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.
TDP is calculated differently by both companies, it's essentially a worthless metric when comparing between manufacturers because it doesn't give you any real information. Wait for the power consumption tests.
What matters is the idle power consumption. Desktop CPUs are idle over 99% of the time.
It is pretty safe under heavy workload. Ryzen only crashed when creating many many many processes were created each second and the only workload which does that is a c/c++ compiler.
And that bug have been fixed.
AMD strongly recommend liquid cooling for this CPU.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have a Ryzen 1700x (so basically half of a theadripper) and overall it's good and stable but there are some issues still around -Ram it seems the memory controller is vary sensitive -VMWare ESXi (i think a lot of it is fixed but there is always room for improvement.) things i would like AMD to really work on for the next socket for desktop systems: -4 channel ram - more PCI-E Lanes off the chipset - better public documentation (it was unknown until a AMD Blog post that the X line of cpu's had a 20 degree offset so they read high in the UEFI but also would have a much more aggressive fan response based off that reading.
Spoiler: It's not great
.
Until you wrote "over an Intel CPU", you were being borderline rational.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's worth mentioning the CPU bug doesn't seem to be present in Epyc or TR, just the original Ryzens.
More facebook, uber, tesla and gender diversity articles please.
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.
It looks like AMD will have some sort of RAID support in the X299 chipset, but at launch, they don't have bootable RAID-0 support for NVMe drives.
Intel promises this on the X299 motherboards, but hobbles it with the DMI interface for motherboard-mounted M.2 slots, and the need for an expensive "VROC Upgrade Key" (i.e. DRM nonsense) just to run non-Intel parts in a bootable RAID-0 array... oh, and the "Key" isn't actually available yet, at any price.
VROC was the last nail driving me away from their platforms. Sad really, considering their RAID technology promised almost direct multiplying of bandwidth in RAID-0 up to 25+ GB/s. Intel has crippled RAID support moving forward, and there is little point to using their stuff when AMD has managed to catch up and costs much less. I just wish they'd move faster to provide decent RAID support in their X399 chipset... though apparently there is a promise to deliver support in a future update.
X399 is hobbled by cpu's with only 16 or 24 pci-e on the cpu so they stack a lot of stuff on the DMI bus.
AMD has USB on die and at all levels more cpu pci-e and all cups on each socket have full pci-e lanes.
More CPU diversity articles, please!
RTFA, the benchmarks provide power consumption tests.
If you're buying a Ryzen Threadripper or Skylake-X for gaming, I can say you've already messed up. [car analogy] That's like buying an 18-wheeler to haul your weekly groceries.[/car analogy]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
About the only "consumers" I can see being interested in this would be gamers.
Or people who run tasks that benefit from a huge number of cores. I have a i7 3770 and I can get that thing so it pegs all 8 logical cores for an hour with ease. This is doing things like manipulations on large GIS data sets or combining many very high scans of film (a good lens with good film in a good SLR means you can get some phenomenal resolution bested only by the best digitals). For big jobs I will start it before bed or work and then hours later I can go back it to and see the results. There are some things that are so stupidly parallel that chips like these make sense. Granted for some of these tasks a GPU is faster still but then I would need a GPU with at least 24 GB RAM otherwise they just crap themselves and I get a GPU out of memory error.
Personally when I need to replace my existing machine in a couple of years these huge core count chips will provide a lot of benefit as will being able to shove 128-256GB ram in a box that isn't stupid expensive.
Time to offend someone
You can't just measure power consumed. You also need to look at the work done for the amount of power consumed. If the Intel CPU consumes 40W less (we'll assume both companies measurements are spot on accurate for max draw) but takes twice as long to complete some task, then it's probably less efficient over the long run.
If you're really worried about power consumption, it's probably best to undrevolt and use less aggressive turbo settings. When looking at their Ryzen desktop parts there is considerable efficiency improvements and power savings when running the chips closer to 3 GHz. Look at the Epyc processors which have twice as many cores, but the same 180W TDP.