AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X CPU Review
-
Page 1:Eight Cores For The High-End Desktop
-
Page 2:Overclocking, Infinity Fabric & Test Setup
-
Page 3:VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation
-
Page 4:Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III
-
Page 5:Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor
-
Page 6:Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider
-
Page 7:Office & Productivity
-
Page 8:Rendering, Encoding, Compression & AVX
-
Page 9:Final Analysis
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.
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.
- image003
- image001
- image004
- image005
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
- image002
- image016
- image012
- image004
- image014
- image018
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
- Eight Cores For The High-End Desktop
- Overclocking, Infinity Fabric & Test Setup
- VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation
- Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III
- Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor
- Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider
- Office & Productivity
- Rendering, Encoding, Compression & AVX
- Final Analysis
This is to let others know what I was able to do with the 1900x. I use a Ryzen 1700 for gaming. I do Photo work and Ballistics, on the 1900x. For what I use it for it is superb product. One last thing - I run both systems at 4K Res. Better on my older eyes.
31 tests for applications. Some tested with both native CPU processing and OpenCL acceleration. Also, four synthetics that measure key performance traits.
10 games, four synthetics.
Bit odd basing the conclusion on tests that are not by the initial introduction representative of the target market for the product. Why does everything have to be about gaming?? If the CPU isn't aimed at gamers in the conventional sense then surely it makes more sense to test it based on the kind of task it is aimed at? For example, setup an X399/1900X system with four GPUs for CUDA in AE or somesuch, compare it to the same GPU config on an X299 board, how do they behave? Efficiency, power consumption, render times, stability during an intense render, etc.
At the very least do some tests at 4K while streaming and show how the systems compare under such a scenario, such as GN has done for various CPU comparisons.
Ian.
It makes sense in that they can show that to people who might be considering going with it for a gaming system. Some people tend to think that just because some piece of hardware is more expensive that it will be better for gaming, when in reality that hardware may cost more because it adds features that don't even provide much benefit to games. The 1900X enables quad channel memory with a higher maximum memory limit, but games won't benefit from that, and 16GB of dual channel memory should work just as well for years to come. Likewise, a gaming system won't likely see much benefit from having a CPU with 64 PCIe lanes. Someone wanting an 8 core processor for a gaming system would likely get comparable performance by overclocking a Ryzen 1700 on an X370 motherboard for several hundred dollars less. The same goes for other HEDT processors with lots of cores like the other Threadripper parts and Intel's equivalents. For gaming, those extra cores won't likely provide any benefit, and will likely only make it harder to keep the chip cool,resulting in lower clock rates if anything. Of course, there will also be some people who want those extra hardware features for specific tasks other than gaming, but may want to be able to game on the system as well.
This site is aimed mainly at gamers, so it makes sense to base the conclusion on gaming performance. You just seem to be upset that "someone might read this the wrong way and think AMD sucks", as if our job would be caring for the companies best interests.
They can do their own marketing, the job of Tom's is to give us all the information in the most scientifically accurate way possible, and then sum it up with a conclusion aimed at their readers, who are mostly gamers.
If you are not a gamer, then you can just read the pages with the productivity apps, and just ignore the conclusion (since it will not apply to you). There is no misrepresentation or false information anywhere in the article
Also, there are seven application price efficiency charts in the conclusion.
Dunno if you forgot than with any TR chip you will get the full 64pcie lanes + ECC support. Where can you find that even on the 2K i9? Well, you won't.
Unless you need more than 28 PCIe lanes or ECC RAM. In which case Intel locks you out unless you pay much higher prices.
You've 'missed the point of this CPU entirely! If you care primarily about value for-money CPU performance this is a terrible CPU, in fact, one of the worst on the market. If, on the other hand, your primary concern is large amounts of ECC ram and/or many PCIe lanes for the lowest possible price, this will be for many the best purchase on the market. It's a niche product for sure, but for the few who want it, this is a fantastic product.
"almost have to be retarded", with the stress on the word "almost".
Even if the performance of the 1900X is lacking, there are advantages to the X390 platform: more memory, more PCIe, more NVMe, NVMe RAID, 10Gb NIC available built-in to some motherboards. If you need or want those, but don't need extra cores, the 1900X makes sense.
You have a point, though _:D_ This is not Ryzen TR 1900X Vs. Ryzen1800x ... or i7-7820X ... it's really AMD Socket sTR4 Vs Chipzilla('s X Next-99 or X Same-As-The-Last-99 Chipset)
A TR 1900X/X399 Combo is $840US and in no surprise, the i7-7820X/X299 Combo is $5 less. oh, darn. THG whiffed.
It's Intel X Old-And-Busted-99 Vs AMD's X Eat-Our-Dust-99 Motherboards. They're the same, except where they are not, and except where they're going. The irony that should not be missed is AMD is using Intel's own playbook against them (want more jam? ... upgrade to a 1950X or ? ) plus winning price points, with a long history of strong support for their high-end platforms.
AMD is now capable of 'cluster-ing' and 'glue-ing' (HA!) on 4,096-landing substrate whatever suits their fancy, and has partnered in the engineering/design of their 'platform/controller hub' and X399 motherboard with AsMedia. Works for me. Show me the money. 4-6-8 CCX ( 8-12-16 ?) or 120 PCIe lanes works for me, too. I'd prefer a SIMD Engine Array with the compute power of an R9 280X to 32 cores / 64 threads but I'm not paid to make that call ...
My best next-up guess for sTR4 is 2xRR, or 8/16 with 20 CUs (or nCUs, Lexa GCNnCUs? whatever
That is, if the i7-7820X does OpenCL compute by then
('PCtel Mark' need not apply
Even though the article opens by stating the product isn't aimed at gamers. Without the context of the conclusion itself being solely aimed at gamers, comments such as, "But 1900X just isn't much more compelling than Ryzen 7 1800X, ...", make no sense at all. Ditto, "... so professionals on the hunt for overall performance may favor Intel's Skylake-X chip.", when there were no relevant use cases even tested. Also, "Thus, we aren't particularly attracted to Threadripper 1900X."; who's the "we" here? Gamers? The conclusion section doesn't state this, it reads like an overall conclusion. I note my earlier post had several down votes; anyone care to respond with actual arguments as opposed to an easy page click? There are some very sensible use cases for this CPU, but the article reads like it's a pointless product because it's so focused on gaming, while talking about a product the article intro says isn't aimed at gamers. No 4K, no multi-GPU, no pro tasks that can exploit what the product can really to those for whom it's a very good fit indeed.
Ian.
Not a single Threadripper owner even uses ECC RAM because it's too slow. ECC is pointless for client PC anyways and only people bringing it up are non-owners.
Spoken by someone who presumably doesn't do a task that needs ECC and hence isn't aware of its relevance. CUDA accelerated financial transaction processing, for example. 1900X with four GPUs and ECC would be ideal for that; ECC is more important than uber speed to those who need it. You claim it's "too slow"; please supply some data *on this platform* which supports this assertion for relevant tasks.
Ian.
I have to agree with your comments. Someone ought to come up with a Finite Element benchmark as the FE type workload is something that benefits from a wide memory bus.
Pretty much this. But, Anandtech to the rescue (kinda) ..
Though - it might be for a good reason. Ryzen DT gives Chipzilla HEDT (KL-X, SL-X, BW-E, HW-E) a good run for the money, and AMD X-399 HEDT blows-up Intel's X-299 price structure and HEDT going forward.