fare well, too.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Again, mainstream processors offer the best value in these types of applications.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. Unfortunately, the Dynamic Local Mode doesn't benefit all applications. It doesn't necessarily hurt performance, either. The 2% delta between our stock 2970WX falls within UL's 3% threshold for run-to-run variability with PCMark 10.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

Many of these workloads stress the memory subsystem, diminishing Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX's core count advantage due to accesses from the remote memory controllers. The 2970WX benefits from higher clock rates to surpass the 2990WX in our single-threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests. Both are closely matched after we active PBO, though.

If you're looking for single-threaded supremacy, Intel's ninth-gen chips cannot be beaten, as evidenced by Core i9-9900K's dominance.

Threaded workloads are an ideal match to Threadripper's high core counts. But the Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX doesn't scale linearly in these types of workloads. That means the 2970WX's $500-cheaper price is attractive for high-end desktop PCs.

Encoding & Compression

Our compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. This workload should benefit from threading. But either memory throughput or poor software scaling holds the 2990WX back from realizing its potential in the compression test. The same issue affects Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX, though Dynamic Local Mode provides a slight performance uptick. But neither the 2970WX nor the 2990WX are a match for the 2920X and 2950X with their dual-die architectures. Conversely, the WX chips dominate our decompression tests, illustrating the performance trade-offs AMD's highest-end CPUs force you to make.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, is a great test to measure Threadripper’s AVX performance. Intel’s Core i9 employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. Intel's AVX instruction support shines during the single-threaded benchmark. However, spreading the workload across Threadripper's many cores helps improve its standing. Despite an eight-core advantage, the 2990WX offers little benefit over the 2970WX in the threaded y-cruncher test. Clearly, their cores suffer from a memory bandwidth bottleneck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation Compute and Graphics

Workstation Compute

Many workstation applications scale very well with additional cores in certain workloads or with special plugins, but the result is always the sum of many factors and tasks in which the pure computing power of all the cores is important, but even so also not crucial. Often enough, the parallelizable tasks do not scale beyond a certain number of cores / threads, so IPC will co-decide. And that's not the advantage of AMD.

The dynamic mode of the Ryzen TR 2970WX is another such thing in its own right, because between the individual iterations of a benchmark (between 3 and 5, depending on the application), it sometimes comes to very clear differences. We can only explain it again with the missing memory controller, since many AVX- and SSE-optimized codes (but not only those) depend on memory bandwidth. And when a software solution such as Dynamic Mode intervenes, the well-intentioned can sometimes turn into the opposite.

Workstation Graphics

While workstation graphics are a niche for most readers, some might consider using Threadripper 2970WX's twelve cores and 24 threads for professional tasks. Really, though, there aren't many threaded applications for real-time graphics output. These benchmarks mostly benefit from high IPC and frequency, which isn’t one of Threadripper’s inherent strengths. The results are not bad, but also not outstanding.

Nevertheless, there are also applications that have to calculate in parallel and are grateful for every additional thread. AutoCAD is just an example of the clock dependence of fewer threads when it comes to pure 2D drafting or real-time 3D graphics output. The graphic performance is very reminiscent of the general result in gaming, it doesn’t matter if you use DirectX, OpenGL, or just the Windows GDI.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

Interestingly, AMD reduced the idle power consumption of its second-gen Threadripper CPUs a bit. This is certainly motherboard-dependent, so be sure you're using the latest BIOS on your X399-based motherboard.

Just be ready for Windows 10 to bounce you back to 25-40W as background processes kick on and off (and particularly with PBO enabled for additional performance).

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X with PBO enabled hits clock rates as high as 4.3 GHz in our CAD workload, so power consumption spikes as well. The 2970WX is similar in that its high boost frequency results in a >64W measurement.

Our Witcher 3 benchmark is great for GPU power consumption comparisons. But it's less enlightening when we run it across different host processors because the underlying engine doesn't use enough cores. Assassin's Creed Odyssey is better about utilization, causing Threadripper's power to spike in excess of 100W. But that game's averages are far from reproducible, forcing us to keep it on the shelf.

Prime95 certainly isn't representative of an everyday scenario, but it's great for measuring peak theoretical power consumption. Some real-world applications pull even more power. For instance, a real Blender workload drives the 2970WX up to 230W, while we only measured 210W with Prime95! The same applies when we switch on PBO: Blender coaxes 447W from the Ryzen Threadripper chip compared to 416W in Prime95.

The smaller Ryzen TR 2920X is slightly different. It pulls 160W during the Blender workload, whereas Prime95 shows a power consumption of 180W. Activating PBO increases the delta: we measure 200W during the Blender test and 249W in Prime95. We can't explain why both CPUs react differently, but their results are reproducible.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Temperatures

If you really needed to, you could equip the Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX with a potent air cooler, so long as you don't overclock manually or activate Precision Boost Overdrive. However, a large Blender workload would completely overwhelm it. Conventional heat sinks and fans just aren't up to the task.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX can hit 450W during everyday operation. That amount of waste heat requires more than air or a compact all-in-one liquid cooler. You need a much more capable thermal solution if you want to unlock the CPU's maximum performance potential.

AMD deserves credit for this processor's finely-tuned protection mechanisms. Even with PBO active, you can easily push Threadripper 2970WX to the limits of a weaker cooler without damaging it. But you have to give up proper performance in return.

XFR2 and PBO both work well on a platform with ample cooling. The chip adjusts its voltages based on telemetry data, and PBO is actually preferable to manual overclocking. While we're not fans of hidden mechanisms, PBO does exactly what you expect.

AMD prioritizes package temperature: all measurements and information are based solely on this T_die reading. For compatibility reasons, the 27°C-higher T_ctl value is used for fan control. AMD sets the upper limit for Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX at 68°C, which translates to a T_ctl value of 95°C.

At idle, our cooler keeps Ryzen Threadripper 2920X below 25°C. Under a real-world Blender workload, we average about 43°C with the CPU keeping all cores at 4 GHz. With PBO active, the 2920X accelerates to 4.15 GHz across all of its cores. The average T_die rises to just over 49°C. This gives us a maximum delta of less than 30°C for our potent cooling solution.

During a normal Blender workload without PBO, Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX reaches 3.55 GHz on all cores and averages 48°C. With PBO turned on, the all-core clock rate jumps to 4.025 GHz at an average temperature of 62°C.

The CPU does peak at 68°C though, meaning our sample is at its limit for full performance. Any higher and it would need to throttle back a bit.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX marches onto the HEDT scene with 24 cores and 48 threads. That's more cores than any competing Intel processor. But not all cores are created equal. Intel still gets more work done per clock cycle with its ninth-gen Core CPUs than AMD does with second-gen Ryzen. What's more, the 2970WX exhibits the same idiosyncrasies as the flagship Ryzen Threadripper 2900WX. It's an impressive performer in heavily-threaded workloads that aren't memory-bound, but it struggles in some applications that don't scale well based on core count (particularly if they're sensitive to available memory bandwidth).

More mainstream Ryzen and Core CPUs offer better value to gamers. Even the X-series Threadripper processors are smarter purchases than the halo WX models if you're an enthusiast. AMD's less expensive Threadrippers promise a better experience in the lightly-threaded apps that Intel continues to dominate.

But maybe Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX serves as a less expensive entry point for professionals able to exploit its copious core count in workstation-class software. The $1800 Threadripper 2990WX doesn’t always scale well, particularly in AVX-heavy tasks like HandBrake. If you're going to have to make compromises like that, you might as well save some money on the $1300 2970WX and get similar performance in the apps able to utilize its quad-die design effectively.

The X399 platform is expensive, and while drop-in compatibility with existing motherboards is a big advantage for AMD, you need a board with robust power circuitry. You also want a power supply with two EPS connectors. Cooling is a little easier on AMD's HEDT CPUs than Intel's competing Skylake-X chips, largely due to the Indium solder that AMD uses between its dies and heat spreader. But a beefy water cooler is still almost mandatory if you plan on overclocking.

AMD’s Dynamic Local Mode feature attempts to circumvent the performance issues endemic to its quad-die topology. Unfortunately, the mode is not as effective as we hoped it'd be. Some games do register big benefits. However, they still mostly trail the performance you get by flipping the CPU into Game mode via Ryzen Master, disabling 75% of the 2970WX's cores. AMD claims Dynamic Local Mode's background service will improve over time as the company characterizes more applications. Still, we see this as a bandage for the inconvenience of having to change modes and reboot your PC.

The competition isn't sitting still. Intel continues to get more competitive as it tries winning back the hearts and minds of enthusiasts. Its Basin Falls/Skylake-X Refresh processors should arrive next month. They'll still top out at 18 cores and 36 threads, and undoubtedly bear the company's notoriously high prices. But they are also rumored to employ Indium solder for improved thermal dissipation. That could make the new CPUs more attractive to tuners. It'd also be nice to see higher multi-core Turbo Boost bins that bolster performance in lightly-threaded workloads. Intel is also eschewing the practice of disabling PCIe lanes on less expensive HEDT processors, which is obviously a response to AMD’s practice of exposing all 60 PCIe lanes on every Threadripper model.

For now, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, and as an extension the 2920X, offer the best value for high-end desktop PCs. Much like the Threadripper 2990WX, the 2970WX we tested today is a niche product for professionals seeking very specific capabilities. The competitive landscape is changing though, so we'd recommend waiting this one out.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Ryzen Threadripper 2 (2990WX and 2950X) Review: AMD Unleashes 32 Cores

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction

AMD is building on the success of its high-end desktop Ryzen Threadripper processors with a handful of powerful new models known as the Threadripper 2000-Series or, unofficially, Threadripper 2.

The flagship Threadripper 2990WX is an $1800 beast armed with an incredible 32 Zen+-based cores and the ability to work on 64 threads concurrently. Threadripper 2970WX wields 24 cores and 48 threads, plus lower boost frequencies, but also pushes pricing down to $1300. Those are both quad-die configurations. AMD is also updating its dual-die line-up with the Threadripper 2950X, wielding 16 Zen+ cores for $900, and Threadripper 2920X, sporting 12 cores and the ability to work on 24 threads concurrently for $650. The 2950X, specifically, serves up impressive value across a diverse range of workloads. It may very well be the CPU to beat in today's high-end desktop market.

Even though AMD claims its top-end Threadripper 2990WX is up to 51% faster than Intel's $2000 Core i9-7980XE, there are some caveats enthusiasts need to be made aware of. For instance, the WX series' multi-chip module comprises four separate dies. Due to the constraints of AMD's existing Threadripper design, two of the 2990WX's dies aren't connected directly to main memory. That creates an architecture capable of incredible performance in heavily-threaded workloads that aren't sensitive to memory throughput, but less impressive results in bandwidth-hungry applications that don't scale well with extra cores. We found that the Threadripper 2990WX is mostly a niche product for professionals with specific requirements. Still, it sets a new high water mark for compute horsepower on the desktop.

Threadripper 2

Earlier this year, AMD retooled its mainstream Ryzen line-up with new Zen+ optimizations that include 12nm manufacturing, improved memory and cache latency, higher clock rates, and enhanced multi-core Precision Boost frequencies. The net effect of those changes carry over to the new Threadripper models.

And like the previous-gen Threadripper models, AMD offers improved frequency and voltage scaling by selecting the top 5% of Zeppelin dies for its halo product line. That should translate to lower voltage requirements at any given clock rate.

	Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX	Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Socket	TR4	TR4
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	16 / 32
Base Frequency	3.0 GHz	3.5 GHz
Boost Frequency	4.2 GHz	4.4 GHz
Memory Speed	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)
Memory Controller	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)
Integrated Graphics	No	No
Cache (L2 / L3)	80MB	40MB
Architecture	Zen+	Zen+
Process	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo
TDP	250W	180W

With today's introduction, AMD splits its Threadripper portfolio into the WX and X families. Similar to the company's previous-gen X products, the two new WX models are geared toward intense multitasking workloads, 3D rendering, media encoding, and cinema mastering. That makes them attractive to software developers, video/audio engineers, and content creators.

The 32C/64T Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has a 3 GHz base frequency that stretches up to 4.2 GHz via AMD's XFR (eXtreme Frequency Range) algorithms. It does battle with Intel's $2000 Core i9-7980XE, boasting 18 Hyper-Threaded cores. AMD claims the 2990WX's single-threaded performance only lags the -7980XE by four percent. That's the closest the company has come to matching Intel in this important metric.

AMD also has a $1300 Threadripper 2970WX in the works that serves up 24 cores able to work on 48 threads simultaneously. However, it won't be available until October.

Each of the WX processors' four dies feature eight physical cores and 16MB of L3 cache. Threadripper 2990WX and 2970WX both enjoy the benefit of 64MB L3 cache. However, AMD disables two cores per die on the 2970WX to facilitate its 24-core configuration.

The WX family's more sophisticated layout results in a 250W thermal design power. Of course, that's significantly higher than the original Threadripper's 180W rating, meaning you need a high-end cooling solution to realize peak performance (particularly if you plan on overclocking). AMD ships all Threadripper CPUs with an Asetek bracket that provides partial coverage of the massive heat spreader using supported closed-loop liquid coolers. According to AMD, this partial coverage is fine for stock operation. But we found that full-coverage coolers work better. AMD also collaborated with Cooler Master to develop the Wraith Ripper heat sink/fan combo for its Socket TR4 interface. It's sold separately, though. The premium cooler comes with configurable RGB lighting and was designed to accommodate tall memory modules under its fin stack.

AMD uses Indium solder between its dies and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel employs thermal grease. Intel also recommends liquid cooling on its Skylake-X processors, while, again, AMD contends that air cooling is ample.

	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe 3.0	DRAM	TDP	MSRP	Price Per Core
TR 2990WX	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1799	$56
TR 2970WX	24 / 48	3.0 / 3.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1299	$54
Core i9-7980XE	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.4	24.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1999	$111
TR 2950X	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$899	$56
TR 1950X	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.4	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$750	$47
Core i9-7960X	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.4	22	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1699	$106
TR 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$649	$54
TR 1920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$399	$33
Core i9-7920X	12 /24	2.9 / 4.4	16.50	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1199	$100
Core i9-7900X	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	13.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$999	$99
Core i7-8700K	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	12	16	Dual DDR4-2666	95W	$359	$60
Ryzen 7 2700X	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	16	16	Dual DDR4-2933	105W	$329	$41

Unlike AMD's first round of Threadripper chips, which were aimed at prosumers, this time the company is going after enthusiasts and gamers with its X series. The $900 Ryzen Threadripper 2950X weighs in with 16 cores and 32 threads, but features much higher clock rates than the WX models. The 2950X's 3.5 GHz base frequency and 4.4 GHz boost rate are slight steps up from Threadripper 1950X's 3.4/4.2 GHz specifications. Expect to find Threadripper 2950X in stock on August 31, 2018.

AMD plans to launch the $650 Threadripper 2920X in October. That 12-core, 24-thread CPU will offer a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a maximum boost clock rate of 4.3 GHz. As with previous X-series models, the 2950X and 2920X utilize a pair of eight-core dies and two dummy packages that help with mechanical stability as you tighten down a thermal solution. The active dies expose 32MB of L3 cache, and abide the same 180W TDP rating as first-gen Threadripper processors.

All of the new Threadripper chips sport unlocked ratio multipliers for overclocking, along with 60 lanes of third-gen PCI Express (plus four lanes attached to the supporting chipset). All of that connectivity could come in handy for discrete graphics cards for rendering or compute, but they're also useful for high-performance storage and networking.

Threadripper CPUs feature independent dual-channel memory controllers located on two dies, which combine to provide quad-channel support with varying data transfer rates based upon your configuration. With today's introduction, AMD bumps its maximum specification up to DDR4-2933 from DDR4-2666. Today, the platform supports ECC memory and up to 256GB of capacity. However, it can accommodate up to 2TB as memory density increases.

DIMM Config	Memory Ranks	Official Supported Transfer Rate (MT/s)
4 of 4	Single	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-2133
4 of 4	Dual	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-1866

Precision Boost 2, XFR2, and Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO)

AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors included features called Precision Boost, a dynamic voltage frequency scaling technology similar to Intel's Turbo Boost, and eXtended Frequency Range, which provided additional frequency uplift if your cooling solution had thermal headroom to spare. Those 1000-series CPUs only offered quad-core (X series) or all-core Precision Boost and XFR clock rates.

The Threadripper WX processor's highest boost frequency occurs on eight cores simultaneously, while the X-series chips boost on four cores. There remains headroom to exploit, though. Precision Boost 2, which debuted on the desktop with AMD's Raven Ridge processors, and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. Precision Boost 2 delivers up to 500 MHz-higher clocks during multi-core workloads, while XFR2 adds an additional 16% boost if your cooler is beefy enough.

AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 2950X launch marks the official introduction of Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), a feature that rolled out quietly alongside second-gen Ryzen CPUs earlier in 2018. PBO is an automated overclocking feature that boosts performance to the limits of a motherboard and cooler's capabilities. Cruelly, using it voids Threadripper's three-year warranty. And AMD unfortunately has no equivalent to Intel's optional Performance Tuning Protection Plan.

The new Threadrippers already push the frequency/voltage curve's boundaries at stock settings, so manual tuning often result in worse single-threaded performance because the silicon can't accelerate as aggressively under an all-core overclock. Locking the processor to a static frequency also prohibits it from downshifting into lower clock rate to save power at idle. PBO addresses the issues with manual overclocking head-on. It dynamically overclocks the processor and communicates with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard's power delivery subsystem can do. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2, XFR2, and PBO bins because the opportunistic algorithms achieve different frequencies based on temperature, current, and load.

All of the 2000-series Threadripper processors are technically backward-compatible with existing X399 motherboards. With that said, power delivery is an important variable to consider, given the requirements of 32 cores versus 16. MSI and Gigabyte both announced new X399 motherboards with beefier power delivery subsystems, while Asus introduced an add-on kit for one of its existing motherboards that improves VRM cooling.

Part of the Threadripper package is, well, AMD's packaging. The original Threadripper box set a new bar for the industry (you can see our Threadripper 2 unboxing here), and the company stepped up its game with an even larger package this time around.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy - CPU Comparison with Benchmarks

MORE: All CPUs Content

Architecture, NUMA & Game Mode

It Starts With 12nm LP

AMD's Threadripper 2 processors are manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 12nm LP process technology. The ported-over design helps boost transistor performance, but does not affect die area or transistor density. As a result, the Zeppelin die's ~4.8 billion transistors and 213mm² area remain similar from first-gen Ryzen. The dual-die X-series models feature a total of 9.6 billion transistors and 426mm² of silicon, while the quad-die WX processors feature 19.2 billion transistors over 852mm².

Lower leakage current does enable 200 MHz-higher clock rates or an 80-120mV core voltage reduction at any given frequency compared to 14nm manufacturing. All told, AMD claims the 12nm design enables up to 11% less power consumption than 14nm-based Threadripper CPUs at the same clock rates, or up to 16% more performance at the same thermal design power. AMD also adds other nuanced refinements, like lower L1 (15%), L2 (9%), and L3 (8%) cache latencies, along with reduced memory latency (2%).

2990WX Architecture

Threadripper 2990WX borrows from AMD's EPYC server designs and comes with four active dies. The company fused off PCIe and memory control from two of the dies, creating silicon only useful for computing. Meanwhile, the other two I/O-enabled dies serve up two channels of DDR4 memory support and 32 lanes of PCIe 3.0 each.

Unfortunately, the compute dies suffer from increased latency on every request to main memory and PCIe-attached devices, as those requests always have to traverse the Infinity Fabric.

AMD added more Infinity Fabric channels to connect two more dies. Unfortunately, that has a tremendous impact on fabric bandwidth, which drops from 50 Gb/s on a 16-core Threadripper 2950X to 25 Gb/s in this implementation. And again, AMD measured performance with a 3200 MT/s data rate, meaning throughput at DDR4-2933 will be lower. Even with the benefits of tightly-controlled fabric scheduling magic, the combination of reduced bandwidth and 32 threads that must communicate over the fabric for I/O and memory requests has an impact on performance.

According to chip analyst David Schor at WikiChip, each request from the compute die requires interfacing with the Cache-Coherent Masters (CCM), which then interfaces with the CAKE (Coherent AMD socKet Extender) module that encodes the request and sends it to the remote I/O die. The remote CAKE module then decodes the request, fetches the requested data via the UMC (Unified Memory Controller), and then encodes the data and transmits it back to the compute die.

Increased traffic and reduced fabric throughput will have a tangible impact on memory-hungry applications, leading to sub-par performance scaling under some conditions. Although Threadripper 2990WX is clearly aimed at the semi-professional market, configurations hosting multiple GPUs may slow down due to increased fabric latency and reduced throughput to remote PCIe lanes. That'd also affect the performance of PCIe-based M.2 storage and LAN devices connected to remote dies.

MSI's MEG Creation motherboard diagram provides a nice summary of the split connectivity between dies. And be mindful of new population rules, such as inserting the first GPU into PCIe slot four, along with custom M.2 recommendations. You need to populate all four DRAM channels or follow dual-channel population rules in order to realize maximum performance, as performance drops sharply in some dual-channel configurations due to the distributed design.

AMD carves the Threadripper 2990WX into four NUMA domains that cannot be altered. As such, the processor does not have a local memory toggle for its Game Mode feature. Instead, the processor simply flips into "1/4" mode, which disables all but one die and effectively creates an 8C/16T CPU. Ryzen Master also has "1/2" and "Off" options that expose 16 cores and 32 threads, or 32 cores and 64 threads.

The company claims it could not enable the compute dies' memory and I/O controllers even partially without significantly overhauling the package's trace routing, requiring a new socket interface. AMD reps say they prioritized drop-in compatibility with the existing motherboard and cooler ecosystem, leading them to build Threadripper 2990WX the way it turned out.

AMD continues working with Microsoft to route threads to the die with direct-attached memory first, and then spill remaining threads over to the compute dies. Unfortunately, the scheduler currently treats all dies as equal, operating in Round Robin mode. As a result, even moderately-threaded applications can suffer at the hands of high memory latency and low throughput. This is further complicated by thread migration. According to AMD, Microsoft has not committed to a timeline for updating its scheduler.

The Zeppelin Building Block

The Zen architecture employs a four-core CCX (CPU Complex) building block. Each CCX has 8MB of L3 cache split into four slices; each core in the CCX accesses all L3 slices with the same average latency. Two CCXes come together to create an eight-core Zeppelin die, and they communicate with each other via AMD’s Infinity Fabric. The CCXes share the same dual-channel memory controller. This is basically two quad-core CPUs talking to each other over the Infinity Fabric pathway that also handles northbridge and PCIe traffic.

Although each core in a four-core CCX can access the local cache with the same average latency, trips to fetch data in adjacent CCXes incur a latency penalty. Communication between threads on cores located in disparate CCXes also suffers.

2950X Architecture & Game Mode

Threadripper 2950X mirrors the layout of AMD's first-gen Threadripper chips: two Zeppelin dies are connected via another layer of the Infinity Fabric. AMD flanks them with a pair of dummy dies that serve as non-functional fillers to ensure the heat spreader's structural integrity and consistent mating with the socket's pins.

Remember, each Zeppelin die has its own memory and PCIe controller. If a thread running on one core needs to access data resident in cache on another die, it has to traverse the fabric between those dies and incur significant latency. Naturally, the latency penalty between dies is higher than it is between CCXes in a single-die configuration. But AMD claims to have made some improvements there. The 2950X purportedly offers 64ns latency to near memory and 105ns to far memory, while the previous-gen 1950X had to wait 78ns and 133ns, respectively. As per usual, the speed of the Infinity Fabric is tied to the memory controller, so higher data rate settings are desirable. AMD measured Threadripper 2's fabric performance with a 3200 MT/s data rate, which means fabric latency at the recommended DDR4-2933 will be higher.

To combat the potential for performance regression as a result of its "go-wide" approach, AMD devised an interesting solution: it introduced a memory access switch that you can toggle via motherboard BIOS or the Ryzen Master software. The Local and Distributed settings flip between either NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) or UMA (Uniform Memory Access), same as they did for AMD's first-gen Threadripper CPUs.

UMA (Distributed) is pretty simple; it allows both dies to access all of the attached memory. NUMA mode (Local) attempts to keep all data for the process executing on the die confined to its directly attached memory controller, establishing one NUMA node per die. The goal is to minimize requests to remote memory attached to the other die. NUMA works best if programs are designed specifically to utilize it. Even though most desktop PC software wasn't written with NUMA in mind, performance gains are still possible in non-NUMA applications.

AMD also allows you to disable cores in Legacy Compatibility mode, which disables one die via a Windows command. This allows some programs that won't function with 32 threads to execute properly, and it also eliminates cross-die communication. The system can still access I/O connected to the second die, though, so you don't lose any associated memory or attached peripherals.

A set of toggles generally offers the best performance in games and applications by combining these settings optimally. Game Mode disables one die with the Legacy Compatibility mode, and then switches the 2950X into Local memory mode, effectively creating an 8C/16T CPU. Creator mode uses the Distributed memory setting and disables Legacy Compatibility, providing access to Threadripper 2950X's full armament of 16 cores and 32 threads for demanding workloads.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Ryzen Master, Motherboards & Test Setup

Ryzen Master

AMD's second-gen Threadripper processors communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard's power delivery subsystem can do, which is the key enabler for Precision Boost Overdrive.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds real-time telemetry data back to the Infinity Fabric, which then allows the processor to affect performance based on thermal and power conditions dynamically. AMD exposes some of these monitoring features with its updated Ryzen Master overclocking software.

Each motherboard vendor defines its own maximum amperage for PBO based on the power delivery subsystem's capabilities. As you can see in the Ryzen Master screenshot below, MSI has its own custom variables assigned for EDC, TDC, and PPT limits in the MEG X399 Creation motherboard. Due to different settings on different motherboards, PBO performance will vary.

You can also use Ryzen Master to switch the X-series processors into Game or Creator Mode, and toggle the WX-series chips into various legacy compatibility modes. AMD's software now supports per-CCX overclocking as well, and includes a built-in stress test. Again, the three-year warranty does not cover damage caused by overclocking, so exercise caution.

X399 Motherboards

Threadripper 2 is compatible with the X399 chipset, and AMD guarantees that all existing motherboards support stock operation. You do need an updated BIOS. However, all X399-based motherboards have an out-of-band BIOS update mechanism, so you won't need one of AMD's Boot Kits. Here's the rub: while all X399 motherboards support PBO (it's baked into the CPU), many existing platforms have limited power delivery subsystems that weren't designed to accommodate the 32C/64T 2990WX. Ultimately, they'll limit overclocking headroom. If you plan to overclock a second-gen Threadripper or enable PBO, it would be wise to verify the capacity of your motherboard's power circuitry first.

If you're building a first Threadripper-based PC, MSI has a new MEG X399 Creation. Moreover, Gigabyte recently introduced its X399 Aorus Xtreme. Both boards feature capable voltage regulation subsystems and robust cooling. Asus also introduced a cooling kit for its existing ROG X399 Zenith Extreme, which should bring that board up to par with the WX family's greater power consumption.

To recap, the X399 chipset supports two USB 3.1 Gen2 and six USB 3.1 Gen1 ports, along with six USB 2.0 connections. Two PCIe 3.0 lanes allow motherboard vendors to add more storage connectivity (four SATA or two SATA Express), and the eight general-purpose PCIe 2.0 lanes accommodate other controllers, such as Ethernet or WLAN/Bluetooth. Eight SATA ports round out the chipset's connectivity options, and you can leverage several RAID configurations with the attached SATA devices.

The Threadripper processor provides an additional eight USB 3.1 Gen1 ports and four SATA connections (hardware RAID supported). The 60 remaining PCIe lanes support up to seven PCIe devices. Threadripper 2 CPUs also benefit from an improved SensMI suite, including StorMI Technology. That's a software-based tiering solution able to meld the low price and high capacity of hard drives with the speed of SSDs, 3D XPoint (including Intel's Optane parts), or even up to 2GB of RAM. For more information, check out AMD and Enmotus Expand FuzeDrive Offerings.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i9-7960X

Intel Core i9-7980XE

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Test Setup

You naturally need a capable power supply to support Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX. After a moderate 3.8 GHz overclock, we observed as much as 38A of current draw during a threaded Cinebench test. Even in its stock configuration, the CPU can pull more than 20A in that benchmark. And if you enable PBO, current draw jumps to a similar level as if you were overclocking manually.

We tested the Threadripper 2 models with MSI's MEG X399 Creation motherboard. Due to cooling and power delivery constraints, we ran through our full test suite at stock settings and with PBO activated, rather than using an all-core overclock. Our PBO-enabled configurations did benefit from higher memory transfer rates, as detailed in the table below.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 RGBIntel LGA 1151 (Z370): Intel Core i7-8700K MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066 Intel Core i7, Core i9 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)U.S. AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper Gen 1 & 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3200Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7960X, -7980XE, -7900XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)Intel Core i7-8086K, Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	GermanyAMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly KryonautU.S.Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

AMD designed Threadripper 2990WX for prosumer-class applications. Unlike the previous-gen Threadripper models, its WX-series models come with a Game Mode preset in the Ryzen Master software that disables three of the four available dies (1/4). AMD tells us this offers the best average performance in a wide range of titles. But the company also provides toggles that allow experimentation with two- and four-die configurations.

Unlike the first-gen Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, AMD aims its 2950X at enthusiasts and gamers. For this review, we tested Threadripper 2950X using AMD's Game Mode setting. But in our dedicated review of that chip, we'll go into more depth on the available combinations of settings and their impact on performance.

We tested across our gaming suite using a 1920x1080 resolution, minimizing graphics bottlenecks. Of course, as you step up to 2560x1440 or 3840x2160, the difference between processors shrinks. Just bear in mind that, beyond the average frame rates we report, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 2950X are also well-suited to gaming while multi-tasking and streaming due to their high core counts.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Moreover, UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.

Tests that are sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput, such as VRMark, were a challenge for AMD's first-gen Threadripper processors. But we saw a big improvement from Threadripper 2950X compared to the previous-gen 1950X, which was expected due to the more aggressive multi-core turbo bins.

The 2990WX's Game Mode reduces overall core count, but it also keeps bandwidth-starved cores from hurting performance. Nevertheless, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX fell to the bottom of our chart due to lower per-core performance. Enabling PBO helped push it up to the middle of our test field.

3DMark typically scales well with higher core/thread counts. But the Threadripper processors, including the 32C/64T 2990WX, lagged Intel's line-up. The 2950X did enjoy a nice speed-up compared to AMD's older Threadripper 1950X. However, the 2990WX was hobbled by its Game Mode setting that turned it into an 8C/16C CPU. Both Threadripper 2 models realized solid gains from enabling Precision Boost Overdrive.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count.

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX lagged the rest of our test pool at its stock settings, but matched an overclocked 1950X with PBO enabled.

Meanwhile, the 2950X scored another solid victory against AMD's previous-gen 1950X. But neither model comes close to matching Intel's highest-end processors.

This is one of the best examples of a game that scales well with host processing resources. However, the fact that Ryzen 7 2700X outperformed most of the test pool at a significantly lower price is telling. It's best to stick with mainstream desktop CPUs if gaming is your primary goal.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

Intel's high-end desktop roster dominated the Civilization VI AI benchmark.

Again, Threadripper 2950X fared well compared to previous-gen Threadripper models.

Although Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX landed behind its overclocked predecessors, automated tuning yielded a respectable performance boost.

This test continues to favor Intel architectures, and it's noteworthy that we don't have overclocked Core i7 and Ryzen 7 models in our chart to keep analysis simpler. But those CPUs offer the best value when gaming is your priority.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX beat the stock 1950X and 1920X. And after enabling PBO, it also beat those two models overclocked as high as we dared take them.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX were much more competitive in this game once we enabled their PBO feature.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Far Cry 5, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry 5

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX dragged along the bottom of our chart at its stock settings. Enabling PBO helped quite a bit, though.

Threadripper 2950X was just a bit faster. That's particularly good news for gamers, given a much lower price tag.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

Threadripper 2950X beat the Core i9-7900X after we enabled Precision Boost Overdrive. Then again, Intel's Core i7-8700K and AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X reminded us why we don't recommend installing high-end desktop CPUs in most gaming PCs.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our Hitman test to its prior glory.

Hitman responds to core count and clock rate, so it wasn't a surprise to see Intel's overclocked Core i9-7960X perform best in our benchmark. Otherwise, the results landed where we expected them to.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Both second-gen Threadripper processors were highly competitive in this game (though Ryzen Threadripper 2950X unsurprisingly offered better performance).

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect frame rates. As a result, Intel's Core i7-8700K kept pace with much more expensive alternatives.

We observed a repeatable spike in our Threadripper 2990WX benchmark results. However, it had little impact on overall performance and registered as only a slight dip in the 99.9th percentile frame time.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, the final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications. The Threadripper 2950X outperforms its predecessor handily at stock settings, but the tuned Threadripper 1920X’s 4.0 GHz clock speed steals the show. The 2990WX languishes at the bottom of the overall score chart at stock settings, largely due to its lower frequencies, but tuning boosts it into contention with the Core i9-7980XE.

The Threadripper 2950X generally offers a more balanced profile than the 2990WX in most tests, but the 2990WX’s strength in the Indesign and Photoshop Heavy tests contribute to its overall lead. The tuned 1920X regularly pops up over the 2950X, but we verified the results through extensive retests.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most web browser workloads, single threaded performance reigns supreme here. As such, it’s not surprising to find the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 2700X
at the top of the pile.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics (rather than JavaScript), are also exceedingly sensitive to CPU clock rates. Intel’s processors take the uncontested lead. The same story plays out in the WebXPRT benchmark.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. This benchmark remains firmly in Intel’s favor, and once again we notice the Threadripper 1920X’s 4.0 GHz clock speed boosting it above its newer counterparts.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Ryzen 7 2700X takes the lead while the 2990WX continues to lag in tests that aren’t heavily parallelized, but tuning brightens the picture somewhat.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized and the 2990WX rises to the occasion. The processor easily beats out the rest of the test pool, but
considering its 32 cores, the slight advantage over the tuned 16C Threadripper 1950X reminds us that AMD’s new flagship's performance doesn’t always scale well.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Threaded workloads remain an uncontested strength of AMD's Zen-based processors and their hefty core counts. Many of these workloads stress the memory subsystem, which reduces the advantage of the Threadripper 2990WX’s hefty core count due to accesses from the remote memory controllers.

The Ryzen line-up dominates the multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests, but the 2990WX only provides a 35% speed over the 2950X in the POV-Ray benchmark. In light of its 100% increase in cores, that doesn’t represent the best scaling possible. The 2990WX provides a 66% performance improvement in the Cinebench score.

Corona also scales well as the Threadripper 2990WX unleashes the full might of its 64 threads. Intel’s processors still hold the per-core advantage in the single core POV-Ray and Cinebench tests, but its easy to see that AMD’s multi-die design can help offset that advantage with extra cores in threaded workloads.

Encoding & Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. This workload benefits heavily from threading, but either memory throughput or poor software scaling is holding the 29990WX back from realizing
its potential in the compression test. Threadripper 2950X, which comes with two die outfitted with directly-attached memory controllers, offers a nice boost over its predecessor at stock settings. The Core i9-7980XE reigns supreme in this test, which could be due to its single monolithic die and mesh architecture that facilitates much higher bandwidth to the cores. In contrast, the decompression test highlights the 2990WX’s devastating performance when the cores are properly fed.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, is a great test to measure Threadripper 2’s AVX performance. Intel’s Core i9 employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. That means the 2990WX’s two extra die bring much more AVX performance to the table, provided you can feed the data-hungry AVX operations. The 2990WX nears the top of the chart, but scaling is sub-optimal compared to the 2950X, which has half the AVX units. This could again fall back on poor memory subsystem performance, which hinders some applications.

That same story plays out in Handbrake. AMD said during its briefings that Handbrake is cache dependent and doesn’t utilize cores fully, thus yielding a smaller performance boost than expected. The Handbrake x265 test, which uses a heavier distribution of AVX instructions than the H264 test, yields a minimal performance advantage for the 2990WX compared to the 2950X. We think that memory access plays a larger role in this result than sub-optimal software scaling.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Workstation - Graphics

Anyone interested in using a Threadripper processor in a workstation should carefully consider the applications they're running. Over and over, we're reminded that not all tasks can be effectively parallelized, and many workloads are only optimized for four to eight cores.

AutoCAD is a prime example. If you work in 2D draft mode, it's rare to see more than two cores utilized. There, IPC throughput wins over core count. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X can at least push out in front of Ryzen 7 2700X. However, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX looks out of place, given a much higher price tag.

Our results were similar in the Cinebench graphics benchmark, which combines host processing and 3D workloads. Faced with a slightly more demanding benchmark, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX with PBO enabled hit a high enough clock rate to match Threadripper 2950X.

In the end, though, Intel's line-up fared far better.

SolidWorks consists of several components and packages that utilize host processing resources differently. In the graphics-bound composite, which is not optimized for threading, AMD's portfolio was generally routed.

AMD's extra cores were a little more effective in the Creo graphics composite test. But again, Intel dominated absolutely.

Catia is similar to the Cinebench graphics test, so our results weren't particularly surprising. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X took a wafer-thin lead over the Ryzen 7 2700X, demonstrating that its extra cores don't trip over themselves in lightly-threaded workloads.

This Blender workload doesn't utilize lots of execution cores, but at least it put AMD's newest Threadripper CPUs ahead of Ryzen 7 2700X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Workstation - Compute

Whereas rendering tasks are typically graphics-heavy, favoring CPUs with high clock rates, compute workloads are more up Threadripper's alley. The new 2950X is definitely a step up from AMD's previous-generation Threadripper 1950X. Meanwhile, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX doesn't always scale well, making it difficult to justify that premium price.

In SolidWorks, for example, Threadripper CPUs failed to impress since our benchmark didn't scale well across available cores. It's also no secret that many applications were compiled and optimized for Intel CPUs, putting AMD at an inherent disadvantage.

Once we fire up a benchmark that's able to utilize all available processing resources, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper chips take off. The 2990WX carved out a seemingly insurmountable lead, while the 2950X with PBO enabled nudged past Intel's Core i9-7980XE.

The 3ds Max SPECapc workload is now dominated by AMD, which uses physical cores to outmaneuver Intel's mix of real and logical resources. The Ryzen 7 2700X did score a first-place finish thanks to its higher clock rate, though.

Flip over to the pure rendering score and Threadripper 2950X with PBO enabled jumps into first place. There, Ryzen 7 2700X is easily outperformed by multiple Threadripper configurations.

The LuxRender workload from SPECwpc is well-optimized for threading, allowing AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX to truly shine. Every other model is left in the dust.

HandBrake does scale across multiple cores, but it tops out before the 32C/64T Threadripper 2990WX really takes off. As a result, the flagship Threadripper model loses to AMD's 2950X with PBO enabled.

7-Zip is similar in that our workload doesn't scale perfectly according to core/thread count. In fact, this benchmark is influenced more heavily by clock rate. Eight threads are usually sufficient, allowing Core i7-8700K to claim a first-place finish.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Cooling, Clock Rates & Power Limits

At first, we were amused by AMD's suggestion that these new Ryzen Threadripper CPUs could be cooled effectively with heat sinks and fans. But wouldn't it be something if the company's representatives were correct and we could cover the 2990WX with a beefy-enough sink to keep it running at full speed under load, without throttling issues? After all, we've already seen Intel's flagship stagger under the limitations of thermal grease between its heat spreader and die. Might AMD's use of Indium solder pay off during such an experiment?

Air Cooling And Its Limits

As it turns out, you really can cool the 180W Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and the 250W Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX using a heat sink and fan. It's even possible to leave PBO turned on with Threadripper 2950X, though noise starts becoming an issue under loads where power consumption peaks around 250W.

Although the Cooler Master-supplied heat sink is plenty capable, we have to imagine anyone willing to air-cool such an expensive CPU probably wants a potent Noctua sink with a quieter fan instead. What annoyed us most about AMD's provided cooler was the sleeved cable coming out the side facing your first PCIe add-in card. If you put a thick, high-end board in that first slot, then the cooler's USB port is completely covered and no longer usable. Additionally, a graphics card with a backplate touches the sink, which shouldn't happen.

At this point, we're switching to water cooling, and once the thermal limit of these processors is reached, we'll use an even more powerful chiller system.

Of course, if you're hoping to realize the maximum benefit of XFR2 and PBO, it's important to use the right cooler, and to back it with a high-end power supply. After taking the 2990WX to its limits, we hooked up the chiller and measured more than 42A of current on the motherboard's EPS connectors. Under LN2 cooling, current draw exceeded 50A and we had to circumvent the motherboard's 500W limit.

Both models appear to use a new temperature detection and reporting mechanism compared to the previous generation. Although we do see a 27°C-higher Tctl value, it only exists for backward compatibility on functions like the fan control circuit. Otherwise, both Threadripper models have an upper Tdie limit of 68°C, which would yield a Tctl value of 95°C. Tctl is therefore no longer a measured variable.

The curves for Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX appear in the graph below. With the heat sink/fan and closed-loop liquid cooler, this 32-core beast doesn't get very far under a taxing load.

It's easy to applaud Ryzen Threadripper 2950X's performance, since you don't have to put as much effort into cooling it. Whereas the 2990WX quickly ran out of steam under air or a closed-loop liquid-cooling setup, this model behaves well even if you top it with an all-in-one setup.

While a tuned Ryzen Threadripper 2950X can be cooled at just over 250W using a heat sink and fan (and still operate properly), you really want a liquid-cooler of some sort to get the best performance from it. But without PBO enabled, air cooling is effective enough, even up to 180W.

When it comes to Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX without PBO turned on, it's possible to hit that same 250W threshold and achieve sufficient cooling performance with a heat sink and fan. If you want to overclock much further, invest in a more capable thermal solution.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Power Consumption

It appears that AMD made a conscious effort to minimize idle power consumption compared to previous-generation Threadripper CPUs. This is most impressive from Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, which hosts four active dies. Clearly, that model ducks in well under the level you'd expect by multiplying Ryzen 7 2700X's idle power consumption by four.

Threadripper 2950X fared especially well during our longer CAD run, which predominantly only uses up to four cores.

The 2990WX, on the other hand, sucks down a lot more power without a commensurate performance improvement.

Our gaming workload reflects big gains from AMD's second-gen Threadripper CPUs compared to their predecessors. Even turning PBO on for some extra performance doesn't kill the power story. Both new models offer significant efficiency improvements.

Full load represents a worst-case scenario for any flagship-class CPU.

Both new Ryzen Threadripper models employ Indium solder between their dies and heat spreader, whereas Intel sticks with thermal grease. We delidded CPUs from both families in order to measure overclocked power consumption without thermal throttling ruining our readings. Otherwise, we would have hit a ceiling at around 300W with Intel's grease under the hood.

It's apparent that motherboards impose AMD's specifications as hard limits: Threadripper 2950X, 1950X, and 1920X all top out at 180W without PBO enabled, while 2990WX peaks at 250W and not a watt more.

Power management is therefore the real highlight of today's launch, especially since the influence of cooling was perfectly implemented.

Even during our stress test with PBO enabled, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX's thermal battle ends exactly at 500W. To top this, you need to manipulate your motherboard's limits and start messing with LN2. Then it's possible to top out just under 600W using a static 4.1 GHz.

Really, Threadripper 2950X represents the sensible upper limit for daily use. It also happens to be economically viable at a price point around $900. Compared to the previous-gen Threadripper flagship, this new 16C/32T model is a big improvement. Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, on the other hand, just doesn't impress as much.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Final Analysis

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX continues AMD's assault on Intel's market dominance with 32 cores and the ability to work on 64 threads concurrently. But AMD's new flagship has its issues, too. There's no denying the allure of such a powerful processor. But as we've seen from other high-core-count CPUs, power delivery and thermals can conspire to hinder performance.

While drop-in compatibility with existing X399 motherboards is a big selling point favoring AMD, not every board's power delivery subsystem is up to the job of facilitating maximum performance from the 2990WX (particularly if you plan to overclock). You really need a high-end motherboard, a high-end power supply, and high-end cooling to extract the utmost performance from your investment.

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is nothing short of phenomenal in workloads that can utilize its arsenal of execution cores. Rendering is a good example. But it doesn't scale well in other applications. The distributed architecture leaves half of the processor's compute resources stranded from the memory and I/O controllers, which can drastically reduce performance in applications sensitive to bandwidth or PCIe traffic. Unless you have a very specific workload that can't get enough parallelism, you're better off with Threadripper 2950X.

Threadripper 2950X is much more appealing to the enthusiast audience. Its dual-die design once seemed exotic, but now proves nimble in a wide variety of applications. Moreover, higher Precision Boost frequencies make the 2950X competitive against well-established Intel Core processors in lightly-threaded metrics.

Precision Boost Overdrive offers an easy path to overclocking both new Threadrippers if your supporting hardware can handle the stress. Just be aware that any gains you might see vary based on your system's capabilities. We're sure we can tease even more performance out via manual overclocking when we circle back for the dedicated review, but the automated overclocking feature is plenty capable for most users, and you retain the benefit of a beastly 4.4 GHz quad-core boost frequency. The Threadripper 2950X brings a lot more power for a lower price than the first-gen Threadripper did at launch, but we wouldn't recommend a direct upgrade from the 1950X. If you're looking to upgrade from an older CPU to an all-around crowd pleaser, Threadripper 2950X does not disappoint.

Considering the raw horsepower on offer, AMD's pricing is extremely competitive. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X kept pace with the $1700 Core i9-7960X in many of our tests, but sells for almost half of its price. Both Intel and AMD HEDT platforms are expensive, but X399 motherboards are particularly pricey, which you'll have to consider when weighing your options. Populating all four memory channels will also be expensive in these trying times, but that extra cost applies to both high end platforms.

While we still recommend the mainstream Ryzen 7 2700X or Core i7-8700K for gaming, they clearly can't keep pace with Threadripper in productivity-oriented applications. Intel's Skylake-X processors are still brutally competitive on the performance front, but the company needs to be adjust its pricing.

If you're after the utmost in threaded performance for the dollar, the Ryzen Threadripper 2 series delivers. AMD clearly takes the lead with the most raw computing power on the desktop PC market, and at ultra-competitive pricing. We can't wait to see Intel's response.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X CPU Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Eight Cores For The High-End Desktop

AMD launched its Threadripper CPUs for high-end desktops. But, at the last minute, it also turned heads with a cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, an 8C/16T model that drops into X399-based motherboards. The company claims its 1900X is an ideal entry point for folks who might want one of the other Threadripper chips at some point down the line.

By now, we're all familiar with the key tenets of AMD's value proposition: you get more cores for less money, more affordable motherboards, and all of its architecture's features. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X carries that philosophy forward, though it sports the same number of cores as its nearest Intel competition (at a similar MSRP, no less), resides on a very pricey motherboard, and it costs more than the "mainstream" Ryzen 7 1800X, also an eight-core contender.

Specifications

The 1900X features a base frequency of 3.8 GHz, the highest base clock rate in AMD's Threadripper family. And it boosts up to 4.2 GHz if your cooler is beefy enough. Two dual-channel memory controllers combine to facilitate plenty of aggregate bandwidth, not to mention support for up to 512GB of DDR4. That's one significant advantage over the 1800X's dual-channel controller. The 1900X also supports ECC UDIMMS. And then there's the extra connectivity: Ryzen Threadripper 1900X exposes up to 64 lanes of PCIe 3.0 and more USB ports than Ryzen 7 1800X, which is limited to 16 PCIe lanes.

Why care about all of that extra I/O? It could be useful for power users with multiple GPUs, video capture cards, or voluminous NVMe-based storage arrays. In yet another example of AMD's broader feature set, the company offers bootable NVMe RAID 0, 1, and 10 for up to 10 attached SSDs, while Intel charges an additional fee for a vROC (Virtual RAID-on-CPU) dongle to unlock its full feature set.

There are vast architectural differences between the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, as well. In a nutshell, the larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across two dies and all four of the quad-core CCXes. But in a bid to mitigate a layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die.

Each CCX features 8MB of shared L3 cache, so disabling two CCXes also removes much of that last-level storage space. This cuts the 1900X's total to 16MB of L3, while the larger Threadripper models have up to 32MB. Fortunately, no changes are made to the entry-level chip's memory or I/O controllers.

	Threadripper 1950X	Threadripper 1920X	Core i7-7820X	Threadripper 1900X	Ryzen 7 1800X
Price	$999	$799	$599	$549	$499
Interface/Chipset	TR4/X399	TR4/X399	LGA 2066/X299	TR4/X399	AM4/X370
Cores/Threads	16/32	12/24	8/16	8/16	8/16
TDP	180W	180W	140W	180W	95W
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.4	3.5	3.6	3.8	3.6
Boost Frequency (GHz)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.3 / 4.5 (TB 3.0)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.0 (4.1 XFR)
Cache (L2+L3)	40MB	38MB	19MB	20MB	20MB
Memory Support	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
Memory Controller	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Dual Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64	64	28	64	16

Interestingly, AMD still recommends using its Game Mode for the eight-core 1900X. This configuration attempts to confine data processing to the local die and its attached memory controller (NUMA). It also deactivates one die via software to eliminate die-to-die latency. That means AMD's Game Mode switches this potentially mighty CPU into a 4C/8T solution, similar to AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X and 1400.

Despite its cuts, AMD leaves the 1900X's TDP at 180W, similar to the 12-core 1920X and 16-core 1950X. That number is notably higher than Ryzen 7 1800X's 95W TDP and the Core i7-7820X's 140W rating. Like the other Threadripper models, you need to supply your own cooler; AMD doesn't bundle one. At least the company's decision to use Indium solder between its dies and heat spreader goes a long way when we get to overclocking.

Complicating the 1900X's value story is the price of X399 motherboards, which cost significantly more than X370-based platforms. So, if you're strictly a gamer, stay with AMD's Socket AM4-based chips before sinking big-time bucks into Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Infinity Fabric & Test Setup

The Architectural Bits

The Ryzen 7 series features a single-die design, whereas AMD's Threadripper models employ a quad-die package with just two of its dies active. That means the 8C/16T 1900X effectively wields a dual-die arrangement with four active cores in each die.

Our first slide below shows the alignment of AMD's 16C/32T Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Each die contains a pair of four-core CPU complexes (CCXes) that incur increased latency when they communicate with the neighboring CCX (denoted as CCX0 and CCX1). Another layer of latency comes into play when they communicate with the CCXes resident on the second die (marked as Die1). Simplified, the greater distance between dies means that die-to-die latency is much higher than the latency between two CCXes resident on the same piece of silicon.

The larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across both CCXes inside each die. The second slide shows how AMD disables one core per CCX (blocked out in blue) to create the smaller 12C/24T 1920X model.

AMD takes an entirely different tack with its 1900X, as seen on the third slide. In a bid to eliminate one layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die. The adjustment makes sense; spreading the cores evenly across all four CCXes increases the chance of incurring latent communication with neighboring CCXes.

Disabling two entire CCXes also has other implications, though. Inactive cores, provided they are near active cores, can absorb excess heat, potentially improving overclockability. Case in point: it's common to achieve lower overclocks on the 16C 1950X than the 12C 1920X. Consequently, the 1900X's clustered cores should reduce latency, eliminating the CCX-to-CCX delay entirely and only leaving us with die-to-die latency. But they could also potentially hamper overclocking.

The Infinity Fabric Breakdown

A few quick tests with SiSoftware's Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency test illustrate the consequence of AMD's design decisions. Flipping the 1900X into Creator Mode, with all eight cores active, results in three distinct layers of latency. In contrast, the 1950X in Creator Mode has four layers.

Switching the 1900X into Game Mode disables one entire die, leaving us with a 4C/8T processor that has only two layers of latency. Again, the 1950X in Game Mode has a third layer that affects performance. But the 1900X in Game Mode also achieves the lowest fabric bandwidth in our line-up of AMD models.

Finally, the two disabled dies remove a total of 16MB of L3 cache from the 1900X. That means it offers half of the multi-threaded cache bandwidth of the 1950X in Game and Creator Mode. Incidentally, the 1900X demonstrates less multi-threaded throughput than Ryzen 7 1800X in Game Mode. But the 1800X also proffers eight cores with simultaneous multi-threading, while the 1900X in Game Mode drops to a 4C/8T processor with only 8MB of L3 cache. Many games are sensitive to memory and cache performance, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out in our game testing.

Overclocking

Overclocking the 1900X was an exercise in simplicity. We merely adjusted the data rate to DDR4-3200 and set timings at 14-14-14-34. We increased Vcore to 1.39V, well below AMD's recommended maximum of 1.45V, and adjusted the SoC voltage to 1.1V. This proved stable up to 4 GHz during extended stress tests. However, even in the face of unsafe voltages, we were unable to attain a stable 4.1 GHz overclock to match our efforts with the 12-core Threadripper 1920X. Dialing back the memory frequency didn't help, either. Considering that AMD supposedly selects the top 5% of its dies for Threadripper CPUs, you might assume that the clustered active core arrangement comes into play. We only see a 100 MHz reduction, so it's more likely that our retail sample is simply on the lower end of the bell curve.

It's notable that a 4 GHz overclock might actually hamper the 1900X's performance in lightly threaded workloads, since we lose the benefit of a quad-core 4.2 GHz XFR boost.

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920X, 1900XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920X, 1900XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

The Threadripper processors feature a unique architecture that underperforms AMD's other Ryzen chips in some games. To offset the 1900X's compromises, AMD facilitates its novel Game Mode, which switches the processor into NUMA mode and disables one die. We covered the feature in-depth in our AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked article.

AMD aims Threadripper at content creators, heavy multitaskers, and gamers who stream simultaneously. It also says the processors are ideal for gaming at high resolutions. Threadripper CPUs and the GPUs they're likely paired with aren't intended for playing around at low resolutions, particularly in older, lightly-threaded titles. Still, we test at 1920x1080 to emphasize the difference between competing processors, rather than show you results bound by our graphics card.

Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

Intel Core i7-8700K

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.

As expected in VRMark, Threadripper 1900X offers its best performance in Game Mode, even beating the tuned Creator Mode configuration. VRMark tends to favor high clock rates, so the Ryzen 7 1800X suffers at stock settings due to its lower frequency. However, it nearly catches the 1900X after tuning.

The 1900X in Creator Mode takes a healthy lead over its competition during the DX12 tests, even beating out Intel's tuned Core i7-7820X. It suffers in Game Mode, though. That isn't surprising; we disable half of the chip's compute resources in a test that scales well with core count, after all.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity is the poster child for threaded game engines. And while the Core i7-7820X at 4.6 GHz leads, the Ryzen 7 1800X at 4 GHz challenges Intel's Skylake-X solution. The 1900X trails mightily in Game Mode, but fares better in Creator Mode with eight threads available.

Even in heavily threaded games, mainstream processors like Ryzen 7 1800X offer the best value.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game. Intel's Core i7-7820X takes the lead after tuning, while the overclocked Threadripper 1920X leads AMD's line-up. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X provides better performance in Game Mode, but we only get a slight speed-up after overclocking.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

As we found during our Game Mode testing, the Threadripper models perform best in this benchmark with Game Mode activated. A tuned Threadripper 1900X takes the lead during our test, even besting Intel's Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K.

The Ryzen 7 1800X also proves to be adept, equating to good value for mainstream gamers thanks to a less expensive buy-in. Ryzen 7 1700 offers similar performance after overclocking, but includes a nice discount.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

As usual, we bump up against a graphics bottleneck at the top end of our Battlefield 1 results. An overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X offers the best performance from AMD's portfolio, although the Threadripper 1900X is right behind in Creator Mode. The 1900X loses quite a bit of steam when we toggle Game Mode on; even our overclocking efforts aren't enough to overtake the Ryzen 7 1800X.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

At stock settings with Game Mode enabled, Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms AMD's stock Ryzen 7 1800X. The overclocked 1800X nudges past 1900X at the same 4 GHz, while Threadripper 1920X offers the best performance from the Ryzen portfolio.

While Threadripper 1900X beats Core i7-7820X at its stock settings, tuning improves the Intel model's performance significantly, and it ends up ahead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto finds the 1900X and 1800X offering similar performance levels in both stock and overclocked configurations. Running the 1900X in Creator Mode provides better performance than a stock Ryzen 7 1800X.

Meanwhile, the overclocked 1920X beats Intel's stock Core i7-7820X, though tuning propels Intel into a commanding lead.

A stock Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K nearly catches the tuned -7820X, so you can imagine it would take the lead after some overclocking of its own.

Hitman (2016)

The 1900X doesn't respond well to our Hitman benchmark, demonstrating lower average and minimum frame rates compared to the mainstream Ryzen 7 1800X. The gap is much more pronounced between AMD's and Intel's chips, though we imagine this would shrink at higher resolutions.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and 1900X top the chart in this largely graphics-bound test.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor does tend to favor the highest clock rates, making AMD's slight win over the overclocked Core i7 more impressive.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

Intel's Core i7-8700K offers the best performance during our benchmark, while the 1900X lands in the middle of this chart with Game Mode active. Creator Mode makes more threads available to the Madness game engine, though Slightly Mad Studios can't seem to extract maximum performance from AMD's distributed MCM architecture.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia 2 engine refuses to run in Creator Mode on the 32-thread Threadripper 1950X processor. We don't have the same issue with AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and 1920X, though.

The 1900X gains nothing from Creator Mode. Meanwhile, the Threadripper 1900X's Game Mode fares quite a bit better, gaining even more after overclocking.

A stock Core i7-7820X lags the tuned Threadrippers in Game Mode, but really stretches its legs after we crank it up to 4.6 GHz.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider has long been a thorn in the Ryzen architecture's side. But recent software patches helped rectify AMD's deficits encountered at launch.

The Intel processors still lead during our benchmark, but an overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X ekes out a slight lead over AMD's Threadripper models.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Test Notes

We toggled Ryzen Threadripper 1900X into Creator Mode for our application testing. This setting exposes the full might of AMD's 8C/16T design, even if some lightly threaded applications fare better under various combinations of the NUMA/UMA and Legacy mode toggles.

Adobe Creative Cloud

Most of the Adobe Creative Cloud test suite favors Intel's processors.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves up competitive performance and benefits from tuning, but the 1920X's overclocked frequency advantage facilitates a slight win in most tests.

After Affects responds well to increased core counts, so the 1900X competes readily. Ryzen 7 1800X isn't as fast in this test, languishing far below the eight-core 1900X. It seems as if the difference comes from Threadripper's quad-channel memory configuration, as repeating the test in dual-channel mode incurs a ~6-second penalty, putting 1900X at the same level as Ryzen 7 1800X. We also observed similar trends with the Photoshop Heavy and InDesign tests.

Web Browser

The web browsing tests align largely based on per-core performance, so frequency and IPC throughput reign supreme. These lightly-threaded metrics highlight the only drawback to overclocking the 1900X.

That is to say our 1900X's 4 GHz ceiling is the same as its maximum quad-core Precision Boost frequency, so overclocking will speed up workloads that use more than four cores. However, if your cooler is beefy enough, a stock Threadripper 1900X hits a 4.2 GHz Extended Frequency Range peak across four cores. So, in some lightly-threaded tasks, you'll see a stock 1900X outperform the overclocked configuration.

Case in point: a stock 1900X outperforms the tuned configuration in our Kraken JavaScript and MotionMark benchmarks, though the deltas are small. A tuned Ryzen 7 1800X also offers better performance than the 1900X. The Intel processors use their frequency and IPC throughput advantage to top the charts.

Cryptography is important for securing online transactions and many other applications. The Threadripper processors enjoy a big lead over competing Intel models in single-core SHA2-256 hashing performance. They are also competitive in the single-core AES-256 tests. But we can clearly see the benefits of the -7820X's AVX2 performance compared to the Core i7-8700K.

Multi-core AES-256 tests align based largely on core count and frequency, but we can spot the advantages of quad-channel memory. The overclocked 1900X doesn't gain much improvement in the SHA2-256 test.

Productivity

We're incorporating portions of the PCMark 10 suite into our test regimen. The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness for several types of applications, such as word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, in both warm- and cold-start conditions.

Intel's Core i7-7820X beats the overclocked Threadripper models by a slight margin, but tuning widens the gap considerably. Interestingly, a stock Core i7-8700K almost matches the best effort of our overclocked -7820K. Coffee Lake truly is an impressive performer here.

Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world performance. The test consists of both native and OpenCL acceleration, so we see small performance improvements with OpenCL. The Threadripper 1900X and 1920X fall into the middle of the test results, while the tuned Ryzen 7 1800X provides more performance with native processing.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. We can see the big gains with OpenCL acceleration, and the processors with the highest clock rates generally offer the best results. That means Intel's tuned -7820X and AMD's overclocked 1920X provide similar performance. The 1900X benefits from tuning, but Ryzen 7 1800X at 4 GHz is even faster. Native processing leverages Theadripper 1920X's extra threads to great effect.

We tested the 1900X with both dual- and quad-channel memory to ferret out improvements borne of extra bandwidth. The 1900X with quad-channel memory provided ~6% more performance than the dual-channel setup during the writing test (LibreOffice Writer), helping propel the overclocked 1900X to a lead over the tuned 1800X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding, Compression & AVX

Rendering

As expected, the tuned Threadripper 1900X provides similar performance as an overclocked 1800X in our multi-core Cinebench test, though it ekes out a win at stock settings thanks to its higher frequency. Threadripper 1920X's extra cores/threads allow it to take a commanding lead over the rest of the group.

Cinebench's single-core benchmark places Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in the middle of the group. And again, we see the 1900X's stock configuration use its higher XFR boost to beat out the overclocked version. Intel's processors continue to offer higher clock rates and IPC throughput though, so they take the top spots in our chart.

Corona utilizes all available cores and threads, so we see similar performance from the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, though the latter takes a slight lead after tuning.

The single-core POV-Ray testing repeats what we saw under Cinebench: the stock 1900X edges our our overclocked configuration again. Meanwhile, the multi-core POV-Ray and Blender tests benefit from the 1900X's higher frequencies in stock trim. Threadripper 1900X doesn't benefit much from its quad-channel memory during those tests, as evidenced by its similar performance to the Ryzen 7 1800X when they are both locked to the same frequency. PCMark 10's rendering and visualization test tells much the same story.

The 1900X offers solid performance in our OpenCL-accelerated LuxMark test, though. We don't have OpenCL-based results from the Core i7-7820X, but that's not a mistake. We spent considerable time trying to get this test to run correctly on any Skylake-X processor, to no avail. Intel later confirmed our suspicions that OpenCL isn't correctly taking advantage of AVX-512 instructions, so we'll have to wait for a fix before we can generate results. The company has plans to support AVX-512 in a future release of the Intel OpenCL SDK.

Encoding & Compression

LAME finds the 1900X offering similar performance as Ryzen 7 1800X once again, though the eight-core Threadripper is a bit faster in our x264 HandBrake test.

We re-ran that benchmark on the 1900X using dual- and quad-channel memory configurations and recorded a 20% performance advantage with quad-channel. The tuned 1900X only offers a 3% performance lead over our overclocked 1800X, suggesting that some of its advantage may be lost to poor application scaling or code that isn't optimized for the unique Threadripper architecture.

We see a larger delta between the Intel and AMD processors during the HandBrake x265 test than the x264 test, but that is likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. Again, the tuned 1900X's 10% performance improvement with x265 and quad-channel memory doesn't equate to a large win over a tuned Ryzen 7 1800X. We also provide results from Y-Cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations.

Compression workloads benefit greatly from multi-core architectures, provided the storage subsystem can feed the processor fast enough to utilize its full capabilities. The stock 1900X offers similar performance as an overclocked 1800X during the multi-core compression workload, which is a byproduct of its quad-channel memory advantage. A tuned Core i7-7820X takes the overall lead, but the overclocked 1920X challenges.

The decompression benchmark benefits from integer performance, and the 1920X's ability to work on 24 threads concurrently provides a tremendous advantage over the rest of the pack. AMD's 1920X available resources allow it to post an almost-50% lead in overclocked trim.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Remember a few short months ago when Intel introduced its Kaby Lake-X Core i7-7740X, which sold for an affordable $350, giving the impression of high-end value, but then required a super-expensive X299-based motherboard? Ryzen Threadripper 1900X sort of feels like that to us. But whereas the -7740X totally neutered Intel's platform with just 16 PCIe lanes and a pair of disabled memory channels, at least Threadripper 1900X comes armed with all of its architecture's functionality intact. Sixty-four lanes of PCIe 3.0 and four channels of DDR4 memory with ECC support may make the difference to power users with lots of add-in devices or bandwidth-sensitive workloads. But 1900X just isn't much more compelling than Ryzen 7 1800X, which also supports ECC memory on some motherboards and comes with a more affordable platform.

We plotted the 1900X's gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. When we reviewed the higher-end Threadripper models, we hypothesized their extra cores could enable more performance in the future, so we included a chart with newer games. But that's not as big a selling point for 1900X, since its core count matches the 1800X.

If you're a gamer above all else, and semi-professional workloads aren't on your radar, AMD's Socket AM4-based Ryzen 5 and 7 CPUs are a better fit for you than Ryzen Threadripper. You'll see similar frame rates from a $220 Ryzen 5 1600 overclocked moderately. Of course, Intel would counter back that its Coffee Lake-based Core i5s between $200 and $300 are better still. The point is you have multiple options that are great for gaming before ever needing to consider a $500 Threadripper 1900X and a way-expensive motherboard.

The real competition happens in our application workloads. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X can't quite match the $600 Core i7-7820X in most workloads, so professionals on the hunt for overall performance may favor Intel's Skylake-X chip. The Ryzen 7 1800X often serves up similar performance as Threadripper 1900X, and it costs $100 less. Then there's the Core i7-8700K, which also sells for $400, trades blows with AMD's top Ryzen 7 chip, but currently suffers from a bad case of paperlaunchitis.

Consider also that exploiting the 1900X's four memory channels means buying a quad-channel kit of DDR4. And then there are the platforms: right now, the absolute cheapest TR4-equipped motherboard sells for $340. Most models come close to $400.

Of course, AMD says its Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is the lowest-cost way to get into its X399 platform...and it is. However, we can’t ascribe much enthusiast value to this niche option. There are faster choices if you prioritize performance and cheaper alternatives if you're trying to save money. Thus, we aren't particularly attracted to Threadripper 1900X. Please, AMD, don't be upset if we send flowers to this chip's better-looking sibling, Ryzen 7 1800X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i9-7960X Review: Skylake-X At 16 Cores

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:20:00 +0000

Features & Specifications

It's certainly been a great year for enthusiasts. The dynamics of the desktop CPU market changed radically as AMD rose up to challenge Intel's dominance for the first time in recent history. For us, that meant an almost endless stream of new processors to benchmark and compare.

AMD's attack began with mainstream and entry-level parts offering more cores at lower price points than comparable Core CPUs. Intel continued on its merry way, introducing a first round of expensive Skylake-X CPUs that, in many of our benchmarks, failed to impress. When the Ryzen Threadripper family launched shortly thereafter, wielding up to 16 cores and the ability to schedule as many as 32 threads, it became clear that AMD meant business.

All along, we knew Intel was also preparing 12-, 14-, 16-, and 18-core processors of its own. But the company seemed to be rushing around in response to its perhaps unexpected competition. The Core i9-7900X is fast, no doubt. However, excessive thermal and power consumption, along with limited overclocking headroom, marred its debut. Although Intel took steps to drop prices, its Skylake-X models still sell for a rich premium compared to the Threadripper chips contending for enthusiast affection.

From what we understand, Intel believes it has an ace in the hole. Those 6-, 8-, and 10-core Skylake-X CPUs it already sells were a mere prelude to the big guns landing today. Moving forward, Threadripper has to contend with much more sophisticated Core i9s, led by an 18-core -7980XE.

So, Where's The Core i9-7980XE Review?

Unfortunately, our sample and test platform aren't working well together, demonstrating unexpected Turbo Boost frequencies at stock settings. Specifically, the Core i9-7980XE does not exceed 3.4 GHz on a single core. For now, the source of this issue remains unidentified, despite many combinations of components, operating system revisions, and motherboard firmware revisions. We suspect the problem traces back to our engineering sample CPU or motherboard BIOS. We are, of course, in contact with both Intel and MSI regarding our findings.

Interestingly, the 16C/32T Core i9-7960X, which goes up against Ryzen Threadripper 1950X's core count (albeit at a $1700 price point) does work correctly with our test platform. This allows us to post a review of that model with accurate results. For now, our test suite is abbreviated. But we'll update this space with our complete list of benchmarks in the days to come.

Specifications

Intel's Core i9-7960X is the company's second-from-the-top Skylake-X model, selling for $300 less than the flagship -7980XE, but with two fewer cores and 4.75MB less cache. That puts it at a similar core/thread count as AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (16C/32T). Despite its discount relative to -7980XE, though, Core i9-7960X bears a massive premium compared to the top Threadripper model ($1700 vs. $1000). While we're confident that Intel gets more done per clock cycle with its Skylake architecture, the fact that AMD gives you just as many cores at such a discount is compelling in a great many workloads.

Intel hopes to offset higher pricing with superior performance and features, such as its new mesh topology. This allows the construction of a single monolithic die, as opposed to AMD's multi-die module. Skylake-X is consequently a significant retooling of the Skylake architecture, as we've covered in-depth on multiple occasions. In some applications, this can cause performance to slide the wrong way. Most tests benefit from Intel's enhancements, though. Company representatives claim that future software optimizations may help ameliorate the few cases where Skylake-X suffers, similar to what AMD went through as Ryzen came online.

A realigned cache hierarchy promises improved application performance, while dual 256-bit FMAs work in parallel to support AVX-512. Intel's combination of greater cache throughput and AVX enablement facilitate up to 1 TFLOP compute performance from a single processor. That's a first on the desktop.

Core i5-7640X

Core i7-7740X

Core i7-7800X

Clock rates generally drop as core counts increase. Intel does, however, offset a low-sounding 2.8 GHz base frequency with significantly improved Turbo Boost bins. Core i9-7960X delivers a 4.2 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0 bin with two cores active, and up to 4.4 GHz with Turbo Boost Max 3.0, targeting lightly-threaded workloads across two "favored" cores. The feature is supported natively in the latest Windows 10 Creators Update. However, you still need Intel's driver if your motherboard firmware doesn't implement the feature correctly.

Active Cores	1-2	3-4	5-12	13-16
Intel Core i9-7960X (GHz) Turbo Boost 2.0	4.2	4.0	3.9	3.6

Intel's sophisticated Turbo Boost algorithms provide accelerated clock rates based upon the number of active cores. These higher frequencies even kick in when 16 cores are active, nudging Core i9-7960X as high as 3.6 GHz so long as power, thermals, and current fall below certain thresholds. While Intel only guarantees -7960X's base frequency, we found the Turbo Boost bins to be consistently aggressive during our testing.

Intel's Skylake-X series is repurposed data center silicon from the Xeon line-up, so the processors share the same LCC (Low core Count) and HCC (High Core Count) die that power up to 10- or 18-core processors, respectively. Previously, Core i9-7900X weighed in as Intel's largest LCC-based desktop processor, but Intel employs its HCC die for the chips launching today. That means the -7960X has a much larger die area for dissipating heat. We're hoping this improves its thermal performance compared to Core i9-7900X.

As we know, Skylake-X could certainly use some help in that department. The -7960X's 165W TDP is 25W higher than the -7900X we've already had problems with. And unfortunately, Intel is still using thermal paste between its die and heat-spreader. Even the beefiest custom loops won't be able to overcome this limitation, barring direct-die cooling. Notably, this isn't an issue AMD has with Threadripper thanks to its use of solder.

Similar to the other Skylake-X CPUs, the -7960X supports up to DDR4-2666 memory. It's also used with the same X299 Basin Falls chipset, which boasts improved DMI throughput and 30 HSIO (High Speed Input/Output) lanes that motherboard vendors can allocate to expanded connectivity options. Core i9-7960X also enables the full complement of Skylake-X's 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes, though it trails Threadripper. All of AMD's high-end desktop processors wield 64 lanes of third-gen PCIe. Of course, finding a use for that many lanes might be challenging, but it's certainly nice to have them available.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking & Test Setup

Overclocking

If we learned one thing from out overclocking efforts, it's that Intel's thermal throttling mechanisms work great. And often. Even slight voltage increases result in large temperature increases. We found that adjusting the VCCIN voltage (voltage going to the processor) in tandem with VCORE adjustments (voltage to the cores) delivers the best results. It's even possible to generate higher multi-threaded performance scores in some benchmarks, like Cinebench, at the same frequency but with increased VCCIN voltage.

We raised VCCIN up to 1.9V, though this does cause thermal output to increase. We also found that up to 2.0V is "generally" safe if you are using water cooling. However, we lowered the VCORE to a mere 1.1V to combat heat. That gave us a semi-stable 4.5 GHz overclock; we were able to run a wide range of heavily threaded workloads, though extended AIDA stress tests exposed throttling. We decided to stick with a 4.3 GHz all-core overclock (84-88°C) because we found that to be the safest setting that wouldn't trigger the aggressive throttling algorithms. The -7960X is very sensitive to increased voltages, and even bumping up to 4.4 GHz resulted in nagging throttling during stress tests.

The processor will throttle if it overheats, but Skylake-X motherboards also throttle if the package power exceeds a defined threshold. With our MSI motherboard, that ceiling lands in the 300W range. We can remove the power restrictions via BIOS manipulation and pull more than 400W through the package, but we shied away from that because we want to test this processor in the future.

We also tested with both the AVX and AVX2 offsets at the Auto setting. The offset automatically reduced our AVX frequencies to 2.4 GHz. We didn't spend too much time tuning this option due to time constraints, but given the platform's high power consumption and thermal challenges, the dual-headed offsets are a welcome and needed feature.

Be sure to bring a custom loop if you plan to overclock. Also, we advise air or water cooling on the power delivery subsystem. Make sure to use a power supply able to deliver a minimum of 20A on the 12V rail. We've heard reports of up to 530W flowing through the eight-pin EPS cable, so a beefy PSU is a must.

Fine-grained tuning will yield better overclocks as we all acclimate to tuning Skylake-X. However, throttling happens any time you take a wrong turn with your settings. A lot of trial and error is required in order to get more from these components.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

Ryzen 7 1800X

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7960XMSI Xpower Gaming AC 4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7900X, i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i5-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H100i v2

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7960XMSI Xpower Gaming AC 4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7900X, i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i5-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H100i v2

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AotS: Escalation & Civilization VI

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation responds well to the addition of more host processing resources, and that's good news for Core i9-7960X's 16 cores and high IPC throughput.

The -7960X provides great performance at stock settings and even better results after some tuning. We did, however, encounter lower minimum frame rates from -7960X compared to the Core i9-7900X, though. The same behavior manifested on our -7980XE, so we suspect this issue is endemic to Intel's HCC die. You can see where the frame rates dip in our performance over time chart. This is accompanied by higher frame times in those problem areas.

AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X lags behind, though it does achieve a higher minimum frame rate and 99th percentile measurement. The Threadripper models also don’t suffer as much during the latter stages of our benchmark.

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game. Intel's Core i9-7960X offers middling performance at its stock settings, but benefits greatly from our overclocking efforts. It even outpaces an overclocked Core i9-7900X.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i9-7960X trails most of the field, including a stock Ryzen 7 1800X, in its out-of-box configuration. Overclocking propels it to the top of our chart, though.

The tuned Core i9-7960X does encounter some turbulence during the opening stages of our Civilization VI benchmark, though, manifesting as a spike in the frame time variance chart.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Battlefield 1

The Core i9-7960X fares better during our trudge across the O La Vittoria landscape and outpaces AMD's Threadripper and Intel's own -7900X at stock settings. Tuning provides a tangible performance boost and smoother gameplay, but overclocking also allows the Core i9-7900X to establish a razor-thin victory.

We do see quite a bit of variance from the Threadripper and Ryzen 7 models, particularly during the test's opening stage, which manifests as hitching on-screen.

Dawn of War III

The overclocked Core i9-7960X again captures the top spot after a bit of tuning. It also outperforms the Core i9-7900X at stock settings.

AMD's Ryzen Threadripper models again lag behind, though it's important to note that they're in the recommended Game Mode, halving thread count to minimize Infinity Fabric latency. This means the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is doing battle with just 16 of its available 32 threads.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V tends to perform best on Intel CPUs, and that pattern continues with our Core i9-7960X benchmarks, which outperforms the -7900X at stock and overclocked settings (though the delta between them is tiny at our highest overclocks).

Core i7-7700K fares well at its stock settings, but only slightly beats the stock Core i9-7960X (97.7 FPS) after an aggressive tuning session.

Hitman

Hitman scales well with additional processing resources, once again giving the -7960X a quantifiable advantage.

Shadow of Mordor

Shadow of Mordor is lightly threaded, which punishes the Core i9-7960X's low base frequency. We verified that this CPU sporadically boosts to 4.5 GHz during the test, but the speed-ups are so brief that they do little to improve our frame rate measurements. Even tuning doesn't help much. Notably, Intel's latest lags the overclocked -7900X by more than 5 FPS on average.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

The Core i9-7960X offers leading performance against the rest of our field at stock settings, and tuning yields a solid 11.5% gain on average.

Given its price, the quad-core Core i7-7700K continues to complement our GeForce GTX 1080 well, while AMD's Ryzen Threadripper processors suffer in Game mode. Then again, we know this title slows down even more if you leave Threadripper in Creator mode, so Intel's advantage is likely a simple matter of getting more done per cycle.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal refuses to load on CPUs with more than 24 threads. Although we could have disabled eight of the -7960X’s threads, we instead chose to turn off half of them to match Ryzen Threadripper 1950X’s thread count in Game mode as an experiment. This gives us a look at “like” performance with the same number of threads.

The Threadripper models don’t take a lead, but they aren’t far behind after tuning. Meanwhile, Intel's Core i7-7700K shows why we don't typically recommend high-end desktop CPUs for gaming PCs.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

The Core i9-7960X unsurprisingly delivers impressive performance during our Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark, besting Core i9-7900X in stock and overclocked trim.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding, Compression & Decompression

Web Browser

Dropping $1000+ for exceptional Web browsing performance is overkill, no doubt. But these tests do give us an idea of how responsive each CPU is using common desktop applications.

Our results line up based on clock rate and IPC throughput, it appears, highlighting the lightly threaded nature of many productivity-oriented workloads. Of course, those tasks do tend to favor Intel's architectures, which lead in every test.

Rendering

Heavy rendering workloads are easy fodder for high-end desktop CPUs, and Intel's Core i9-7960X delivers superior performance in almost every test we throw at it (except for the single-threaded ones).

The Kaby Lake-based Core i7-7700K outpaces Intel's Core i9-7960X in both single-threaded tests due to its higher Turbo Boost frequency and improved IPC throughput. Meanwhile, the tuned -7900X and -7820X flex their higher clock rates to carve out a lead in those same metrics.

Our stock -7960X beats the chip's overclocked configuration in the short single-threaded Cinebench test by virtue of its 4.4 GHz Turbo Boost 3.0 bin, which is slightly higher than the all-core 4.3 GHz we dialed in during our tuning session. In contrast, the single-threaded POV-ray benchmark caused Intel's Core i9-7960X to shed some frequency, likely due to increased thermal load during this longer test.

Encoding & Compression

A chart-topping core count proves beneficial to the Core i9-7960X during our HandBrake and compression/decompression workloads. But the $1700 CPU stumbles during the LAME benchmark. Intel has confirmed that its mesh architecture can lead to performance regressions in a few applications, and it appears that LAME might benefit from optimization for the new architecture.

PCMark 10

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel unabashedly aims its high-end desktop CPUs at those seeking the ultimate in performance, and from our first round of testing, it's apparent that Core i9-7960X delivers this across a range of heavily threaded workloads like rendering, encoding, and file compression. Aggressive Turbo Boost binning, which is far more ambitious than anything Broadwell-E offered, yields impressive results in lightly-threaded workloads too. Though there are rare exceptions, -7960X is also exceptional in games. It's no longer necessary to compromise alacrity in one discipline for devastating speed in another. The top Skylake-X CPUs simply crank up the clocks when their many cores aren't needed.

Of course, you have to pay a premium for this privilege. And if you aren't explicitly running well-threaded tasks on a regular basis, there's not much reason to spend a small fortune on Skylake-X. For gaming, we're using a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times, which we convert into an FPS measurement, to provide an easy-to-read performance outlook. The 99th percentile results are a good indicator of smoothness. Ryzen's extra cores could enable more performance in the future as software evolves to utilize them better, so we also include a chart with newer games that exploit host processing resources more thoroughly.

Enthusiasts who mostly plan on gaming: mainstream chips are still the smart choice.

It is remarkable that, for years, developers wrote code capable of utilizing a handful of cores, at most. Yet, in the span of a few months, we suddenly have processors with so many cores that some applications won’t even load. It’s easy to imagine that we’ll start seeing more software optimized for multi-core architectures in the years to come. AMD gets a lot of credit for this; the company's new processors obviously spurred Intel to respond with lower prices and faster processors.

But Intel still charges a big premium for access to its 16-core -7960X. You'll pay $700 more than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X or the 10-core Core i9-7900X. For many, an undeniable performance advantage might not be worth that extra money. But if every second you save translates to dollars, the higher price tag might be worth paying.

Although Intel isn't charging as much per core this generation, the company's segmentation practices persist. AMD gives you ECC memory support and more PCIe connectivity, for example. Meanwhile, Intel disables ECC support to dissuade its Xeon customers from adopting a less expensive platform, and it slowly shaves off PCIe lanes as you descend the Core hierarchy.

Grueling time constraints limited what we could do with Core i9-7960X on this first outing with the chip. But we do have more tests to run, and you can bet we'll revisit the exhaustive thermal/power analysis that went into our Core i9-7900X review. Plus, Core i9-7980XE is sitting here, waiting for a fixed motherboard firmware to truly unlock its potential; test results from Intel's flagship will follow shortly.

In the meantime, there's no question that Core i9-7960X is the fastest 16-core processor available. Intel is simply charging too much for the pleasure of owning one.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Finding The Right Modes

If you crave lots of cores and tons of PCIe connectivity, like most content creators, multitaskers, and software developers, then Threadripper is for you. It might also be a good fit if you're a gamer who simultaneously runs heavily threaded productivity applications in the background.

The Zeppelin die really is a feat of modern engineering. However, its architecture is dissimilar from anything that came before, creating issues in some software written prior to Ryzen's introduction. AMD worked with game developers to iron out the performance wrinkles we identified at launch, and we've seen big speed-ups in a number of titles as a result.

But expanding beyond Ryzen 7, 5, and 3 into a dual-die configuration adds a new set of challenges for Threadripper.

AMD's fix involves two toggles that affect how the processor operates, giving you modes optimized for whatever workload you're running. These switches create a total of four unique configurations to choose from. So, in a bid to condense the number of combinations, AMD created its Creator and Game modes.

Why Do We Need Game Mode?

The Zeppelin die consists of two quad-core CPU complexes (CCXes) woven together with the Infinity Fabric interconnect. Even in the single-die Ryzen 7/5/3 processors, this creates a layer of latency that affects communication between the CCXes. AMD builds upon that design with its Threadripper processors, leveraging two active Zeppelin dies. As you might imagine, this introduces another layer of Infinity Fabric latency.

Each die has its own memory and PCIe controllers. So, if a thread running on one core needs to access data resident in cache on the other die, it has to traverse the fabric between those dies and incur significant latency. Naturally, the latency penalty between dies is higher than it is between CCXes in the single-die configurations. To combat the potential for performance regression as a result of its "go-wide" approach, AMD devised an interesting solution: it introduced a new memory access switch that you can toggle via motherboard BIOS or the Ryzen Master software. The Local and Distributed settings flip between either NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) or UMA (Uniform Memory Access).

NUMA works best if programs are designed specifically to utilize it. Even though most desktop PC software wasn't written with NUMA in mind, performance gains are still possible in non-NUMA applications.

Breaking Games

Some games simply won't load up when presented with Threadripper's 32 threads. That's right, AMD's flagship broke a few titles. The same thing will happen to Intel when its highest-end Skylake-X chips surface shortly.

Out of necessity, AMD created a Legacy Compatibility mode that executes a "bcdedit /set numproc XX" command in Windows. This command cuts the thread count in half. Fortunately, due to the operating system's default assignments, the command disables all of the cores/threads on the second die. That has a side benefit of eliminating thread-to-thread communication between disparate dies, solving the constant latency-inducing synchronization between threads during gaming workloads. It also prevents thread migration, lessening the chance of cache misses.

But What To Test?

The two new toggles give us a menu of options to mess with. AMD's Creator preset exposes 16C/32T and leaves the operating system in Distributed memory access mode. Those settings together should yield excellent performance in most productivity applications. Game mode cuts half the threads via compatibility mode and reduces memory and die-to-die latency with Local memory access.

As early as our first Ryzen review, we found that disabling SMT had a positive impact on some games. However, throwing in another setting to consider expands our list of viable configurations. Of course, some options make little sense for gaming. But they might be interesting to test with normal applications. We narrowed our list down based on Infinity Fabric measurements and prior experience with AMD processors.

Configurations	Local (NUMA) / Distributed (UMA)	Legacy Mode (On/Off)	SMT (Multi-Threading)
Creator Mode	Distributed	Off	On
Game Mode	Local	On	On
Custom - Local/SMT Off	Local	Off	Off
Custom - Local/SMT On	Local	Off	On

Disabling SMT in Game mode, which already halves core/thread count, would further cut into our available execution resources. So, we left SMT on and both dies active. We also had the option to leave all cores/threads active, but try isolating memory access to the local memory controller. We found that combination particularly useful in threaded games during our initial review. Of course, we also decided to test using the default Creator and Game modes.

Unfortunately, you can't just throw a switch and fire up your favorite game. Each change requires a reboot, chewing up precious time as you save open projects, halt conversations, and try to remember which web browser tabs to relaunch. Again, Game mode also halves thread count, which isn't good for running heavily threaded applications at full speed in the background while you play. Luckily, the breadth of available options should allow us to find a better configuration that leaves more processing resources at the ready.

AMD designed its Threadripper processors primary for use in enthusiast-oriented PCs, which tend to ship with high-resolution monitors. Higher resolutions are typically GPU-bound, reducing the variance between CPU modes. To better highlight performance trends and maximize our limited testing time, though, we chose to benchmark at 1920x1080, allowing us to spot the subtle differences between AMD's settings.

Overall, Game mode is designed to improve memory latency and help avoid excessive die-to-die Infinity Fabric traffic. Let's start with examining how our settings affect the Infinity Fabric and memory subsystem.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

Testing Ryzen's Infinity Fabric & Memory Subsystem

Infinity Fabric Latency And Bandwidth

The 256-bit Infinity Fabric crossbar ties the resources inside of a Zeppelin die together. Tacking on a second Zeppelin die to create Threadripper introduces another layer of the fabric, though. Cache accesses remain local to each CCX, but a large amount of memory, I/O, and thread-to-thread traffic still flow across that second layer.

It didn't take long for enthusiasts to figure out that AMD's Infinity Fabric is tied into the same frequency domain as the memory controller, so a memory overclock reduces latency and increases bandwidth through the crossbar. Performance in latency-sensitive applications (like games) consequently improves.

SiSoftware Sandra's Processor Multi-Core Efficiency test helps us illustrate the Infinity Fabric's performance. We use the Multi-Threaded metric with the "best pair match" setting (lowest latency). The utility measures ping times between threads to quantify fabric latency in every possible configuration.

The intra-core latency measurements represent communication between two logical threads resident on the same physical core, and as we can see, disabling SMT eliminates that measurement entirely. For the remaining setups, tuning reduces latency by a few nanoseconds. But this is attributable to higher clock rates. As we've seen in the past, increased memory frequencies have little effect on intra-core latency.

Intra-CCX measurements quantify latency between threads on the same CCX that are not resident on the same core. Increasing the clock rate yields larger ~6ns latency reductions.

Cross-CCX quantifies the latency between threads located on two separate CCXes, and we see a similar reduction thanks to overclocking. Notably, the Ryzen 7 1800X features much lower Cross-CCX latency than the stock Threadripper and most overclocked configurations. This is likely due to some form of provisioning, possibly in the scheduling algorithms, for Threadripper's extra layer of fabric.

As we can see, the overclocked Threadripper CPU in Game mode, which doesn't have an active fabric link to the other die, has the lowest Cross-CCX latency.

Die-To-Die measures communication between the two separate Zeppelin dies. Game mode effectively disables the second Zeppelin die at an operating system level, eliminating die-to-die latency entirely. The second die's uncore is still active though, which is necessary to ensure its I/O and memory controllers are still accessible.

Creator mode suffers the worst die-to-die latency, but tuning reduces it considerably. The two SMT options (on and off) receive large reductions from our overclocking efforts as well.

The utility measures fabric bandwidth too, which is critical for performance since data fetches from the remote memory also flow across the fabric. As such, AMD over-provisions the fabric and memory subsystem to optimize the distributed memory architecture.

Both the Creator mode and Local/SMT configurations offer the best fabric bandwidth, enjoying big boosts from overclocking. The Ryzen 7 1800X falls into the middle of the chart alongside Threadripper's Game mode, which is logical considering they are both effectively 8C/16T processors. Disabling SMT but leaving both dies active (Local/SMT off) yields a unique profile that provides higher performance with larger accesses and lower performance with smaller accesses.

Cache And Memory Latency

We tested with DDR4-2666 memory at stock settings and increased to DDR4-3200 for our overclocked configurations.

The Translation Look Aside Buffer is a cache that reduces access times by storing recently accessed memory addresses. Like all caches, the TLB has a limited capacity, so address requests that land in the TLB are "hits," while requests that land outside of the cache are "misses." Of course, hits are more desirable, and solid prefetcher performance yields higher hit rates.

Sequential access patterns are almost entirely prefetched into the TLB, so the sequential test is a good measure of prefetcher performance. The in-page random test measures random accesses within the same memory page. It also measures TLB performance and represents best-case random performance (this is the measurement vendors use for official spec sheets). The full random test features a mix of TLB hits and misses, with a strong likelihood of misses, so it quantifies worst-case latency.

Regardless of the memory access pattern, the smallest data chunks fit into the L1 cache. And as the size of the data increases, it populates the larger caches.

	L1	L2	L3	Main Memory
Range	2KB - 32KB	32KB - 512KB	512KB - 8MB	8MB - 1GB

Threadripper 1950X features better L2 and L3 latency than the Ryzen 7 1800X with every type of access pattern. Also, we spot notable latency reductions via overclocking for Threadripper's L1, L2, and L3 caches.

That changes as the workload flows out to main memory. Threadripper's Creator mode (the default setting) has the highest latency with every access pattern. This is a direct result of memory accesses landing in the remote memory. Our in-page measurements mirror AMD's 86.9ns specification, but worst-case full random access exceeds 120ns. Overclocking the processor and memory lowers latency, but Creator mode still doesn't overtake any of the configurations we compare it to.

Switching into NUMA mode with the Local setting improves main memory access dramatically for the other configurations. We measure ~60ns for in-page near memory access, again in line with AMD's specifications, while worst-case latency weighs in at 100ns.

Cache Bandwidth

Each CCX has its own caches, so a Threadripper CPU features four distinct clusters of L1, L2, and L3 memory. Our bandwidth benchmark illustrates the aggregate performance of these tiers.

During the single-threaded test, Ryzen 7 1800X demonstrates lower throughput than the Threadripper processors. The other configurations clump together in familiar stock and overclocked groups.

The multi-threaded tests are more interesting; we see Ryzen 7 1800X and the two Threadripper Game modes fall to the bottom of the chart. Because Game mode disables the cores on one die, it effectively takes the corresponding cache out of commission.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

VRMark & 3DMark

Test Notes

We used the same test platforms and settings outlined in our recent AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Review. AMD's gaming performance is a moving target that continues improving over time. So, today's story reflects all processors re-tested with the latest chipset, BIOS, GPU drivers, and game patches.

Configurations	Local (NUMA) / Distributed (UMA)	Legacy Mode (On/Off)	SMT (Multi-Threading)
Creator Mode	Distributed	Off	On
Game Mode	Local	On	On
Custom - Local/SMT Off	Local	Off	Off
Custom - Local/SMT (on)	Local	Off	On

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

VRMark responds well to high IPC throughput and frequency. Overclocking in Game mode yields the best performance, offering better results than overclocking under Creator mode.

The DX12 tests favors higher thread counts, so Creator mode becomes desirable.

Futuremark's threaded DX11 physics test responds well to the full complement of cores and threads, so the overclocked Local/SMT configuration dominates. Data locality, enforced through the Local setting, is the only difference between Creator mode and Local/SMT, so it appears the DX11 test favors this.

The API test also lends itself to high core counts. Both the Creator mode and Local/SMT configuration provides access to Threadripper 1950X's 32 threads. However, the Local/SMT configuration suffers during the DX12 and Vulkan tests.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

AotS: Escalation & Civilization VI

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Running overclocked in Creator mode narrowly yields the best average frame rate during the Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation benchmark

Game mode reduces the core/thread count and available cache, which unsurprisingly results in low performance during this heavily threaded title. The benchmark does appear to favor physical cores over logical processors, as the Local/SMT Off configuration beats the Local/SMT option with all of the architecture's threads accessible.

Civilization VI AI Test

The stock Core i9-7900X is faster than AMD's Threadripper 1950X, regardless of how we configure it. Tuning up to 3.9 GHz at least makes the Threadripper chip competitive.

This benchmark tends to favor physical cores, but we see some jockeying between the stock and overclocked SMT on/off configurations. Notably, Game mode provides impressive performance once we overclock. But it falls to the bottom of our chart in the CPU's stock form.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Civilization VI graphics test finds the Local/SMT configuration leading narrowly at stock and overclocked settings. Considering the gulf between Creator mode and the NUMA-enabled configurations (Game mode, Local/SMT On, and Local/SMT), this test appears to favor localized memory access.

Intel's Core i9-7900X suffers due to some of the performance regressions associated with Skylake-X's mesh architecture.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

Battlefield 1, Dawn of War III & Grand Theft Auto V

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Battlefield 1 benefits from disabling SMT, which enables the best overall performance in both stock and overclocked configurations. The title does not respond well to AMD's Game mode, which shows up in the chart's lowest position. Tuning only helps a little bit. Creator mode performs surprisingly well in both stock and overclocked configurations.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Game mode yields the best performance at stock and overclocked settings.

The Local/SMT options (on and off) both offer similar performance, with Local/SMT taking a slight lead. Notably, Creator mode suffers from reduced performance in both configurations; even tuning can't give it an edge over Game mode at stock clock rates.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V responds well to Game mode in both stock and overclocked configurations, while the Local/SMT configurations offer similar average frame rates. Creator mode trails the other configurations again, but the performance delta isn't as pronounced as we've seen in other titles.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

Hitman, Shadow of Mordor & Project CARS

Hitman (2016)

The Local/SMT on/off configurations offer similar performance at stock clock rates. But the delta between them widens in favor of Local/SMT Off after we do a bit of overclocking.

Intel's Core i9-7900X offers the best performance, but it also causes the most frame time variance during our benchmark. This seems attributable to blips as scenes change in the test sequence. To its credit, the -7900X provides the best 99th percentile frame rate results.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Shadow of Mordor becomes more graphics-bound as we drop in higher-end CPUs, so there is little variation between most of today's contenders. The exception is Threadripper in Creator mode, which struggles with older, lightly-threaded titles. Game mode predictably fares well during the test, though it's roughly equivalent to our Local/SMT configuration.

Project CARS

The Madness game engine was designed to facilitate parallelization, but it doesn't respond well to Creator mode. This performance disparity is likely due to the distributed memory access; most games just aren't accustomed to this type of architecture.

There goes our theory that Creator mode offers the best performance in well-threaded games. Once again, the Local/SMT off combination lands in the middle of our chart, while Local/SMT switches on all 32 threads to secure a victory.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

Far Cry Primal, Rise of the Tomb Raider & The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal will not load when it detects more than 20 threads, so you have to flip the "Legacy" toggle and reboot to reduce the number of threads active on Threadripper. Disabling SMT also reduces the thread count, so you can play the game using our Local/SMT Off configuration.

This game's Dunia Engine 2 tends to perform better with SMT disabled anyway, so it's surprising to see AMD's Game mode take the lead.

Interestingly, Core i9-7900X offers the best average frame rate, but suffers some frame time disturbance at the beginning and end of our benchmark, while Threadripper provides a smooth experience in both configurations. The overclocked Threadripper Game mode configuration also offers the best 99th percentile measurement.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider was once a less-than-ideal showcase of Ryzen's capabilities. But a recent patch fixed most of the CPU family's issues.

Creator mode trails at stock settings, but takes the lead among AMD's Threadripper processors after some overclocking. An overclocked -7900X can push to 150 FPS in this title, so a graphics bottleneck isn't the easy answer. There is almost no variation between the leading Threadripper configurations, indicating that some other limitation is affecting our results. In either case, the overclocked Threadripper's 99th percentile measurements are within range of the -7900X, and the processors do not suffer any significant hitching or stuttering.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

A graphics bottleneck looms during the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt benchmark, but it also allows us to examine performance during a heavy scene transition at the beginning of our jog through the woods. Both Game and Creator modes stutter noticeably during this sequence, while the Local/SMT configuration doesn't stutter as badly. The Local/SMT Off setting also experiences some variance toward the test's end.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

Final Analysis

AMD created new settings to help customers optimize the performance of its unique architecture. The options enable capabilities that simply weren't available on the desktop before now. Naturally, it's important to flip those switches and see what happens, particularly given the broad range of workloads that AMD says its Threadripper CPUs excel in.

AMD aims Threadripper at content creators, heavy multitaskers, and gamers who stream simultaneously. It also says the processors are ideal for gaming at high resolutions. Ryzen Threadripper 1950X isn't intended for playing around at low resolutions, particularly in older, lightly-threaded titles. Still, we tested at 1920x1080 to emphasize the difference between the various modes and settings AMD exposes, rather than show you results bound by our graphics card.

We plotted performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. Threadripper’s extra cores could enable more performance in the future as software evolves to utilize them better, so we also include a chart with newer games that exploit host processing resources more thoroughly.

Looking at the results spread across our entire gaming suite, the difference in performance between modes is surprisingly small. Four frames per second, on average, separate the fastest and slowest settings at stock clock rates. And we see a mere ~2 FPS delta with 99th percentile frame times. Overclocking the processor offers a more significant jump in performance than any mode configuration, and the difference between the various overclocked configurations is also small. We do see slightly larger deltas between the configurations in new titles, but again, they certainly aren't huge. And of course, gaming at higher resolutions does even more to narrow the gaps between settings.

Creator mode exhibits the bipolar gaming performance we've come to expect; it trails by a significant margin in lightly threaded games, but excels in titles that utilize lots of threads and uniform memory access. Unfortunately, some games appear to suffer from the Distributed mode, so leading performance in threaded titles isn't a given. This mode stumbles hard enough during our Civilization VI, Warhammer, Grand Theft Auto V, and Project CARS benchmarks that you'll certainly want to reboot and switch out of it.

Game mode provides solid performance in lightly threaded titles and lower frame rates in more heavily threaded games, but it often gives you a better 99th percentile result, indicating a smoother experience. It is a more reliable default mode, though you'll want to evaluate the experience for yourself on a case-by-case basis.

Switching off SMT and leaving both dies active, as we did with our Local/SMT Off configuration, provides good results, even as it cuts into available host processing resources.

Using Game mode or disabling SMT doesn't make much sense to us. A big part of Threadripper's allure is its ability to hammer through threaded workloads, even as other tasks are running simultaneously. Switching into Game mode sacrifices threads and cache, giving up performance in those situations.

Beyond recommending against Creator mode for gaming, we can't simply suggest one "best" combination of settings for single- and multi-threaded titles. There is simply too much variance as we expand the breadth of our suite. And that's likely why AMD enabled as many options as it did. Unfortunately, characterizing the behavior of your favorite games and rebooting between sessions probably won't be a popular pastime among enthusiasts.

Compromise might be the best approach. Leaving all threads active and switching to local memory access seems to provide the best of both worlds. This mode attempts to pin memory to the die executing the workload, thus offering a decent performance boost. But it also leaves the 1950X's complement of 32 threads available for heavy processing. Overall, this gives you optimal performance.

Of course, there are a few titles that won't initialize when confronted with 32 threads, so Legacy mode is a requirement in those isolated cases. It will be interesting to see how Intel tackles the same issue when its high-end Skylake-X models land.

Even at its worst, Threadripper delivers adequate performance in a majority of games at 1080p. Most enthusiasts will pair these high-end CPUs with fast graphics cards and high-res monitors though. In that case, Threadripper is easily quick enough to keep up at graphics-bound settings. Having 32 threads at your disposal for heavy lifting in the background is nice, too.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction

AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper 1950X put a feather in the cap of its high-end desktop aspirations. The company's new line-up challenges Intel's best efforts. But, as usual, some of the best value in AMD's product stack is found in the mid-range models. Ryzen Threadripper 1920X comes arms with 12 physical cores and SMT, enabling 24 concurrent threads fed by 38MB of cache, a quad-channel memory controller, and 64 lanes of PCIe. All of that costs $800, dramatically undercutting the 10-core Core i9-7900X.

Based on the back-and-forth we've witnessed this year, it appears the Ryzen family of CPUs may have caught Intel off-balance. AMD's siren call to enthusiasts includes lower prices, more cores, less segmentation, soldered heat spreaders, less expensive motherboards, and a longer commitment to each platform.

Intel does have pricier Skylake-X options available, but they sag under the weight of deliberate segmentation that fuses off native features on the cheaper models. Don't count Intel out, though; its beefiest Skylake-X chips are still forthcoming, along with a salvo of mainstream Coffee Lake CPUs to rival Ryzen 7, 5, and 3.

AMD has an aggressive roadmap it'll use to improve the Zen architecture and transition to smaller nodes, so the company should remain a competitive force to be reckoned with. Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is a great start, though. Based on the 1950X we already reviewed, this processor is expected to perform well at a reasonable price point (plus the highest overclocking ceiling we’ve seen on a Ryzen processor).

Meet Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

AMD designed its Threadripper processors for anyone able to utilize lots of cores and tons of PCIe connectivity. Think content creators, heavy multi-taskers, and software developers.

The 12C/24T Threadripper 1920X features a 3.5 GHz base clock, which is just 100 MHz higher than the 16C/32T 1950X. Surprisingly, the two chips share the same 3.7 GHz boost frequency for heavily-threaded workloads and a four-core 4 GHz setting for less taxing tasks. If your cooler is robust enough, both processors also enable a four-core 4.2 GHz XFR ceiling.

Like all of AMD's Ryzen processors, the 1920X utilizes two quad-core complexes combined into a single Zeppelin die. Two Zeppelin dies, tied together using the Infinity Fabric interconnect into a multi-chip module, come together to create Threadripper CPUs wielding 16 physical cores. AMD creates the 12-core 1920X by disabling four of them, leaving six cores per die (3+3).

The disabled cores serve as dark silicon, which absorbs heat dissipated by the active circuitry. This, coupled with AMD's use of a soldered heat spreader and aggressive binning (the company claims to use the top 5% of Zeppelin dies), leads to impressive overclocking headroom from our 1920X sample. We maintained a 4.1 GHz overclock, the highest achieved with any Ryzen CPU in our U.S. lab, using a relatively tame 1.42V.

	Threadripper 1950X	Core i9-7900X	Threadripper 1920X	Core i7-7820X	Threadripper 1900X
Price	$1000	$1000	$800	$600	$550
Interface/Chipset	TR4 / X399	LGA2066 / X299	TR4 / X399	LGA2066 / X299	TR4 / X399
Cores/Threads	16/32	10/20	12/24	8/16	8/16
TDP	180W	140W	180W	140W	180W
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.4	3.3	3.5	3.6	3.8
Boost Frequency (GHz)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.3 / 4.5 (TB 3.0)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.3 / 4.5 (TB 3.0)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)
Cache (L2+L3)	40MB	23.75MB	38MB	19MB	20MB
Memory Support	DDR4-2667	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2667	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2667
Memory Controller	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64	44	64	28	64

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X slots into the large price gap between Intel's Core i9-7900X and $600 i7-7820X. Making AMD's solution more interesting is the fact that Intel cuts PCIe connectivity from 44 lanes to 28 as you drop to the Core i7. In comparison, the Threadripper chip boasts 64 lanes, though four are reserved for AMD's chipset. The extra I/O comes in handy for multi-GPU configurations, large PCIe-based storage arrays, and streamers using dedicated capture cards.

The 1920X and 1950X both feature 32MB of L3 cache sliced into 16MB per Zeppelin die. You do lose 2MB of L2 cache to the four disabled cores, leaving 512KB per core, or 6MB across the MCM, active. Despite the disabled cores and cache, AMD still rates its 1920X with a 180W TDP.

Enthusiasts have to love that AMD uses Indium solder instead of the thermal paste Intel employs. Threadripper's large IHS helps with heat too, and the chip generally features solid thermal performance. We haven't encountered any serious heat concerns with the Threadripper models, which we can't say for Intel's Skylake-X CPUs.

Ryzen Threadripper Memory Support	MT/s
Quad-Channel/Dual-Rank/Two DIMMS per Channel (8)	1866
Quad-Channel/Single-Rank/Two DIMMs Per Channel (8)	2133
Quad-Channel/Dual-Rank/One DIMM Per Channel (4)	2400
Quad-Channel/Single-Rank/One DIMM Per Channel (4)	2677

Threadripper features independent dual-channel memory controllers, one paired with each die, that combine to provide quad-channel support with varying data transfer rates based upon memory types and DIMMs per channel. The platform supports ECC memory and a functional limit of 256GB of DDR4, though it can support up to 2TB as memory capacity increases.

The distributed memory alignment, along with the latency imposed by traversing the fabric between two separate dies, creates unique challenges for applications sensitive to timing. AMD has also discovered that certain games won't fire up with all of Threadripper's cores enabled. So the company implemented a pair of toggles that enable either UMA or NUMA mode to mitigate memory latency concerns, and a Legacy setting to disable one CCX, solving compatibility issues.

Selectable Creator and Game modes provide users with performance profiles tailored for either content creation or gaming. We covered how the underlying architecture responds to these modes in our AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X review.

We are starting to see dedicated coolers trickle out from leading vendors for AMD's massive 4094-pin TR4 socket. In the interim, AMD also includes an Asetek bracket with all Threadripper models to provide widespread compatibility with existing closed-loop coolers from several vendors.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Benchmarks Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

How We Test

Comparison Products

Ryzen 7 1800X

Intel Core i9-7900X

Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X

Test Systems

We introduced our new test system and methodology in How We Test Graphics Cards. If you'd like more detail about our general approach, check that piece out.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7900XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 4GB G.Skill RipJaws IV DDR4-2600AMD Socket AM4 WorkstationAMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1600X, 1500XMSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200Intel LGA 2011v3Intel Core i7-6900KMSI X99S XPower Gaming Titanium4x 4GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-2400Intel LGA 1151Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 MT/sAll SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders EditionNvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7900X, i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i5-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

Intel released new microcode for its Skylake-X processors recently, which reduces performance in some titles and lowers the AVX offset by two bins. We also noticed far lower Turbo Boost activation thresholds, though that could separately be the result of MSI's newest BIOS. The changes likely come in response to some of the power and thermal issues we encountered during our extended testing. We consequently retested both Skylake-X processors with the newest microcode.

AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is also a moving target, though it continues to improve over time. Today's story reflects all processors re-tested with the latest chipset, BIOS, GPU drivers, and game patches. We continue seeking out the best performance possible, so in today's review, we dial in AMD's Game mode for our game benchmarks.

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

VRMark responds well to high IPC throughput and frequency, so it's not surprising to see the 1920X benefit from a clock rate advantage over the 1950X at stock settings. Extra overclocking headroom gives the 1920X a bigger boost once we start tuning.

The Intel processors lead, but it's possible that Ryzen-specific optimizations could improve Threadripper's results.

We also tested the 1920X and 1950X in Creator mode for the threaded 3DMark DX11 and DX12 tests. Big core counts propel Threadripper to the top of our charts when it's overclocked, but Game mode halves the number of available threads, causing lackluster performance. Notably, both overclocked Threadripper models in Creator mode yield the best performance.

The Vulkan API responds exceedingly well to Threadripper's architecture, and the tuned 1920X delivers excellent DX11 single-threaded performance, particularly in game mode.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Switching the 1920X into Game mode creates a 6C/12T configuration that maximizes memory locality and eliminates die-to-die latency. But that comes at the expense of performance in parallel workloads. As such, Threadripper falls below its 8C/16T Ryzen 7 1800X counterpart in this heavily-threaded game.

We include an additional slide with test results using various settings. These numbers highlight that Game mode has a positive impact on lightly-threaded and otherwise incompatible titles, but can be a hindrance for more taxing workloads. A bit of tuning (and switching to Creator mode) pushes the Threadripper models above Intel's Core i9-7900X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

High frequencies and IPC throughput provide the best results in Civilization VI's AI test, which measures the available computational horsepower during a turn-based strategy gaming session.

The overclocked Intel processors lead, while AMD's Ryzen models populate the lower half of our chart. Interestingly, though, Threadripper 1920X triumphs over the 1950X in yet another lightly threaded title.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Both Skylake-X-based processors fall to the bottom of our chart in their stock configuration, which doesn't make sense given superior host processing resources. This is one of the notable performance regressions we have encountered with Intel’s new mesh architecture.

The Threadripper models lead the Intel competition at stock and overclocked settings. But the nimble Ryzen 7 1800X also demonstrates the value of a much less expensive platform. Core i7-7700K also does well out of the box, managing to outpace the brawnier stock Threadripper models. However, both the -7900X and -7700K do suffer significant frame time outliers.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

The less expensive Core i7-7820X and -7700K CPUs outpace AMD's Threadripper processors, though much of this is due to Ryzen's tendency to stutter during the opening seconds of our benchmark sequence.

The 1950X outperforms Threadripper 1920X, suggesting this title scales with additional cores.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

A stock Core i7-7700K dominates this test. Still, the overclocked Threadripper models put up a good fight as they deliver a smooth experience at over 100 FPS.

The 1920X leads over the 1950X in both stock and overclocked configurations. Meanwhile, Intel's Core i7-7820X suffers severe frame time variance that manifests as visible stuttering.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

We measure performance during Grand Theft Auto V's F-16 flight sequence with the built-in benchmark.

Grand Theft Auto V has always responded well to Intel's architectures. But a tuned 1950X in Game mode fares well, rivaling the Core i9-7900X and outpacing the -7700K.

The tuned 1920X isn't far behind the -7700K, Meanwhile, it's a bit faster than a stock -7800X. Stock Threadripper chips land at the bottom of our chart, illustrating the gains available if you're willing to tune AMD's HEDT line-up. The overclocked 1950X also delivers the best 99th percentile results, albeit by a slim margin.

Hitman (2016)

We encountered quite a bit of variability with the Threadripper processors (particularly from the 1950X) during our Hitman test sequence. Even tuning does little to rectify the frame time outliers. Low minimum frame rates, usually misleading when viewed in a vacuum, apply to all the Ryzen models, indicating this title might be particularly sensitive to memory latency.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

The Core i9-7900X paints a very poor picture of frame time variance as it works through the benchmark, while Threadripper provides a much smoother experience in this older title. AMD's top models also deliver excellent average frame rates.

We observe slight differences between both companies' high-end CPUs as Intel's stock Core i7-7700K dominates.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS & Far Cry Primal

Project CARS

Project CARS is a CPU-intensive title that promotes parallelism by breaking tasks into smaller chunks and spreading them among available cores.

Intel's high IPC throughput is clearly a factor as the Core i7-7700K and i9-7900X cruise to a substantial lead.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X offers higher clock rates than then 1950X, which helps it secure a narrow victory.

The Core i7-7820X suffers due to its comparatively low core count.

Far Cry Primal

Threadripper 1920X shines when we overclock it. Notably, the chip yields a 14.9ms 99th percentile measurement, while the overclocked -7900X registers a much higher 18.2ms.

The Core i7-7700K suffers several extreme frame time outliers.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rise of the Tomb Raider & The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider has long been a thorn in Ryzen's side due to architectural eccentricities. Recent game patches have cleared up most of the inexplicable anomalies, thankfully.

The tuned 1950X fares well, beating our overclocked Threadripper 1920X sample. All of these CPU deliver a smooth experience, though.

We continues to observe that telltale AMD frame rate behavior at the end of the benchmark as it becomes more CPU-intensive, even from the Threadripper models.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

That large frame time spike in the benchmark's early section is a scene transition. All of our contenders suffer from it to some extent, though AMD's Threadripper 1950X stumbles most.

Intel's Core i7-7700K remains the processor to beat.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

DTP, Office, Multimedia & Compression Performance

Although we usually don’t run our application benchmarks on overclocked processors, we're including the Threadripper models at stock and overclocked frequencies to study how well AMD’s architecture scales with increased frequency. We also added a (reasonably) overclocked Intel Core i9-7900X to our results.

DTP & Presentation

Adobe’s Creative Cloud gives us a look at single- and multi-core performance. As such, it beats synthetic benchmarks as a productivity test.

After Effects CC scales well with core count, granting an easy win to the Threadripper processors. Conversely, InDesign CC finds Intel’s Skylake-X in the back of the pack, while Core i7-7700K leads with its blend of high IPC throughput and frequency. Likewise, AMD’s Ryzen 7 outperforms the Threadripper processors, even after we boost their clock rate. The 1920X dominates in Adobe Illustrator, while the 1950X inexplicably struggles.

Encoding & Multimedia

After tuning, the Threadripper processors trade blows with Intel's overclocked Core i9-7900X. They do lag behind at stock settings; however, the 1920X slips past Core i7-7820X.

Intensifying the workload with higher quality settings really emphasizes threading. This gives AMD's Threadripper processors a sizeable advantage over the -7900X and a resounding win over the rest of the group.

Compression & Decompression

The 1920X's extra cores also come into play during our compression test, giving it an advantage over the stock -7900X.

Intel's overclocked Core i9-7900X barely beats the stock and overclocked 1920X, but its advantage is small enough to be imperceptible.

A lightly-threaded 7-Zip decompression workload prefers high clock rate and IPC throughput. The 1920X's slight frequency advantage over AMD's brawny flagship translates to a quantifiable win. Tuning widens the gap even further.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

2D & 3D Workstation Performance

2D Workstation Performance

Our GDI/GDI+ tests are used to test two different output methods that can be found in older applications and printing tasks. Today, they, or at least a modified version of them, are commonly used to display the graphical user interface (GUI). They are also great benchmarks for direct device write throughput and memory performance when handling gigantic device-independent bitmap (DIB) files.

Tom’s Hardware Synthetic 2D Benchmarks

We take a look at direct device write throughput first. There hasn’t been true 2D hardware acceleration since the introduction of the unified shader architecture, and Microsoft's Windows driver model complicates 2D hardware acceleration as well.

The graphics test is lightly threaded, so AMD's Threadripper processors struggle while Intel's Core i7-7700K enjoys a massive advantage.

Next, we generate the graphics output in memory, using the only remaining 2D hardware function. The benchmark is the same as before, but we instead plot a bitmap in memory rather than send the information directly to the monitor. The bitmap is only copied once it's complete. This pushes the CPUs, since they’re no longer platform-bound.

Ryzen Threadripper processors dominate the field, with AMD's 1920X landing in first place.

AutoCAD 2016 (2D)

The AutoCAD 2D benchmark doesn't scale well with additional cores. That shifts the focus to IPC throughput, where Intel's processors shine.

Surprisingly, Ryzen 7 1800X beats the tuned Threadripper 1920X. Die-to-die latency may come into play during this test.

3D Workstation Performance

Most professional development applications have been optimized and compiled with Intel CPUs in mind. This is reflected in their performance numbers. Still, we include them in order to motivate developers to focus their efforts on AMD’s Ryzen processors as well. This would give users more than one choice. The same goes for an emphasis on multi-core processors, at least where that’s feasible and makes sense.

AutoCAD 2016 (3D)

AMD’s Ryzen family lands within a narrow range during this frequency-sensitive application. The Core i7-7700K takes an easy lead, and the -7820X's second-place finish confirms that the workload isn't optimized for parallelism. In fact, AutoCAD’s performance resembles older games because it uses DirectX and doesn't leverage multiple cores effectively.

Cinebench R15 OpenGL

Clock rate tends to influence the Cinebench R15 OpenGL benchmark results most. Our numbers indicate that the application could benefit from Ryzen-specific optimizations.

SolidWorks 2015

SolidWorks 2015 tells a similar tale. Even an overclocked Ryzen Threadripper 1920X loses to Ryzen 7 1800X. Switching to NUMA mode could help improve Threadripper's placement, but that'd also have an impact on other applications. You'll have to choose the settings that yield the best experience or face a steady stream of reboots to optimize AMD's platform for whatever you're running at the moment.

Creo 3.0

The 1920X's lead over the 1950X tells us that frequency is more important than core count during this benchmark.

Moreover, Ryzen 7 1800X's performance advantage over the Threadripper processors suggests the unique MCM design can be problematic in some workloads. Optimized BIOS settings could push those processors up in our field, but they'd also negatively impact Creo's CPU composite score.

Blender (Real-time 3D Preview)

Threadripper's Blender benchmark results are acceptable for a high-end processor, but the -7700K is a fly in the ointment for both Intel's and AMD's priciest chips. The overclocked 1920X leads AMD's line-up, illustrating the advantages of extra clock rate in workloads not well-optimized for high core counts. Given the great rendering results you'll see on the next page, Threadripper 1920X provides a potent balance of performance in all types of applications.

Catia V6 R2012

This graphics benchmark is well-optimized (it’s part of the free SPECviewperf 12 suite, after all). We can see that frequency is particularly important in determining performance.

Maya 2013

Maya 2013 also leans heavily on clock rate. But you have to remember that real-time 3D output benchmarks don’t tell the whole story. AMD’s Threadripper processors are much more competitive during final rendering, which we'll cover on the next page.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

CPU Rendering, Scientific & Engineering Computations, & HPC Performance

CPU Workstation Performance

The 3D graphics performance we just measured isn’t all that matters to professional rendering software. Applications run many other tasks (like simulations, compute jobs, preview rendering) on the CPU simultaneously. The full picture’s only achievable by looking at both of them together.

Many modern suites include modules that are based exclusively on computing and simulations. This means we need to go beyond just 3D workstation performance to form our opinion of these high-end CPUs.

Threadripper offers solid performance in applications that respond well to IPC throughput and frequency, so the Threadripper 1920X leads its counterpart in the SolidWorks and Creo Composite tests. 3ds Max 2015's CPU Computing test benefits from both frequency and parallelism, rewarding the 1950X with a first-place finish when it's overclocked.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.

Nothing beats AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper when it comes to rendering in 3ds Max 2015. Core count is much more important than clock rate, which yields a predictable pecking order.

Most of the Blender tests naturally respond well to Threadripper's array of execution resources.

IPC throughput and clock rate become a factor during the "Blenderalla" workload, so Intel's Skylake-X processors assume the lead.

Overall, the Threadripper products are great for semi-professional use and rendering workloads. Even when they don't win absolutely, they still offer performance that's competitive with Intel's similarly-priced models.

Scientific & Engineering Computations, & HPC Performance

For these tests, we use the SPECwpc benchmark suite for workstations with its wide variety of tasks. It runs a number of different mathematical computations optimized for parallelization. They typically make heavy use of available memory bandwidth and cache, plus expose issues with latency.

The convolution benchmark consists of an operation performed on two functions that results in a third function. Performance scales similarly well with core count and clock rate, allowing the Threadripper architecture to shine.

CalculiX is based on the finite element method for three-dimensional structural computations. In this test, Ryzen Threadripper 1950X bests Intel's -7900X, while the 1920X leads the rest of the field.

SRMP algorithms are used for discrete energy minimization, and none of the AMD entrants handle them well, suggesting the benchmark might be latency-sensitive.

The Kirchhoff Migration test plays well with AMD's Threadripper design, though, so the company's highest-end chips lead the field by an impressive margin.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Cooling & Temperature

The Right Cooling Solution

AMD uses solder between Threadripper's dies and its heat spreader. This plays a critical role in aiding our overclocking efforts, helping us achieve the highest clock rate we've seen from a Ryzen CPU. We made significant changes to our cooling setup to avoid a few issues with the standard mounting mechanism.

Overclocking

Our Threadripper 1950X sample overclocked to 3.9 GHz at 1.35V, and the 1920X hit 4.1 GHz with 1.42V. The all-in-one water-cooler in our kit couldn't keep the CPU stable at that level, though. This was due to processor power consumption exceeding 250W during our rendering test.

And so we went back to our higher-end Chiller for a better comparison data. This way, there’s one true constant to our measurements: a water temperature of approximately 20°C that can be held constant, even subjected to more than 300W of waste heat.

For everyday use, a normal water-cooling solution will definitely suffice thanks to AMD's soldered heat spreader, which makes Threadripper less of a challenge than Intel's Core i9-7900X. Our approach simply allows us a bit more thermal headroom.

Using the Chiller, AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper 1920X went even higher, reaching 4.2 GHz at 1.45V and 4.3 GHz at 1.5V. At that point, the Chiller started falling behind Threadripper's thermal output as temperatures crept too high for comfort. We dialed in a more reasonable 4.1 GHz for our benchmarks.

Maximum Temperatures: Stock Clock Rate

For our baseline results, we used the 360mm closed-loop cooler that AMD provided. As a spoiler, the motherboard limits both Threadripper chips to ~180W. You can’t exceed this upper boundary for even short periods using normal settings.

The 1920X’s curves look almost identical to those of AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, except for a few insignificant Tctl and Tdie jumps. This is hardly surprising, seeing that the load is similar as well.

The CPU temperature values reported by HWiNFO64 through Asus' separate sensor loop are between 6°C and 12°C lower than the Tctl values, and they rise more slowly. Even without additional cooling, the voltage converter temperatures are almost perfect at just under 60°C.

Maximum Temperatures: Overclocked

Increasing voltages to guarantee stable operation pushes the processors past their sweet spot. Consequently, power consumption goes through the roof. Operating well beyond 300W poses a challenge for any cooling solution. That's why we're using the Chiller. We did try a normal water-cooling loop though, resulting in the Tctl and Tdie values going up by ~10°C to 15°C. This is well within an acceptable range.

The overclocked 1950X peaks at 320 to 325W. Using the Chiller, this level of power consumption is accompanied by Tctl values of 87°C. That’s actually not as severe as it seems once the offset and Tdie values are taken into account. A real temperature of approximately 60°C serves as a great demonstration of why solder is superior to thermal paste.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

We establish the package’s power consumption results by using a special sensor loop. This way, our values represent the exact amount of power that goes into the CPU and then reemerges in the form of waste heat dissipated by the cooling subsystem. We check our sensor readings using shunts and by measuring overall power consumption directly at the EPS connector (with a current probe and direct voltage measurement).

AMD’s Threadripper CPUs use different partial voltages for the SoC and SMU rails at different clock rates. These partial voltages, which, again, vary based on frequency, do influence the package’s power consumption. AMD recommended that we use the profile included with its DDR4-3200 kit. But if we instead use the standard SPD values for DDR4-2133, our power measurement is 15W lower!Both of AMD’s CPUs are designed for a maximum power ceiling of 180W at their default settings. If the memory gets overclocked, the CPU has 15 fewer watts to work with. This could affect performance in workloads that utilize all cores and, consequently, get too close to the limit.

Idle Power Consumption

Threadripper’s idle power consumption is roughly twice that of the Ryzen 7 models. However, Threadripper also hosts two dies instead of one, and it also hits higher clock rates under sporadic loads. The overclocked version requires higher voltages as well, and memory also plays a role in power consumption. For instance, dropping to DDR4-2133 pulls the 1920X's idle power use down to 32W.

CAD Workload Power Consumption

AutoCAD 2016 rarely uses more than two or three cores. In fact, most of the time it's limited to a single core. Thus, it's not surprising that the CAD power consumption only adds a maximum of 15W to the idle power numbers. The two overclocked configurations add another 14W, which makes for an almost 30W difference compared to our idle power consumption results.

Gaming Power Consumption

When it comes to gaming, Threadripper’s MCM design causes its many cores to get in each others' way. Thus, the frame rates we report end up lower than competing processors. But power consumption ends up similar to Intel's Core i9-7900X, even though Skylake-X offers much more performance.

Stress Test & Maximum Power Consumption

Power consumption goes through the roof during our stress test, especially for the overclocked configurations.

The motherboard is partially to blame for the stock Intel Core i9-7900X's excessively high numbers. It doesn’t obey the standard Turbo Boost frequency thresholds, instead boosting aggressively and staying in those boost states longer than required. For more details, see our article about the power and thermal issues we encountered during our extended testing.

Threadripper doesn’t have those kinds of issues. Asus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme limits power consumption to exactly 180W at stock settings, just as it should.

At a respectable 1.425V, the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X reaches 4.1 GHz. The higher-end 1950X needs 1.35V to achieve 3.9 GHz. Once overclocked, AMD’s new processors join Intel's Core i9-7900X overclocked to 4.5 GHz in the stratosphere beyond 300W.

In the end, Threadripper's two dies sometimes consume more power than other processors’ single dies, depending on the task. We succeeded in breaking the 4 GHz barrier by overclocking the 1920X to 4.1 GHz. At that speed, all 24 threads were fully functional and at our disposal. The high power consumption is acceptable if it's accompanied by comparably elevated application performance. For Threadripper, that requires highly parallelized workloads (and perhaps optimized software).

Unfortunately, Threadripper's efficiency during gaming turns out to be significantly worse than Intel’s. Threadripper draws an additional ~15W at idle due to the memory. Subtracting that 15W from AMD's gaming power consumption changes the picture, bringing power consumption in line with the lower gaming performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X bears most of the same features touted on Threadripper 1950X. It clearly offers strong performance in threaded applications, but it also comes with higher base clock rates and more overclocking headroom than any Ryzen model we've tested. Compared to the 1950X, you save $200 in exchange for four cores and eight threads. However, you also gain higher performance in many lightly threaded productivity applications.

AMD positions Threadripper as a solution for content creators, heavy multi-taskers, and gamers who stream to services like Twitch. It also says the processors are ideal for gaming at high resolutions (a most logical pairing, given the likely specs of a desktop with an $800 CPU). The 1920X isn't intended for low-resolution gaming, particularly with lightly threaded titles. Still, we test at lower resolutions to unearth the differences between competing architectures, rather than be bound by graphics performance.

The following gaming price efficiency charts use a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement and plot against price. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. Threadripper’s extra cores could enable more performance in the future as software evolves to utilize them better, so we also include a chart with newer games that exploit host processing resources more thoroughly.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X drops into the gap between Intel's $600 Core i7-7820X and $1000 i9-7900X. It offers less performance than the Intel processors in both new and older games, even after a substantial overclock. Those deltas will shrink at higher resolutions, though. The 1920X's performance is fairly comparable to the higher-end 1950X, although AMD's flagship also exhibits a relatively small lead over the 1920X in stock and overclocked configurations.

Threadripper's true value registers in more intense workloads, such as heavy multitasking while gaming. Moreover, its hefty allotment of 60 available PCIe lanes allows for plenty of expansion. Even though the X399 motherboards are quite stable, more performance-enhancing firmware is trickling out from several vendors. We've already seen much higher gaming performance from the 1950X in Game mode, which is promising. Ryzen-specific optimizations for current titles continue surfacing as well, and we expect most new games to include similar optimizations. Gaming on Ryzen should only improve with time.

Of course, we still recommend sticking with mainstream processors like Ryzen 7/5 or Core i7/i5 for the best gaming value. That recommendation applies to both Intel and AMD high-end CPUs.

Focusing more on Threadripper's core competency, the 1920X offers great performance in a few of our less demanding productivity tasks, such as the Adobe suite. Notably, the 1920X's extremely high score in Adobe Illustrator feels like an outlier, so we provide charts both with and without that test. In either case, the 1920X's frequency advantage provides more performance than Core i9-7900X in this and some other lightly threaded tasks, like decompression.

The 1920X excels in encoding and compression workloads, often matching or outstripping Intel's Core i9-7900X. The 1920X isn't as dominant in the Blender and LuxRender tests, but it delivers incredibly competitive performance, especially in light of its lower price point. It also fares well in many of our HPC and scientific workloads, highlighting its diverse capabilities.

The Threadripper processors are a solid choice for highly parallelized or simultaneous workloads. Intel still enjoys an advantage in most lightly threaded tasks. But overall, the 1920X is more competitive in these applications than the lower-frequency 1950X. Of course, switching into Game mode might enable higher performance in some situations, but we don't think professional users will tolerate constant reboots to toggle back and forth.

Intel's X299 and AMD's X399 platform costs are similar, at least by early indications. Several TR4-specific coolers have already come to market, and we expect more in the future. Surprisingly, the bundled Asetek bracket, which provides poor IHS coverage, is sufficient to attain substantial overclocks (at least by Ryzen standards). We used the bracket and a standard Thermaltake 360mm radiator to achieve a rock-solid 4.1 GHz, so cooling isn't as much of a worry here as it was with Skylake-X. Take note Intel; solder pays off.

Intel's Skylake-X models are still trickling out, so the company will have faster options soon. But they'll launch at hideous price points. Meanwhile, the 1920X slots into the $400 chasm between Core i9-7900X and i7-7820X, and it doesn't appear that Intel will have a Skylake-X processor to compete any time soon. This is a tremendous opportunity for AMD, and it's great news for anyone seeking no-compromise connectivity, competitive responsiveness in everyday apps, and superior performance per dollar in threaded software.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Threadripper Lands August 10, AMD Unveils Pricing, Accessory Kit, New 8-Core Model

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 02:30:00 +0000

Threadripper lands on retail shelves on August 10 and pre-orders open tomorrow. AMD filled us in on additional details at its Capsaicin event here in Los Angeles today, including an unannounced processor, a new accessory kit, and Threadripper's XFR frequencies and TDPs.

AMD's Zen microarchitecture, which was first officially available in early March, has truly revitalized the company's processor lineup. The design can scale from low-power mobile models to the high-powered data center, so it was only a matter of time before AMD expanded its attack into Intel's high end desktop stronghold.

AMD's halo Ryzen Threadripper 1950X model leads the charge with 16 cores and 32 threads, and the Zen architecture bristles with copious PCIe connectivity options for the entire lineup. More importantly, Threadripper sets the stage for a potentially lopsided fight between this $999 16-core flagship model and the similarly priced Intel 10-core i9-7900X.

Lower prices and less segmentation are music to enthusiast ears, but we still have a lot of ground to explore when it comes to performance. Here's what we know now.

The Lineup

AMD aims the Threadripper lineup at software developers, video/audio engineers, and of course gamers, particularly those who stream or multitask heavily. The competitive Ryzen 7 lineup addressed the lower spectrum of professional applications, but dual-channel memory limited its reach. Threadripper's step up to a quad-channel memory controller provides enough memory heft to handle voluminous professional applications. Throwing in a beefy slab of PCIe connectivity also provides plenty of NVMe storage ports and supports up to four GPUs for heterogeneous computing.

The $999 16C/32T Threadripper 1950X is disruptive, but AMD also offers two competitive downstream models. The $799 1920X wields 12C/24T with a slightly higher base clock, and due to the basic rules of semiconductor power and thermal scaling, the $549 8C/16T 1900X features the highest base clock of the family. AMD already spouted the basic specifications of its two high-end models, but the 1900X was somewhat of a surprise announcement.

	Threadripper 1950X	Core i9-7900X	Threadripper 1920X	Core i7-7820X	Threadripper 1900X
Price	$999	$999	$799	$599	$549
Interface/Chiset	TR4 / X399	LGA2066 / X299	TR4 / X399	LGA2066 / X299	TR4 / X399
Cores/Threads	16/32	10/20	12/24	8/16	8/16
TDP	180W	140W	180W	140W	180W
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.4	3.3	3.5	3.6	3.8
Boost Frequency (GHz)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.3 / 4.5 (TB 3.0)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.3 / 4.5 (TB 3.0)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)
L3 cache (L2+L3)	40 MB	23.75 MB	38 MB	19MB	20 MB
Memory Support	DDR4-2667	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2667	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2667
Memory Controller	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64	44	64	28	64

The Threadripper 1950X naturally competes with Intel's Core i9-7900X, but it brings more cores, cache, and PCIe lanes to the battle. The Threadripper 1920X straddles the pricing line between the Core i9-7900X and the i7-7820X, which shows that AMD is taking advantage of the big $400 price gap in the Intel lineup. Shrewd move; Intel doesn't have a clear contender at this price point.

The Threadripper 1900X only undercuts the -7820X by $50, but it arrives at the party with 64 PCIe lanes. As such, it poses a real threat to Intel's Core i7-7820X.

AMD also announced that it offers a 200 MHz XFR boost, which brings the top stock frequencies to 4.2 GHz for all Threadripper processors. That narrows the gap between AMD and Intel's boost frequencies, but AMD also offers higher base frequencies across the stack.

AMD also provided a slide that outlines Threadripper's resource advantages relative to Intel's lineup. Overall, AMD's core, cache, and PCIe advantages are impressive. Although these factors don't always equate to better performance, they surely set a strong foundation. AMD also reminds us that it dedicates four of Threadripper's 64 PCIe lanes to the chipset.

Unleashing The Threads

AMD also treated us to performance comparisons, but as with all vendors, we have to take the claims with a grain of salt. We provide expandable test notes at the bottom of the article.

Intel's Skylake-X models have leading IPC throughput and boost clocks, but it isn't enough to hold off AMD's 1950X in multithreaded workloads. The 1950X's 60% core count advantage yields a 39% Cinebench performance advantage. The 1920X, which is 20% cheaper than the -7900X, provides 11% more multithreaded performance. AMD provided performance data from a broader spate of heavy workloads for the 1950X and 1920X, and even the 12-core 1920X can trade blows with Intel's $999 Core i9-7900X, according to AMD's numbers. We will have to wait for more information on the eight-core 1900X.

AMD also claims a performance-per-Watt advantage over comparably-priced Intel models. We learned the Threadripper models all have a 180W TDP, which is 40W more than the Skylake-X lineup, but TDP figures can be misleading. For instance, AMD's EPYC processors have a higher TDP than Intel's Purley models but are surprisingly efficient. Those processors are very similar to Threadripper.

AMD contends that its 16-core 1950X offers considerably more efficiency than Intel's 10-core -7900X, but it will also be interesting to pit it against one of Intel's higher core count models. Those have yet to come to market, lending AMD the advantage of the highest core counts at launch.

The Launch Ecosystem And Tool Kit

AMD is eager to avoid some of the hiccups of the Ryzen 7 launch, which suffered from limited motherboard and cooling options. To that end, AMD has lined up launch-ready motherboards from ASRock, Gigabyte, Asus, and MSI.

A menu of 20 different liquid cooling options and five air coolers from a wide array of manufacturers also greet early adopters. AMD includes a bundled Asetek adapter for existing AIO watercoolers. Considering Asetek's role in the AIO ecosystem, the bracket will grant wide compatibility with existing closed loop coolers.

Threadripper's large retail package provides plenty of room for value-adds. Given the large Threadripper processors and TR4 socket, it will likely require a fair amount of pressure to ensure consistent contact between the chip and the socket, so the company employs three Torx fasteners to hold the processor snugly. AMD provides a bundled Torx wrench for processor installation. We've covered the socket dimensions and installation procedure, so head to those articles for more detail.

Pre-orders and Availability

AMD is opening a pre-order window for the Threadripper 1950X and 1920X models on July 31, but as usual, we recommend waiting for in-depth reviews before pulling the trigger. For those who can't wait, Amazon, Newegg, and a host of other retailers will have the processors. A slew of boutique builders already offer pre-orders for full systems. The 1950X and 1920X ship on August 10, and the eight-core Ryzen Threadripper 1900X will land on August 31.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920XView Deal

The Intel Reaction

AMD feels that Intel has already begun to lower its prices in the face of stiffer competition, and as we can see in the chart, Intel has significantly reduced its pricing for high-end desktop models. If AMD generates enough sales, it's possible we could see further changes to Intel's pricing model.

It's definitely been an exciting (and exhausting) year of processor releases so far, but the story isn't over. AMD also has the Ryzen Mobile and Raven Ridge APUs, which feature Zen and Vega cores on the same die, headed to market later this year. That puts a cap on AMD's penetration into every market segment. AMD has built its way up the stack to Threadripper, and you can imagine reviews will be ready when the processors hit shelves.

MSI Video Outlines Threadripper Installation Procedure In X399's TR4 Socket

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 22:52:01 +0000

MSI released a video outlining the mounting procedure for AMD's 16-core/32-thread Threadripper processors that find a home in AMD's new TR4 socket on X399 motherboards. Cramming 16 cores into a single processor is quite the feat, but it also creates a very large chip. That means AMD had to design a massive new socket for Threadripper, but ensuring a snug fit for reliable communication between the processor and the motherboard presents engineering challenges. We recently posted exclusive schematics of the socket and how it will work with existing cooling solutions, but MSI's video brings a few more details to light.

AMD's new Socket TR4 (SP3r2) for consumer motherboards boasts 4,094 pins, which is why it's so much larger than Intel's 2,066-pin LGA2066 socket found on X299 chipset-equipped motherboards. That's a heaping ration of gold pins that result in a comparatively more complex design than Intel's socket. In fact, AMD's socket spans nearly the entire length of the DIMM slots that flank it on either side. Those factors might result in fairly expensive X399 motherboards, but we'll dive into that in more depth in the pending Threadripper review.

The TR4 socket marks AMD's transition from the PGA (Pin Grid Array) socket found on its AM4 motherboards to an LGA (Land Grid Array) interface. There are advantages and disadvantages to both designs, which again, we'll dive into in the review.

AMD's TR4 socket uses three Torx screws to keep Threadripper snug in its new home, which stands in contrast to the normal latching feature found on consumer motherboards from both Intel and AMD. In fact, it's similar to the technique Intel uses on its enterprise Purley processors that leverage the LGA 3467 Socket P, which features a comparably-beastly 3,647 pins. In contrast, Intel's mounting scheme employs Torx fasteners that mount through the heatsink and into the socket housing, whereas AMD's mounting scheme employs Torx screws that slot in directly through the flip-up socket housing. Head over to our Purley review for a look at the Intel mounting procedure, which requires you first to snap the processor into the heatsink then install the assembly onto the socket.

For Threadripper, first, you remove the three screws and swing open the retention mechanism, under which there is another assembly that you also swing open. You remove an internal plastic cover and then slide the processor—which is contained in an orange plastic shroud—into the carriage. It's important to leave the black cover over the socket until you install the processor in the flip-up housing—those pins are fragile.

After you slide the processor into its housing, you remove the cover and swing it down into the socket. Then you swing down the mounting mechanism and tighten the fasteners, after which you are ready to slather on a generous helping of TIM (necessitated by the large integrated heat spreader). Heatsink installation requires four additional fasteners. As we noted in our schematic piece, the heatsink mounting fasteners aren't aligned symmetrically.

Plug in the fan, and you're ready to rock. Threadripper is almost among us. AMD tells us that shipping begins in early August. As you can imagine, our preparatory testing has already begun.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920XView Deal

Update, 7/28/17, 6:40pm PT: Corrected AMD core count

Exclusive Threadripper Socket TR4 Schematics, Cooler Compatibility

Igor Wallossek — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:38:02 +0000

AMD's 4,094-pin socket, which is paired with the X399 chipset for Threadripper, is massive by any measure. AMD christened it as Socket TR4 (SP3r2) for consumer motherboards and Socket SP3 for EPYC servers. The physical dimensions of both LGA (Land Grid Array) sockets are identical.

In either case, Socket TR4 far outweighs Intel's 2,066-pin socket for the X-Series platform, which has the natural side effect of a much larger heatspreader on the Threadripper processors. That presents challenges for cooler vendors, but AMD also uses indium solder under the heatspreader, which should help thermal performance significantly.

We know that AMD and various cooler manufacturers will be offering special solutions that will allow existing coolers to be used on AMD's much larger Socket TR4. We succeeded in obtaining a set of new adapters for the Alphacool XPX that we use in our German test lab. Please note that the manufacturer did not serve as a source for our exclusive schematics.

Since we now have the complete design drawings for the socket, we have superimposed the cooling solution over the socket schematic and made some educated guesses. This helps us to assess compatibility beforehand.

It's striking that, in addition to the rectangular shape of the CPU recess in the socket frame, there is an asymmetrical arrangement of the mounting screw emplacements. On the left, we see a distance of 65.2mm and to the right only 46mm. We also see very nicely where the modified square (or round heatsink) cooler will mount. A large, rather square waterblock, like the illustrated Alphacool XPX, should be an advantage over the round solutions we find on many of the Asetek products.

The rectangular heatsink covers about 90% of Threadripper's integrated heat spreader after accounting for the screws on the waterblock and the uncovered edges of the processor. Also, the arrangement and size of the microchannels inside the waterblock are, of course, not (yet) optimal. Threadripper CPUs have four die, and thus there are large disparate hotspots. This requires large-area microchannel fields and other flow profiles in the cooler.

For the launch, however, the water block should be sufficient, though it isn't perfect yet. We are curious when (and which) products will be specially adapted for the TR4/SP3r2 socket, and how much better they will perform.

For those of you do-it-yourselfers with a CNC milling machine, or for those who are simply curious, we have compiled all of the relevant design documents and present them below.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XView Deal

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920XView Deal

Socket SP3 front side

AMD Announces Ryzen Threadripper, Challenges Intel With 12C/16C For $799 and $999

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:50:00 +0000

Enthusiasts have yearned for a suitable high-end desktop platform alternative for ages, and now we finally have one. AMD announced its highly anticipated Ryzen Threadripper in two flavors: The 1950X weighs in with 16 cores and 32 threads for $999, and the Threadripper 1920X brings 12 cores and 24 threads for $799. Both will ship in early August. AMD also announced its Ryzen 3 models and a ship date of July 27, but hasn't provided pricing information about these low-end models.

AMD released a video that outlines the basics of the launch and pits both Threadripper models against Intel's Core i9-7900X in a Multi-Threaded Cinebench R15 workload. The Ryzen Threadripper models win handily. That's a nice result, and it's noteworthy that both AMD models have the core count advantage, but the processors fall in the same price range. Given that Intel's 12-core and 16-core models aren't available yet, this is the closest we can get to a fair comparison to Intel's high-end models.

AMD's strategy has been to offer disruptive price points compared to competing Intel chips, and Threadripper's pricing continues that trend. Intel's competing Core i9-7960X features a similar 16C/32T as the $999 Threadripper 1950X, but it retails for $1,699. The $1,199 Core i9-7920X contends with the $799 12C/24T Threadripper 1920X.

Intel's realigned pricing for the Skylake-X processors was quite the buzz, but while the company has obviously reworked its high-end desktop pricing structure, it wasn't enough to stave off the underdog entirely. AMD's comparable products undercut Intel's Skylake-X models by $700 and $400, respectively, which is definitely going to fuel increased competition in the high-end desktop market, which has long been Intel's self-described high-margin lineup.

AMD released precious few details outside of pricing and frequencies. The Threadripper 1950X has a base 3.4GHz frequency that boosts to 4.0GHz under load. Current Ryzen models feature a two-core boost, and we expect that will continue. However, we have no information on XFR frequencies, which is an extra boost if your thermal solution is beefy enough, but we expect it to fall within the same 100-200MHz window we see with the existing models. Given the dual-die architecture, the 1950X almost certainly has 32MB of L3 cache, but AMD hasn't confirmed details.

The Threadripper 1920X features a 3.5GHz base and 4.0GHz boost. Intel hasn't released frequencies for its two competing chips, but it's pretty predictable. Intel's frequencies decline as the company adds more cores, and the 10C/20T Core i9-7900X features a 3.3GHz base. That means all of Intel's more well-endowed chips will have lower base frequencies. Both Threadripper processors will have higher base frequencies, partially offsetting some of Intel's IPC advantage. However, Intel's boost frequencies were one of the most surprising aspects of the Core i9 lineup. Intel's high core count models all boost to 4.5Ghz, and though we can't be sure of the unannounced turbos of the -7960X and -7920X, Intel might hold the advantage.

AMD's high-end models come without a cooler, and we expect the same trend for the Threadripper models. That's in-line with Intel's policy, too, so those extra costs are similar for both lineups. However, AMD employs solder while Intel stubbornly sticks to thermal paste, much to the ire of enthusiasts. We've tested the Core i9-7900X and found significant problems with the thermal paste, and we expect that to continue with Intel's higher core count models. AMD will likely have a higher TDP, though, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out when the chips hit our labs.

We don't know much else about the Threadripper lineup other than existing information. We do know the chips drop into the massive 4,094-pin TR4 socket with the X399 chipset. That's the same socket AMD uses for its EPYC data center lineup, and it dwarfs Intel's 2,066-pin LGA2066 socket. AMD has long held the advantage when it comes to motherboard pricing, and though the X299 platform can be characterized as anything but cheap, AMD's TR4 socket might lead to a similar price range. Simply put, larger sockets are more expensive.

The Threadripper lineup will come armed with quad-channel memory, which is a notable advantage Intel's X99 (and now X299) platform holds over the cheaper Ryzen 7 models. That should even the playing field. Intel also has its 18/36 Core i9-7980XE in reserve, which lends the company the core count advantage, and a much broader product stack with five models with varying core/thread counts. Neither of those advantages mean much if there is a comparable platform with much cheaper alternatives. AMD also has an overwhelming PCIe advantage with a total of 60 lanes, while Intel has varying PCIe allotments that are markedly lower across the board.

Ryzen 3

AMD also announced that the Ryzen 3 lineup is shipping on July 27. The Ryzen 3 1300X weighs in with four cores and four threads with a 3.5/3.7GHz base/boost, while the Ryzen 3 1200 features the same core/thread count at 3.1/3.4GHz. These chips will do battle with Intel in the low end of the market, which is perhaps the largest volume segment. Intel holds the advantage of its integrated graphics, which becomes more important as we travel down the stack to models that aren’t usually accompanied by discrete graphics cards.

However, we expect the same brutal pricing model from AMD, so competition will be pitched for the low end of the enthusiast segment. Intel hasn't readjusted its pricing on the low-end models, but now that AMD is squeezing the entire desktop spectrum, we could see a reaction.