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
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.
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.