Slashdot Mirror
AMD Ryzen Threadripper Launched: Performance Benchmarks Vs Intel Skylake-X (hothardware.com)
Reader MojoKid writes: AMD continues its attack on the desktop CPU market versus Intel today, with the official launch of the company's Ryzen Threadripper processors. Threadripper is AMD's high-end, many-core desktop processor, that leverages the same Zen microarchitecture that debuted with Ryzen 7. The top-end Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is a multi-chip module featuring 16 processor cores (two discrete die), with support for 32 threads. The base frequency for the 1950X is 3.4GHz, with all-core boost clocks of up to 3.7GHz. Four of the cores will regularly boost up to 4GHz, however, and power and temperature permitting, those four cores will reach 4.2GHz when XFR kicks in. The 12-core Threadripper 1920X has very similar clocks and its boost and XFR frequencies are exactly the same. The Threadripper 1920X's base-clock, however, is 100MHz higher than its big brother, at 3.5GHz. In a litany of benchmarks with multi-threaded workloads, Threadripper 1950X and 1920X high core-counts, in addition to strong SMT scaling, result in the best multi-threaded scores seen from any single CPU to date. Threadripper also offers massive amounts of memory bandwidth and more IO than other Intel processors. Though absolute power consumption is somewhat high, Threadrippers are significantly more efficient than AMD's previous-generation processors. In lightly-threaded workloads, Threadripper trails Intel's latest Skylake-X CPUs, however, which translates to lower performance in applications and games that can't leverage all of Threadripper's additional compute resources. Threadripper 1950X and 1920X processors are available starting today at $999 and $799, respectively. On a per-core basis, they're less expensive than Intel Skylake-X and very competitively priced.
Spoiler: It's not great
.
It's worth mentioning the CPU bug doesn't seem to be present in Epyc or TR, just the original Ryzens.
Warning to those who would use Treadripper where life or saftey is involved: DON'T.
You're not going to be using an Intel in those situations either. You're going to be using an embedded CPU that meets ISO26262/IEC61508
The Intel i9 is hotter and the wattage difference is more like 25 watts. No you won't save $1000 in electrical costs.
Keep in mind these are HUUUGGE 12 core dies. If you care about wattage then the Ryzen series which uses less watts than the i7 maybe more in your budget as these are workstation oriented processors and not desktop.
The i9 sucks too with lots of heat and watts compared to the desktop oriented coutnerparts. Keep in mind these are new generation CPUs and not the crappy bulldozer architecture that proceeded it.
http://saveie6.com/
Those watered down consumer boxes need content, and cpus like this are used to create that content. The people who do this certainly care about performance.