Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Threadripper 1950X Trounces Core I9-7900X In Multithreading Benchmark (pcper.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tussle-continues dept.

dryriver writes: The Cinebench R15 benchmark is a popular tool for measuring how well CPUs cope with multithreaded compute loads. AMD's Threadripper 1950X 16 core CPU, priced at $999 according to AMD, benchmarks 41% faster in Cinebench R15 than Intel's also $999 10 core Core i9-7900X CPU. While Intel's Core i9-7900X scores 2186 points on Cinebench, AMD's Threadripper 1950X scores 3046 points. Even the cheaper 12 core $799 Threadripper 1920X is over 200 points faster in Cinebench R15 than Intel's Core i9-7900X. Intel has its own 16 core Core i9-7960X in the works, performance yet unknown, priced at $1,699, but AMD's 16 core part currently appears to be a full $700 cheaper than Intel's MSRP. It remaines to be seen who is faster in single-threaded performance -- Intel may take that crown --and what the power consumption of a fully loaded Threadripper looks like compared to its Core i9 counterpart.

4 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. What is the target for these? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I surely hope it's servers. These processors would be silly in a desktop computer. We're not even fully loading down 2-8 core machines now. Gaming performance has and still is a single core endeavor, and even now, most of my stuff has trouble pegging any cores to 100% for any length of time.

    About the only thing I do that consumes a lot of cpu time is compiling. Not very many computer users compile stuff.

    Again, it's ultimate more of the same lackluster improvements. Throwing more threads/core at stuff, when it's still who's got the FASTER single core that matters at the end of the day. At least in my opinion.

    For servers however, running virtualization stuff, these CPU's should be great, squeeze even more out every physical server unit.

    1. Re:What is the target for these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some games do indeed use many cores. Some RTS games can use them (usually the types with lots of units) and even Battlefield 1 correctly loads all 12 of my threads - 6 cores 80-90% and 6 threads ~30% - just about the ideal load for a 6/12 CPU to achieve max throughput without starving any threads. (BF1 was maxing out all 8 threads on my old i7-2600 so it does like CPU, current CPU is an i7-6850k @ 4.3Ghz for reference).

      Most of my games are not single threaded and those that are are not CPU bound (often not even GPU bound), granted most of my games also don't need more than 4 cores (most become GPU limited with 4 threads under heavy load - most really just have 1 medium loaded core and a 2-6 lightly loaded threads which is well within the capacity of any 4 core 4 thread CPU). Most game only use multiple cores because it has them not because it needs them - CPU can run at lower clocks if it only needs 20% of 8 core instead 40% of 4 cores.

      I really don't see why people seem to want single threaded performance - single thread has been fast enough for a long time now. Anything that really needs more cycles than a single thread can give has long since been made into multi-threaded apps. All the remaining single threaded apps tend to not be CPU bound anyway (poor implementations excluded - you can always burn cycles if you really want to) so who cares if the app now only needs 20% instead of 25% of one core (unless you are talking about power constrained devices like laptops but then the argument isn't so much about raw speed but efficiency).

      So while I agree, a home server with this would be awesome (actually thinking about it once the tech stabilizes a bit) I also would love a nice gaming rig with this (this is actually what I was waiting for when my 2600 died a while back - I needed a new PC and couldn't wait long enough for this come out so the 6850k it was).

  2. Video Transcoding is one possibility... by CraigCruden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I managed to peg my 8 core Xeon at nearly 100% CPU usage for about 6 months straight - 7 days a week, 24 hours a day doing video transcoding on a library. But yes, any computer with more than 2 cores is really a niche computer these days since 90+ of the people run computers with CPUs idling 90%+. The $100 Ryzen 3 will be more than enough power for the masses. The greatest "performance" boost for personal computers in the last few years -- for the masses -- has been flash based SSDs...

  3. Re:Just make sure you budget for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    2011 called. It wants its joke back.

    Wake up! They aren't selling Bulldozer anymore!