Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Review

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.

Image 1 of 5

Image 2 of 5

Image 3 of 5

Image 4 of 5

Image 5 of 5

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

  • Aldain
    Great review as always but on the power consumption fron given that the 1950x has six more cores and the 1920 has two more they are more power efficient than the 7900x is every regard relative to the high stock clocks of the TR
    Reply
  • derekullo
    "Ryzen Threadripper 1920X comes arms with 12 physical cores and SMT"

    ...

    Judging from Threadripper 1950X versus the Threadripper 1900X we can infer that a difference of 400 megahertz is worth the tdp of 16 whole threads.

    I never realized HT / SMT was that efficient or is AMD holding something back with the Threadripper 1900x?
    Reply
  • jeremyj_83
    Your sister site Anandtech did a retest of Threadripper a while back and found that their original form of game mode was more effective than the one supplied by AMD. What they had done is disable SMT and have a 16c/16t CPU instead of the 8c/16t that AMD's game mode does. http://www.anandtech.com/show/11726/retesting-amd-ryzen-threadrippers-game-mode-halving-cores-for-more-performance/16
    Reply
  • Wisecracker
    Hats-off to AMD and Intel. The quantity (and quality) of processing power is simply amazing these days. Long gone are the times of taking days off (literally) for "rasterizing and rendering" of work flows

    ...or is AMD holding something back with the Threadripper 1900x?
    I think the better question is, "Where is AMD going from here?"

    The first revision Socket SP3r2/TR4 mobos are simply amazing, and AMD has traditionally maintained (and improved!) their high-end stuff. I can't wait to see how they use those 4094 landings and massive bandwidth over the next few years. The next iteration of the 'Ripper already has me salivating :ouch:

    I'll take 4X Summit Ridge 'glued' together, please !!

    Reply
  • RomeoReject
    This was a great article. While there's no way in hell I'll ever be able to afford something this high-end, it's cool to see AMD trading punches once again.
    Reply
  • ibjeepr
    I'm confused.
    "We maintained a 4.1 GHz overclock"
    Per chart "Threadripper 1920X - Boost Frequency (GHz) 4.0 (4.2 XFR)"

    So you couldn't get the XFR to 4.2?
    If I understand correctly manually overclocking disables XFR.
    So your chip was just a lotto loser at 4.1 or am I missing something?

    EDIT: Oh, you mean 4.1 All core OC I bet.
    Reply
  • sion126
    actually the view should be you cannot afford not to go this way. You save a lot of time with gear like this my two 1950X rigs are killing my workload like no tomorrow... pretty impressive...for just gaming, maybe......but then again....its a solid investment that will run a long time...
    Reply
  • redgarl
    Now this at 7nm...
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    redgarl said:
    Now this at 7nm...

    A big die shrink like that would be helpful but I think that Ryzen suffers from other architectural limitations.

    Ryzen has a clock speed ceiling of roughly 4.2Ghz. It's difficult to get it past there regardless of your cooling method.
    Also, Ryzen experiences nasty latency when data is being shared over the Infinity Fabric. Highly threaded work loads are being artificially limited when passing between dies.
    Lastly, the Ryzen's IPC lags behind Intel's a little bit. Coupled with the relatively low clock speed ceiling, Ryzen isn't the most ideal CPU for gaming (it holds up well in higher resolutions to be fair).

    Threadripper and Ryzen only look as good as they do because Intel hasn't focused on improving their desktop chips in the last few years. Imagine if Ivy Bridge wasn't a minor upgrade. If Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, and Kabylake weren't tiny 5% improvements. What if Skylake X wasn't a concentrated fiery inferno? Zen wouldn't be a big deal if all of Intel's latest chips were as impressive as the Core 2 Duo was back in 2006.

    AMD has done an amazing job transitioning from crappy Bulldozer to Zen. They're in a position to really put the hurt on Intel but they can't lose the momentum they've built. If AMD were to address all of these problems in their next architecture update, they would really have a monster on their hands.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    Sure Billy Gates, at 1080p with an 800$ CPU and an 800$ GPU made by a competitor... sure...

    At 1440p and 2160p the gaming performances is the same, however your multi-threading performances are still better than the overprices Intel chips.
    Reply