# AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Overclocked to 4.1 GHz With Liquid Cooling



## Raevenlord (Aug 9, 2017)

Redditor "callingthewolf" has posted what is an awe-inspiring result for AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (that's an interesting username for sure; let's hope that's the only similarity to the boy who cried wolf.) The 16-core, 32-thread processor stands as the likely taker for the HEDT performance crown (at least until Intel's 14-core plus HEDT CPUs make their debut on the X299 platform.) With that many cores, highly thread-aware applications naturally look to see tremendous increases in performance from any frequency increase. In this case, the 1950X's base 3.4 GHz were upped to a whopping 4.0 GHz (@ 1.25 V core) and 4.1 GHz (at 1.4 V core; personally, I'd stick with the 4.0 GHz and call it a day.)

The feat was achieved under a Thermaltake Water 3.0 liquid cooler, on a non-specified ASRock motherboard with all DIMM channels populated with 8 x 8 GB 3066 MHz DIMMs. At 4.0 GHz, the Threadripper 1950X achieves a 3337 points score on Cinebench R15. And at 4.1GHz, the big chip that can (we can't really call it small now can we?) manages to score 58391 points in Geekbench 3. While those scores are certainly impressive, I would just like to point out the fact that this is a 16-core CPU that overclocks as well as (and in some cases, even better than) AMD's 8-core Ryzen 7 CPUs. The frequency potential of this Threadripper part is in the same ballpark of AMD's 8-core dies, which speaks to either an architecture limit or a manufacturing one at around 4 GHz. The Threadripper 1950X is, by all measurements, an impressively "glued together" piece of silicon. 



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## dwade (Aug 9, 2017)

Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.


----------



## noel_fs (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.


LOL?


----------



## MrGenius (Aug 9, 2017)

That single core score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single core @ 4.9GHz.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.


Sounds like you're mad, if so why?


----------



## dwade (Aug 9, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> That single thread score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single thread @ 4.9GHz.


What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.


Umm what?


----------



## krusha03 (Aug 9, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> That single core score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single core @ 4.9GHz.


So what you are saying the single score is weak because you score less with 20% frequency advantage? makes sense


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.



It's really variable, honestly, and has a lot to do with the IMC quality and ram kit you use.  If you can push 3200Mhz it really helps the Infinity Fabric and brings it far higher in the gaming realm.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> That single core score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single core @ 4.9GHz.


You're still a whole 800MHz higher clocked as well


----------



## dwade (Aug 9, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Umm what?


LOL the same ol' Hardware Unboxed video and no one else's review.
There's a reason why AMD used an Intel config when they showed off Vega because of Ryzen's inferior gaming performance.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 9, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Umm what?


it's a good showing but it basically loses every test except civ 5, some by a large margin.



dwade said:


> LOL the same ol' Hardware Unboxed video and no one else's review.
> There's a reason why AMD used an Intel config when they showed off Vega because of Ryzen's inferior gaming performance.



also look at those 1440p mins... what happened there?


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.


Hehe, cry more, baby.  And you are linking one game benchmark, and you still know that in Techpowerup's 16 game average, Ryzen CPUs are only about 11-12% from the top 7700K. Poor guy, really.


----------



## Kronauer (Aug 9, 2017)

New Multi-core beast is on the market?!?!?! Lets *benchmark it with a 4 year old trash* game that was ported to PC, not developed for it.
#sarcasm


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

Kronauer said:


> New Multi-core beast is on the market?!?!?! Lets *benchmark it with a 4 year old trash* game that was ported to PC, not developed for it.
> #sarcasm


 Let that benchmark for Intel fanboiz.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Aug 9, 2017)

Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.


If you think a higher end Ryzen will bottleneck a Vega GPU you are sadly mistaken


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 9, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.



Bottleneck? What?


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.











On a 30 game average, the 7800X was 5% faster on base clocks, and 1% (!) faster on OC! And you get this for a whopping 170$ extra cost, which is more than 75% extra cost. So you get a base clock 5% advantage (and 1% for OC) for 75+ % extra money. Not to speak about the huge price diff bw the motherboards. Moreover, the 7800X is consuming 20-25% more power. You shouldn't expect a lot more from a 6/12 Coffee Lake.


----------



## Manu_PT (Aug 9, 2017)

Good luck locking your games on 144fps. GamerNexus couldn´t do it in any game, always minimum fps way below 144, while 7700k flies. Cheers.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 9, 2017)

To what some are talking about above, at 1440p, Ryzen can hold back a 1080ti. Not across all titles but certainly where fps is higher (and therefore to most, irrelevant).
I game at 1440p with a 3.8Ghz Ryzen and a 2Ghz 1080ti. FWIW


----------



## Lucas_ (Aug 9, 2017)

I own 1070 carda nd ryzon 1700 , and 144 monitor , and  its treating me well .. i dont know why people say it bottleneck the card thats not ture at all !!! most of the games i have decent fps with free sync and 100fps + !!!!


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

Manu_PT said:


> Good luck locking your games on 144fps. GamerNexus couldn´t do it in any game, always minimum fps way below 144, while 7700k flies. Cheers.


Well, you know, someone who is willing to play 144Hz monitor probably has a quite expensive rig. And when you have that expensive rig, you may get money for a Freesync or G-Sync monitor... please.


----------



## bogami (Aug 9, 2017)

There is very little room for the OC and as I saw on the first ALIEN Rysen Threadriper tests the results of the core frequency ranged from 3.9Gh to 4.2 Gh. The result is nice because there are 16 cores and this becomes hot.
In real terms, the price is still unavailable to many intuitions. Also to me! And in real terms, it should not be more expensive than $ 700 (prices, AMD Ryzen1500X x 4). And if you do not need as much CPU power (which many do not), it's not important to cope with latency problems that are the main problem of this engineering.
Here are all the reasons for the results.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.


What a great way to start out a thread. 

What people don't get in these CPU fps debate threads is how price efficient Ryzen and TR are. With that price difference you should easily be able to buy a much better graphics card with a Ryzen/TR system and still have more cores in the end for your future proofing needs... People always compare Ryzen to Intel as if they somehow cost the same, when actually people in the 'real world' would be able to buy a better graphics card and it would be over.

CPU fps only matters when you already have the best graphics card in the world and there is no other way to increase your fps, so probably for less than 1% of people. But somehow this is the only thing that seems to matter in these threads and all the arguments revolve around it.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 9, 2017)

I don't get why ppl say we don't need so much cpu power.   I want it all and whatever i want I'm going to get (whatever i can afford to get)...and if that is 16 cores then so be it.   I will not compromise because of what someone else thinks/says.  Majority of us build a computer to last, regardless of the upgrade path you choose.
Anyways glad to see so many AMD processors in fellow forum members build.   A year ago who would've thunk it.   AMD has come a long way and i will support the competition as well.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.


----------



## Ginpo236 (Aug 9, 2017)

Reading and looking a lot of folks posting single thread performance about Threadripper. Anyone who buys this chip solely for gaming has too many dollars and not enough sense.

You can bash AMD all you want, they did a great job with this architecture and I surely will be looking to buy one in the near future for what I do in the professional realm.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> 4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.


id bet money they will reach 4 ghz..


----------



## Manu_PT (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> Well, you know, someone who is willing to play 144Hz monitor probably has a quite expensive rig. And when you have that expensive rig, you may get money for a Freesync or G-Sync monitor... please.



Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> id bet money they will reach 4 ghz..



I have my doubts , the TIM really hurts OCing , unless they solder the IHS I really don't see how that will be possible.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

Considering 4.5 ghz is possible on an average non delidded 7900x...i have less doubt than you do. 

Now, you may need 3x120 aio or custom to get there, but id bet 4 ghz all cores no delid is possible.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

7980XE is almost twice the silicon that the 7900X is so...yeah


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

Indeed it is. Ill let you know when you mention something I didnt already consider. 

Edit: the thing boosts to 4.2 ghz on boost 2.0 and 4.4ghz on boost 3.0. Now that clearly isnt all cores (4.4 is one core), but... says a little something too.


----------



## Nihilus (Aug 9, 2017)

As if a person who buys a 16 core processor cares about waiting a couple extra seconds for a single thread app.

18 core SKLx at 4.0 ghz?  Not likely.

There is a reason they dropped thr clocks so much for the 7820x.

Even still, the 7980xe is twice as much.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

Nihilus said:


> 18 core SKL-x at 4.5 ghz? Yeah, dream on buddy.


who said that? 4 ghz all cores is what im saying.


----------



## Konceptz (Aug 9, 2017)

https://www.techspot.com/review/1457-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-octa-core/

Notice that when both sides of the argument are clocked at 4.0ghz with matching ram speeds, there really isn't that much of a difference, accept the astronomical price of the Intel chips


----------



## Tartaros (Aug 9, 2017)

Manu_PT said:


> Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.



Almost no existant input lag with those, those exist because people wanted vsync without input lag xD. The only moment they can lag is below low fps threshold and those type of games aren't usually very demanding, in fact is common to quit eye candy.


----------



## noel_fs (Aug 9, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> That single core score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single core @ 4.9GHz.




still not beating him by 200 points with a 16% oc over him and you calling him weak? wtf?


----------



## FR@NK (Aug 9, 2017)

Konceptz said:


> https://www.techspot.com/review/1457-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-octa-core/
> 
> Notice that when both sides of the argument are clocked at 4.0ghz with matching ram speeds, there really isn't that much of a difference, accept the astronomical price of the Intel chips



You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?

At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.


----------



## qubit (Aug 9, 2017)

This has got Intel running scared. Perfect.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Aug 9, 2017)

Well im a bit disappointed, Intel gonna win again in Raw Power sadly :/

had hope it would be more powerfull when it had 16 cores, mabye next time I buy AMD.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 9, 2017)

Thats amazing, so much want.


----------



## dcf-joe (Aug 9, 2017)

Manu_PT said:


> Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.



A youtuber by the name of Battle Nonsense makes youtube videos where he extensively tests input lag on multiplayer games using a high speed camera and a LED wired to a mouse button.

Anyways, he did a test on how much limiting frames actually affects input lag. In CS:GO, G-sync literally added 0.2 milliseconds of input lag, while Overwatch actually decreased 0.2 milliseconds of input lag.

This test is done in a less than 7 minute video. It is very informational and I recommend watching the entire video, as well as his other videos. However, if you are just interested in the comparison graphs, pause the video at 5:15:


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 9, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?
> 
> At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.



Turbo clock is not a baseline clock. It'll NEVER operate at 4GHz on ALL cores. So, when you overclock both to 4GHz on ALL cores, that means both actually operated at 4GHz on all cores at all times. Something NEITHER does out of the box, tubo or not.

Don't mix up special "All Core Turbo" settings in BIOS that forces CPU to run the turbo clocks on all cores. But that's not what any Intel CPU does when within factory specs.


----------



## krusha03 (Aug 9, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, *which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland.* My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.



Tax breaks for buying PC hardware in NL? Please tell me more


----------



## Konceptz (Aug 9, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?
> 
> At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.



That's not the point, clocking both at the same speeds gives the best comparison.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Aug 9, 2017)

The amount of salt from some of the Intel fanboys around here is really annoying....


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> Well im a bit disappointed, Intel gonna win again in Raw Power sadly :/
> 
> had hope it would be more powerfull when it had 16 cores, mabye next time I buy AMD.


Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you.



For 999, TR 16 core is cheap yes yes.  Dont get me worng, I would love for AMD to win this fight, for sure, so i COULD buy TR. But can see I need to buy Intel again


----------



## Konceptz (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you.



Intel is at best 10% faster, charging 75% more for their CPUs. Id love to try an Intel platform out (its been years), but the way my mortgage is setup....nah I'll stick with Ryzen.


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> For 999, TR 16 core is cheap yes yes.  Dont get me worng, I would love for AMD to win this fight, for sure, so i COULD buy TR. But can see I need to buy Intel again


And for what purpose are you buying these CPUs?


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 9, 2017)

Not sure why people keep trotting out gaming performance...If you bought this for gaming you're doing it wrong...


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> Well im a bit disappointed, Intel gonna win again in Raw Power sadly :/
> 
> had hope it would be more powerfull when it had 16 cores, mabye next time I buy AMD.





NicklasAPJ said:


> For 999, TR 16 core is cheap yes yes.  Dont get me worng, I would love for AMD to win this fight, for sure, so i COULD buy TR. But can see I need to buy Intel again


So you won't buy a CPU until it is the best, no matter the cost? And you just want AMD to 'win the fight' first before you buy it, that's all? What fight? Sorry, but this sounds like it's actually some kind of Intel forum bot lol.


----------



## Bytales (Aug 9, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> What a great way to start out a thread.
> 
> What people don't get in these CPU fps debate threads is how price efficient Ryzen and TR are. With that price difference you should easily be able to buy a much better graphics card with a Ryzen/TR system and still have more cores in the end for your future proofing needs... People always compare Ryzen to Intel as if they somehow cost the same, when actually people in the 'real world' would be able to buy a better graphics card and it would be over.
> 
> CPU fps only matters when you already have the best graphics card in the world and there is no other way to increase your fps, so probably for less than 1% of people. But somehow this is the only thing that seems to matter in these threads and all the arguments revolve around it.



You can't expect everyone to be smart. Thats just how Gauss Curve works in real life. Some are smart, some are dumb, but most are average.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> And for what purpose are you buying these CPUs?





PowerPC said:


> So you're saying you need the best CPU at all cost and this is actually your opinion? So you won't buy a CPU until it is the best, no matter the cost? And you just want AMD to 'win the fight' first before you buy it, that's all? What fight? Sorry, but this sounds like it's actually some kind of Intel forum bot lol.



I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.


So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah


----------



## Slizzo (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.
> 
> 
> So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
> if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah



How much money you making these days from benchmarking?


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.
> 
> 
> So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
> if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah


Though those respond to cores, you may find its clock limits will hold you back and the Intel scores better due to higher clock speed and IPC.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

INSTG8R said:


> Not sure why people keep trotting out gaming performance...If you bought this for gaming you're doing it wrong...


You're right, it's nonsense. But even if for some reason you did want to game with it, you could literally buy another 1080ti with the price difference TR has over Intel...



NicklasAPJ said:


> I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.


So you already have two 1080tis in SLI and on LN2, right?


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Aug 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Though those respond to cores, you may find its clock limits will hold you back and the Intel scores better due to higher clock speed and IPC.



We can only wait and see !  4.5Ghz on Intel 14/16 Core, should be about right. but lets see. hope for the best !


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.
> 
> 
> So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
> if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah


Actually I find the CPU records with a 6950X in Heaven, Firestrike, Firestrike Ultra and Time Spy benchmarks.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Turbo clock is not a baseline clock. It'll NEVER operate at 4GHz on ALL cores. So, when you overclock both to 4GHz on ALL cores, that means both actually operated at 4GHz on all cores at all times. Something NEITHER does out of the box, tubo or not.
> 
> Don't mix up special "All Core Turbo" settings in BIOS that forces CPU to run the turbo clocks on all cores. But that's not what any Intel CPU does when within factory specs.


Correct, not all cores will reach those boost clocks... that is(should be) a given. However, there is typically a couple-few hundred MHz bump with all cores. Intel doesn't seem to have 7th gen turbo breakdown as they do for previous generations yet. But I would imagine it to be AT LEAST 3.8 GHz if not 4 Ghz. Wiki (I know...lol, I know..) has it at 4 GHz. 

Boost 3.0 will place 2 cores at 4.5 GHz while boost 2.0 maxes out at 4.3 GHz.

EDIT: Also note, many motherboards by default will boost to all thread turbo out of the box. The Prime had my 7900X at 4 GHz all cores from the first boot. It did this on the mainstream platform across other vendors as well.


----------



## Prince Valiant (Aug 9, 2017)

Has anything been posted about TR power usage?



EarthDog said:


> Correct, not all cores will reach those boost clocks... that is(should be) a given. However, there is typically a couple-few hundred MHz bump with all cores. Intel doesn't seem to have 7th gen turbo breakdown as they do for previous generations yet. But I would imagine it to be AT LEAST 3.8 GHz if not 4 Ghz.


I'm sure some OC team will find out what the limits are so no normal user has to risk having a $2000 lump.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Aug 9, 2017)

dwade said:


> Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.



To fall short doesn't there technically have to be something _ahead_ of it?  

LOL this is the strongest CPU on the desktop market.  Period.


At 4.1GHz+ this will have near the same single-threaded performance as even an overclocked Kabylake, and certainly at least matching any Skylake-X IPC.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> We can only wait and see !  4.5Ghz on Intel 14/16 Core, should be about right. but lets see. hope for the best !



The question is if any of those chips can clock higher.   The 7900X already throttles under stock turbo (4.5GHz), and so I doubt anything above the 14-core can even reach an all-core turbo higher than 4.4GHz no matter how well they are binned.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

I think today must be double post day... Why can't people edit their shiz??????????? 

1. Strongest CPU on the market... wow. Core for core Intel is a bit faster. The problem is the price per core is offputting.
2. IPC doesn't increase as the clocks go up. If TR is beating Intel at 3Ghz by 5%, its going to be beating INtel at 4 GHz by 5% (when testing IPC). 
3. We've seen one hit 4.1 Ghz... 
3a. The 7900X doesn't throttle under stock turbo... 4.5 GHz is 2 cores boss.


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I think today must be double post day... Why can't people edit their shiz???????????
> 
> 1. Strongest CPU on the market... wow. Core for core Intel is a bit faster. The problem is the price per core is offputting.
> 2. IPC doesn't increase as the clocks go up. If TR is beating Intel at 3Ghz by 5%, its going to be beating INtel at 4 GHz by 5% (when testing IPC).
> ...


Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering...


----------



## jabbadap (Aug 9, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> The question is if any of those chips can clock higher.   The 7900X already throttles under stock turbo (4.5GHz), and so I doubt anything above the 14-core can even reach an all-core turbo higher than 4.4GHz no matter how well they are binned.



Uhm was it cpu that was throttling or the motherboard vrms. Guru3d oc 7900x to 4.8GHz with all core clocks and it took horrible amount of power to get there. No doubt if one want's to OC those there will be need for much much beefier vrms from current x299 motherboards. Other thing which is not really sure is will those HCC chips use that tooth paste tim too. But yeah it seems that current generation zen has that 4-4.2GHz wall without extreme cooling, while intels wall is more close to 5GHz. So for arch/manuf. process PoV intel has slight upper hand, when we are strictly talking about pure clocks.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering...


Or a 12 core 1920X with $200 extra for other things.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> I have my doubts , the TIM really hurts OCing , unless they solder the IHS I really don't see how that will be possible.


TR is soldiered


----------



## darksf (Aug 9, 2017)

So while you wanna play with your little .... games on the big machines there is actually a work to be done with them 

Threadripper 1950X and 1920X popped out on the V-RAY benchmark results list.

https://benchmark.chaosgroup.com/cpu?page=9

And if you go to page one hey on second position is a Dual EPYC 7601 System  just behind the Quad Xeon E7-8890 v3 System.

https://benchmark.chaosgroup.com/cpu?page=1


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> TR is soldiered



I know , was talking about Skylake-X.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> I know , was talking about Skylake-X.


Oh ok


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Hmm, I go around *5400 - 5600* per core [*7900X* @ 4.5 - 4.7 GHz], this guy https://browser.geekbench.com/user/124365 goes *6300 *per core. Why is the TR Core so weak? :/

I mean even at the same freq, it's still gonna miss some numbers.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering...


You don't have much experience with Ryzen architecture now, do You? Not sure if You're trolling, or only a lucky guy, but for daily use AMD CPUs are a disaster. All topics are rounding around AMD bugs, year after it's release. XMP not working, problems with OC, low OC, and many more. Maybe he's fed up with all that AMD crap, just like I am. I'm an ex owner of 1700X. Never more.

I'm 99% positive that TR will be a software/compatibility disaster for the first 6 months, when they finally fix it somewhat up, there will be Coffee Lake and 18 core beast from Intel. One of the reasons...


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Hmm, I go around *5400 - 5600* per core [*7900X* @ 4.5 - 4.7 GHz], this guy https://browser.geekbench.com/user/124365 goes *6300 *per core. Why is the TR Core so weak? :/
> 
> I mean even at the same freq, it's still gonna miss some numbers.


And what extra do you get from beside the numbers? 

+ Mate, I can't believe you given the fact that you say the CPU is a year old on market. Actually it launched 5 months ago... 

"All topics are rounding around AMD bugs, year after it's release. XMP not working, problems with OC, low OC, and many more"

Maybe if you don't buy it on debut and wait a month or 2 for the new BIOSes, you don't tell that lie. 

"Maybe he's fed up with all that AMD crap"

He didn't write anything like that.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.
> 
> 
> So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
> if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah



You're doing it wrong then , most benchmarks scale very well with more cores. Firestrike and Time Spy have separated tests for physics where core count is king.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> And what extra do you get from beside the numbers?


Not sure how about You, but I work and play games on my PC. iPC is super crucial for gaming, mostly in my 3440 x 1440 resolution. And the rest is great for work.

Plus as I mentioned. I've had only the worst experience with my Ryzen 1700X and X370 from Asus. It was my worst build ever. Nothing worked there, nothing.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Hmm, I go around *5400 - 5600* per core [*7900X* @ 4.5 - 4.7 GHz], this guy https://browser.geekbench.com/user/124365 goes *6300 *per core. Why is the TR Core so weak? :/
> 
> I mean even at the same freq, it's still gonna miss some numbers.


Hmmmm 700MHz higher and just barely 10% faster

But Multi just straight trash


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Hmmmm 700MHz higher and just barely 10% faster
> 
> But Multi just straight trash


Not sure if stupid, or just trolling? We're talking 10 vs 16 core. Have You seen Intels 16 core counter part? I haven't. TR cost 150e more than my Intel, the rest I can catch up on OC.


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Not sure how about You, but I work and play games on my PC. iPC is super crucial for gaming, mostly in my 3440 x 1440 resolution. And the rest is great for work.
> 
> Plus as I mentioned. I've had only the worst experience with my Ryzen 1700X and X370 from Asus. It was my worst build ever. Nothing worked there, nothing.



You are absolutely wrong. The higher the resolution is, the more GPU bound the games become. So you get the most out of your CPU at FHD resolution or lower.

Intel fanboy alert.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Not sure if stupid, or just trolling? We're talking 10 vs 16 core. Have You seen Intels 16 core counter part? I haven't. TR cost 150e more than my Intel, the rest I can catch up on OC.


Intel doesn't have a 16C 

$150 more and still offers better Multi performance and more lanes

I like them odds


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> You are absolutely wrong. The more the resolution is, the more GPU bound the games become. So you get the most out of your CPU at FHD resolution or lower.
> 
> Intel fanboy alert.


Yeah, that's why I have better framerate on my i9 7900X, than I've had on my 1700X and 6850K also. Riiiiight . You know, You read stuff of people You don't know, I test my own


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Not sure if stupid, or just trolling? We're talking 10 vs 16 core. Have You seen Intels 16 core counter part? I haven't. TR cost 150e more than my Intel, the rest I can catch up on OC.


1950X cost 999$. 7900X costs 999$. You should stop lying, fanboy.

"The sole fact less cored 7900X is stronger in single core is alarming"

uplink777 just got the news that Intel CPUs are stronger in single core performance. While getting a same cored Ryzen costs you 70-100% less money. Also, what about power consumption? You know, Intel NV fanboys laughed about that half a year ago. What about now?


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

There is something extremely fishy about those Geekbench scores , 7900X is 75% faster than 1950X , even in multithreading ? Yeah , I call BS.

Can we also leave the trolls alone please ?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> You are special kind of stupid, aren't You? . That was my point. Intel will have 18 core counter part. And we'll have to wait for that one to let the true battle begin. The sole fact less cored 7900X is stronger in single core is alarming


I wouldn't call a 700MHz difference and barely 10% gain alarming 

More like let down 

Intel I know you could do better


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> 1950X cost 999$. 7900X costs 999$. You should stop lying, fanboy.


And we have a winner here 

I might be an Intel fanboy, but You're a moron that doesn't know the elementary school math  [prices are w/o VAT]


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> There is something extremely fishy about those Geekbench scores , 7900X is 75% faster than 1950X , even in multithreading ? Yeah , I call BS.
> 
> Can we also leave the trolls alone please ?


Where did you see the 7900X being faster in multithreaded

Highest score i saw was about 41,000 for the 7900X and this one is over 50,000


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> And we have a winner here
> 
> I might be an Intel fanboy, but You're a moron that doesn't know the elementary school math  [prices are w/o VAT]


Problem is that 7900X is on market since July, while 1950X launches tomorrow. So you linked a placeholder price from Alza. Congratulations

The reality is: 
7900X:
Newegg: 1060$, Amazon: 1100$

1950X:
Newegg: 1000$, Amazon: 1000$

Please stop being a liar.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

7900X's official MSRP is 999$  so is 1950X's MSRP.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> 7900X:
> Newegg: 1060$, Amazon: 1100$
> 
> 1950X:
> ...


I can't buy from Amazon, nor Newegg, but I can buy from alzashop . And the prices are as follows. So You're the one who's lying, not me .


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Where did you see the 7900X being faster in multithreaded



https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3108958

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3654058

It's complete crap most likely anyway.

Also , stop feeding the troll mate.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> 7900X's official MSRP is 999$  so is 1950X's MSRP.


Yeah, official MSRP for CrapPhone 7 Plus us 999 dollars, it cost 1240e at my country. Shove the MSRP to Your butthole. No one cares about MSRP. Everyone cares about the prices, that the products are available for them. Point being Intel is cheaper everywhere in Middle Europe nowadays.


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> I can't buy from Amazon, nor Newegg, but I can buy from alzashop . And the prices are as follows. So You're the one who's lying, not me .



You linked a PLACEHOLDER price for the upcoming 1950X. Please stop being a dumbass.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3108958
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3654058
> 
> ...


Those tests are inactual, new will come tomorrow or so


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3108958
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3654058
> 
> ...


But the above which this thread is based off is 58,000 on the 1950X

The one you linked is old and was never confirmed legit


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> You linked a PLACEHOLDER price for the upcoming 1950X. Please stop being a dumbass.


What? I have that 7900X and they have more than 5 pieces in storage. Placeholder is for AMD, which is also a final price. It won't change. They're releasing them tomorrow, and people paid that money for preorders. Wake up.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> You're doing it wrong then , most benchmarks scale very well with more cores. Firestrike and Time Spy have separated tests for physics where core count is king.



I think you misunderstand me.

Firestirke/Timespy the more cores the better, up to a point yes. but ind the end Intel 14 core, will beat AMD 16 core in that 2 anyway. You saw how badly 1700/1800X did in timespy/Firestirke, that it got blow away by 6900k and even intels 7800X @OC water are close to 1700/1800x @Max OC on water. in timespy.

Heaven, is running best at 2/4 Cores, and are all up to Ghz.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> What? I have that 7900X and they have more than 5 pieces in storage. Placeholder is for AMD, which is also a final price. It won't change. They're releasing them tomorrow, and people paid that money for preorders. Wake up.


When you Pre-order you don't get charged until the day of release or after shipping. Prices can easily change


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> What? I have that 7900X and they have more than 5 pieces in storage. Placeholder is for AMD, which is also a final price. It won't change. They're releasing them tomorrow, and people paid that money for preorders. Wake up.


And what price did the 7900X start on?  Still, check Amazon and Newegg prices to get the right prices. They are equally priced, get over it. Bye.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> But the above which this thread is based off is 58,000 on the 1950X
> 
> The one you linked is old and was never confirmed legit



I couldn't find that score on the official geekbench page so I thought that was the one you guys was referring too.


NicklasAPJ said:


> I think you misunderstand me.
> 
> Firestirke/Timespy the more cores the better, up to a point yes. but ind the end Intel 14 core, will beat AMD 16 core in that 2 anyway. You saw how badly 1700/1800X did in timespy/Firestirke, that it got blow away by 6900k and even intels 7800X @OC water are close to 1700/1800x @Max OC on water. in timespy.
> 
> Heaven, is running best at 2/4 Cores, and are all up to Ghz.



You are still not going to beat any world record in Fierestrike/Timespy with just 8 cores.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> When you Pre-order you don't get charged until the day of release or after shipping. Prices can easily change


Maybe in Your country.



B-Real said:


> And what price did the 7900X start on?  Still, check Amazon and Newegg prices to get the right prices. They are equally priced, get over it. Bye.


In my country, we have alzashop and a few others. No NewEgg or Amazon. So arguing with prices from unreachable shops for billions ain't gonna cut the trick. Afaik, amazon and newegg barely shop to few hundred of million of people. The rest is dependant on theil local resellers.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

MSRP is MSRP , who gives a damn what YOU have found it priced at. If I find a 1080ti at 100$ in a local shop does that mean that's the typical official pricing ? Of course not.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> MSRP is MSRP , who gives a damn what YOU have found it priced at. If I find a 1080ti at 100$ does that mean that's the typical official pricing ? Of course not.


MSRP is total BS, that doesn't work anywhere, only for the few chosen. Whole world ain't USA, there are other countries You know.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

MSRP is the only official number given meant to standardize prices in different locations. Of course this price is not always met , but arguing that your local pricing is anymore relevant that in any other place against a product that actually hasn't been released is extremely dumb.

As of now , MSRP is the only viable comparison and 7900X goes against 1950X in price.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> MSRP is the only official number given meant to standardize prices in different locations. Of course this price is not always met , but arguing that your local pricing is anymore relevant that in any other place against a product that actually hasn't been released is extremely dumb.
> 
> As of now , MSRP is the only viable comparison.


I reckon You're very young [which is good] and know a little about real life. Your argument "MSRP is MSRP" proves it. And the only thing that is dumb is Your argument. A liter of water cost 10c in my country, in other countries it's up to 1 euro/dollar, somewhere even 10. MSRP is pium desiderium of manufacturer of how prices should be. Reality is different.

You don't need to look too far with the mining outburst fail worldwide, which is increasing the prices of many VGAs and PSUs to astronomical values. They're not following MSRP, they're following the market. And when the TR will prove as a wrothy comptetitor, the price tag won't stay by 999, but will rise up 20, 40, maybe even 60%.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> I reckon You're very young [which is good] and know a little about real life. Your argument "MSRP is MSRP" proves it. And the only thing that is dumb is Your argument. A liter of water cost 10c in my country, in other countries it's up to 1 euro/dollar, somewhere even 10. MSRP is pium desiderium of manufacturer of how prices should be. Reality is different.
> 
> You don't need to look too far with the mining outburst fail worldwide, which is increasing the prices of many VGAs and PSUs to astronomical values. They're not following MSRP, they're following the market. And when the TR will prove as a wrothy comptetitor, the price tag won't stay by 999, but will rise up 20, 40, maybe even 60%.



You were comparing two products from which one hasn't been released and one is more or less close to the MSRP in most places. How the hell do you know how the pricing will evolve is beyond me.

7900X goes against 1950X at official 999$ MSRP , fact. Doesn't matter what pricing you get in your location. That's what these manufacturers are intending to price them at.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> You were comparing two products from which one hasn't been released and one is more or less close to the MSRP in most places. How the hell do you know how the pricing will evolve is beyond me.
> 
> 7900X goes against 1950X at official 999$ MSRP , fact. Doesn't matter what pricing you get in your location. That's what these manufacturers are intending to price them at.


The NDA is up tomorrow, all the shops have TR in their stocks. Can You tell me one reasons why the price should change at my place?


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Can You tell me one reasons why the price should change at my place?



Yeah , it shouldn't there is no reason. It'll be 999$ for both. Two products competing at the same price. 

Again your place is simply irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

At this point you don't even know what you are arguing about anymore. It's confirmed that you're a troll. Now that should be enough for everyone to prevent them from giving you anymore attention.


----------



## jabbadap (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> The NDA is up tomorrow, all the shops have TR in their stocks. Can You tell me one reasons why the price should change at my place?



Hmh are those prices without VAT or what? In local Finnish shop the prices are 1159€ for 1950x. In the same shop i9 7900x costs 1099€.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

jabbadap said:


> Hmh are those prices without VAT or what? In local Finnish shop the prices are 1159€ for 1950x. In the same shop i9 7900x costs 1099€.


as I wrote, w/o VAT.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> Yeah, that's why I have better framerate on my i9 7900X, than I've had on my 1700X and 6850K also. Riiiiight . You know, You read stuff of people You don't know, I test my own


Wow, did you just really compare a $1000 CPU to a $300 CPU and said it gets you more fps? This fanboism is really getting insane...


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> MSRP is total BS, that doesn't work anywhere, only for the few chosen. Whole world ain't USA, there are other countries You know.


In your country the 1950X will be cheaper than the 7900X maybe at start or 1-2 week after the shops don't want to make extra money from the new products. Fact.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 9, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> Wow, did you just really compare a $1000 CPU to a $300 CPU and said it gets you more fps? This fanboyism is really getting insane...


My 1700X cost me 320e w/o VAT, my 7900X cost me 780e w/o VAT. I'm just pointing out on the architecture.



B-Real said:


> In your country the 1950X will be cheaper than the 7900X maybe at start or 1-2 week after the shops don't want to make extra money from the new products. Fact.


Didn't work so well with Ryzen 3/5/7, why should it work with Threadripper?


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> MSRP is total BS, that doesn't work anywhere, only for the few chosen. Whole world ain't USA, there are other countries You know.


This is stupid. I'm from Germany and the lowest I have found 7900x was 938€. Also it's the lowest price in whole of Europe, as you can see here.
https://geizhals.eu/intel-core-i9-7900x-bx80673i97900x-a1632795.html

If you have found a deal for Intel one time, doesn't mean AMD doesn't have any deals lol. It actually does way more deals and price reductions from my own experience.


----------



## B-Real (Aug 9, 2017)

uplink777 said:


> I reckon You're very young [which is good] and know a little about real life. Your argument "MSRP is MSRP" proves it. And the only thing that is dumb is Your argument. A liter of water cost 10c in my country, in other countries it's up to 1 euro/dollar, somewhere even 10. MSRP is pium desiderium of manufacturer of how prices should be. Reality is different.
> 
> You don't need to look too far with the mining outburst fail worldwide, which is increasing the prices of many VGAs and PSUs to astronomical values. They're not following MSRP, they're following the market. And when the TR will prove as a wrothy comptetitor, the price tag won't stay by 999, but will rise up 20, 40, maybe even 60%.


Its official price won't be raised by AMD. It would only happen if the stocks were out and AMD couldn't keep up with the production, like with the 580 cards. The shops got the maximum out of it.



uplink777 said:


> Didn't work so well with Ryzen 3/5/7, why should it work with Threadripper?


Yeah it's true, your Alza webshop works were awkwardly. Anywhere, the 1600 is about 10% cheaper than the 7600K (USA, in my country, etc.). At Alza, it costs the same. So don't worry, at another store in your country and anywhere else, the 2 CPUs will cost the same.


----------



## Prince Valiant (Aug 9, 2017)

The amount of double posting in this thread is staggering.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Aug 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> I couldn't find that score on the official geekbench page so I thought that was the one you guys was referring too.
> 
> 
> You are still not going to beat any world record in Fierestrike/Timespy with just 8 cores.



Ofc not, no one is saying that


----------



## Norton (Aug 9, 2017)

@Captain_Tom @B-Real @uplink777 and any others- please stop double posting as it's against forum rules

See the guide prepared by @sneekypeet on how to edit your posts and use the multi-quote feature:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...osts-and-use-the-multi-quote-features.234427/

Continued double posting will likely result in infractions


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

B-Real said:


> Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering...


I didn't buy it. I'm a editor/reviewer (blessed and cursed all at the same time.. ), Intel sent it. We didn't get (ask for, really) Threadripper as we didn't have anyone with the time to do it. Not sure they would have seeded us either... but, that is another story.

If both were staring me in the face though, I'd use the Intel CPU. I really don't use the threads can benefit from faster clocks and ever so slightly better IPC. In fact, you can see I run with 10c/10t to save on thermals and raise the clocks. 

If I had to spend the money myself, I wouldn't own the thing. I'd have a 7700K/Z270 or maybe a 7740K on X299. Again, I prefer 5Ghz with more IPC and willing to pay the price premium. I built my son a 1500X/X370/R9 270x rig...


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Correct, not all cores will reach those boost clocks... that is(should be) a given. However, there is typically a couple-few hundred MHz bump with all cores. Intel doesn't seem to have 7th gen turbo breakdown as they do for previous generations yet. But I would imagine it to be AT LEAST 3.8 GHz if not 4 Ghz. Wiki (I know...lol, I know..) has it at 4 GHz.
> 
> Boost 3.0 will place 2 cores at 4.5 GHz while boost 2.0 maxes out at 4.3 GHz.
> 
> EDIT: Also note, many motherboards by default will boost to all thread turbo out of the box. The Prime had my 7900X at 4 GHz all cores from the first boot. It did this on the mainstream platform across other vendors as well.



My Sabertooth X99 didn't, MSI X99A Gaming 7 does. It really depends on the board maker/board.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

That is correct, Rej! I did say "many" (does not mean all. ).


----------



## doejohn (Aug 9, 2017)

Silly kids, thinking that Threadripper is "just" for games.

Games are just a part of the whole ecosystem. If I buy a threadripper it will be for more than "just games". Judging only games is stupid.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 9, 2017)

You could still comfortably and smoothly game even with overclocked Bulldozer class CPU and GTX 1080Ti. Knowing how much faster IPC Ryzen has, I think I don't have to say anything further...


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 9, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> You could still comfortably and smoothly game even with overclocked Bulldozer class CPU and GTX 1080Ti. Knowing how much faster IPC Ryzen has, I think I don't have to say anything further...


My ole FX-8350 @5.1GHz paired with a R9 290X was definitely a force to be reckoned with at 1080P


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> You could still comfortably and smoothly game even with overclocked Bulldozer class CPU and GTX 1080Ti. Knowing how much faster IPC Ryzen has, I think I don't have to say anything further...


not sure who you are talking to without a quote....or where you are going with this...

You could, but why would I intentionally limit my 1080ti by pairing it with bulldozer? I mean sure, whats the difference between 100 and 120 fps, but, id like to not put a glass ceiling on my gpu.. even Sandybridge would drive the 1080ti better than BD.

We've seen in several titles Ryzen is behind a bit. Get fast memory and that difference _mostly_ disolves.


----------



## Dave65 (Aug 9, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.


----------



## Norton (Aug 9, 2017)

Dave65 said:


>





W1zzard said:


> Post whoring (posting nonsense for the pure joy of it, otherwise known as spamming or thread-crapping).


https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/forum-guidelines.197329/

How about editing your post and posting something that contributes to the topic at hand?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Aug 9, 2017)

Manu_PT said:


> Good luck locking your games on 144fps. GamerNexus couldn´t do it in any game, always minimum fps way below 144, while 7700k flies. Cheers.



Look how high that 7700K is "flying":


----------



## Basard (Aug 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You could, but why would I intentionally limit my 1080ti by pairing it with bulldozer?


Because.... for some of us peasants money does not grow on trees....  The GPU  comes first, sometimes, when it's time to upgrade...


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Look how high that 7700K is "flying":
> 
> View attachment 90920


It's practically out of this world, lol

But seriously, yea, if you have 2x 1080ti already then maybe you need to go with the slightly faster IPC CPU to not put "a glass ceiling" on them. You may get 10 fps in some games. But if you still can't afford those 1080s, what are you doing paying Intel double the money for 'almost' the same fps? Since when do people even care about the amount of fps the CPU gives them? 

Never heard this argument before AMD came out with Ryzen, it used to even be frowned upon to compare CPUs for fps in games. And now it suddenly seems like the only thing people do all day. 

Don't you have any better arguments?

This whole "Intel is better for gaming" argument is probably the stupidest crap I have ever heard. Intel doesn't even produce graphics cards, remember?  But suddenly an Intel CPU is what you need for more fps in games... Seriously? I don't know who's pushing this, but somebody probably is. If Intel themselves isn't behind all these stupid gaming benchmarks, who else would actually benefit from it?


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Aug 9, 2017)

If not happy with TR also hated so much AMD, but you love so much with intel and of course lot of cash.. just keep calm and wait for

Vodka Lake / X
Sake Lake / X
Coke Lake / X
etc ...

Way too much talk about benchmarking, but forgot about how good Price / Performance ratio AMD has with TR.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 9, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Look how high that 7700K is "flying":
> 
> View attachment 90920



That is some epic massaging of facts to suit a narrative. 



> In a Q&A regarding_ Titanfall 2_‘s PC release, Respawn confirmed that the game would have a *PC cap of 144 frames per second*. Although it’s still a limit, 144 FPS should be enough frames to match virtually all PC game players’ monitor refresh rates.



144 hard cap.  Nothing is going to get higher than that.  Getting 143 when on OC is about as good as it gets (literally 99.3%)


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

Since when do people even test CPUs according to fps in games? Who actually thinks this is needed? I remember when all that mattered was to not completely bottleneck your GPU with the CPU, not about 5-10 fps difference without even accounting for the extreme price difference of those 5-10 fps that comes with Intel. It used to be all about comparing two GPUs that cost about the same head to head in fps. That's what matters. Now we are looking at completely differently priced CPUs and putting them against each-other in fps??? I couldn't invent a more ridiculous test if I wanted to.

Like this video:
It's comparing Ryzen 1700 to i7-7820X, which is double the price in my country, head to head in games! (Of course with the exact same GPU despite the massive price difference!)
That's as smart as making a whole video benchmarking a Radeon RX580 against a GTX 1080 in games... Don't they see that those price ranges are insane?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 9, 2017)

You know you have a good product when the antiAMD crowd is in meltdown mode.

Keep it up, guys. It's a good laugh.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Aug 9, 2017)

I wonder what kind of tdp it had when overclocked this much, like how many watts of heat it was putting out. I still think it's impressive, if only I had 1000 to spend on a cpu lol


----------



## zimcomp (Aug 9, 2017)

always makes me laugh all these comments

at the end of the day you either have a unlimited budget or not

if you have a limited budget then most  people will buy the best chip for the money
 and  currently  AMD  offers best value for  money


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 9, 2017)

Basard said:


> Because.... for some of us peasants money does not grow on trees....  The GPU  comes first, sometimes, when it's time to upgrade...


That's some peasant with a 1080ti!


----------



## Nuckles56 (Aug 9, 2017)

Damn, I needed to get the popcorn out for this thread, it got stupid fast


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 9, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Damn, I needed to get the popcorn out for this thread, it got stupid fast


It will be even better tomorrow when all the benchmarks for ThreadRIPper come out and the same people start freaking out about how it's slightly worse at gaming than a $3000 Xeon or something.


----------



## evernessince (Aug 10, 2017)

dwade said:


> What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.



You could also say the same about Kaby Lake and Sky Lake as well and it would be even more correct because they essentially are overclocked sandy bridge.

But it's not a bad thing.  An overclocked Sandy Bridge is still more than enough for modern games.  Ryzen has the extra cores to boot.  It's also very efficient, priced well, and has long term platform support.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> You're still a whole 800MHz higher clocked as well


 on a 6 year old cpu lol



B-Real said:


> Hehe, cry more, baby.  And you are linking one game benchmark, and you still know that in Techpowerup's 16 game average, Ryzen CPUs are only about 11-12% from the top 7700K. Poor guy, really.



yep and that makes VR and 120hz ULMB 100% unplayable


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> on a 6 year old cpu lol


Which means little to nothing considering Intels IPC has been stagnant for over 5 years in the single thread department


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Which means little to nothing considering Intels IPC has been stagnant for over 5 years in the single thread department



thats false. IB-HW was 11%, HW-BW was 3%, and BW-SKL was 3%, and now overclocks 5GHz plus with KBY

AMD is still 5 years behind in IPC and a whole 1GHz behind in clocks. Fact.

i dont get why reality is so hard for people to except. Ryzen/CCX is not a gaming chip. It sucks ass at it but is extremely good at being cost effective and scaling for massively threaded tasks with minimal clock hit on massive dies.

That is how it was designed and works. 100% fact. It just isnt a gaming chip....get over it. It is a stellar workstation/threaded workhorse. Intels new HEDT sucks at gaming too but just not as bad...jeez.

Stop spamming the internet with fan boy bs that is devoid of reason.



Vya Domus said:


> 4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.



anyone buying a 1000-2000 dollar CPU will be delidding and using water or phase change so temp is not really relevant.


----------



## FR@NK (Aug 10, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Turbo clock is not a baseline clock. It'll NEVER operate at 4GHz on ALL cores. So, when you overclock both to 4GHz on ALL cores, that means both actually operated at 4GHz on all cores at all times. Something NEITHER does out of the box, tubo or not.
> 
> Don't mix up special "All Core Turbo" settings in BIOS that forces CPU to run the turbo clocks on all cores. But that's not what any Intel CPU does when within factory specs.



Wow you really don't understand how these chips operate?

*At stock it runs at 4GHz on all the cores* unless you start hitting the power limit or are running an AVX workload. The base clock is lower on these chips because they use a large AXV512 multiplier offset.

The "all core turbo" setting in the bios would run all the cores @4.3GHz or 4.5GHz.



EarthDog said:


> EDIT: Also note, many motherboards by default will boost to all thread turbo out of the box. The Prime had my 7900X at 4 GHz all cores from the first boot.



The stock all core turbo speeds for the 7900x is also 4GHz so its working fine regardless if @RejZoR will believe it.

Congrats on the new CPU. I'm waiting for the higher end boards from asus to drop before I pickup a 7900X. Not sure if it would be as fast as my 6900k @4.5 unless it will do 4.8+


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Ryzen/CCX is not a gaming chip.





HopelesslyFaithful said:


> It just isnt a gaming chip....get over it. It is a stellar workstation/threaded workhorse. Intels new HEDT sucks at gaming too but just not as bad...jeez.


Please stop. What does "gaming chip" even mean? Plenty of people now play fine on Ryzen. You know what a gaming chip is? A freaking GPU! Stop this nonsense about CPUs being gaming or non-gaming...... It makes no difference. Have you ever run a game purely on a CPU? They are all non-gaming chips!!! 

Just stop.

Here's a step by step.
1. Buy Ryzen.
2. Take the bag of money you saved and buy a better GPU. Or a second one.
3. Now you have a gaming chip.


----------



## Nephilim666 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> anyone buying a 1000-2000 dollar CPU will be delidding and using water or phase change so temp is not really relevant.



You think the majority will be delidded? Why?
Also why delid for phase? Even on Cascade the difference is negligible


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> anyone buying a 1000-2000 dollar CPU will be delidding and using water or phase change so temp is not really relevant.



Uhm , no.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Turbo clock is not a baseline clock. It'll NEVER operate at 4GHz on ALL cores. So, when you overclock both to 4GHz on ALL cores, that means both actually operated at 4GHz on all cores at all times. Something NEITHER does out of the box, tubo or not.
> 
> Don't mix up special "All Core Turbo" settings in BIOS that forces CPU to run the turbo clocks on all cores. But that's not what any Intel CPU does when within factory specs.


who care what out of the box stock is? No one buys an unlocked 1000 dollar chip and runs stock unless they are an idiot, Your point is moot.



Nephilim666 said:


> You think the majority will be delidded? Why?
> Also why delid for phase? Even on Cascade the difference is negligible



Who spends that much money and does not delid and overclock? A fool maybe? It is stupid not to delid...your throwing away perforamnce.

that is not true. Silicon lottery delids his 7700K for single phase change because it makes a notable difference. He runs his at 5.5-5.7GHz. There is a thread in his forum where i was asking him about it.



PowerPC said:


> Please stop. What does "gaming chip" even mean? Plenty of people now play fine on Ryzen. You know what a gaming chip is? A freaking GPU! Stop this nonsense about CPUs being gaming or non-gaming...... It makes no difference. Have you ever run a game purely on a CPU? They are all non-gaming chips!!!
> 
> Just stop.
> 
> ...



Again if you seriously game ryzen sucks at it. Look at the benchmarks, look at single thread. If you VR or 1440p 120hz ULMB game like I do even a 4.8 Ghz 6700K can't run many single thread games at 120hz consistently due to single thread limits. Stop your spamming of patently false statements on its ability to game on VR and 120hz. I wouldnt even use an Intel HEDT for it because of the IPC hit and thats faster than Ryzen.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> thats false. IB-HW was 11%, HW-BW was 3%, and BW-SKL was 3%, and now overclocks 5GHz plus with KBY
> 
> AMD is still 5 years behind in IPC and a whole 1GHz behind in clocks. Fact.
> 
> ...


I guess Intel Kaby sucks ass at Gaming as well since it's only 10% ahead


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> I guess Intel Kaby sucks ass at Gaming as well since it's only 10% ahead


yep the fastest CPU in the world at gaming coming in at a terrible 5.2GHz on water is terrible at gaming compared to an amazing 4.1GHz Ryzen with lower IPC......

Your just proving why i think humanity is a joke lol


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> who care what out of the box stock is? No one buys an unlocked 1000 dollar chip and runs stock unless they are an idiot, Your point is moot.


The real question is what idiot buys a $1000 CPU and immediately voids the warranty by delidding it?



HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Again if you seriously game ryzen sucks at it. Look at the benchmarks, look at single thread. If you VR or 1440p 120hz ULMB game like I do even a 4.8 Ghz 6700K can't run many single thread games at 120hz consistently due to single thread limits. Stop your spamming of patently false statements on its ability to game on VR and 120hz. I wouldnt even use an Intel HEDT for it because of the IPC hit and thats faster than Ryzen.


Again, "serious gaming"... what does that mean? Do you even know how pretentious you sounds?

You didn't mention anything about "VR and 120Hz" or "1440p 120hz ULMB" in your original post. But still you had to make statemtns such as "Ryzen is non-gaming" and "Intel is top tier at gaming". Are you kidding me? You represent less than 1% of actual gamers who don't have Titan X in SLI for your "VR and 120Hz". Your statements don't make sense for over 99% of actual gamers who aren't hopelessly lost in your VR clouds. Everybody knows VR and 120Hz is years away for most people. Get this in your head: Not everybody shits money like you. Don't assume that everybody needs or wants the most power at all costs, just because you print money.

Fact is, if you're looking for a gaming PC from $500 to $1500, like the vast majority of people, Ryzen is the "gaming chip" you should buy! And this is the last time I will use this extremely douchy term that you just made up.



HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Your just proving why i think humanity is a joke lol


LOL?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> yep the fastest CPU in the world at gaming coming in at a terrible 5.2GHz on water is terrible at gaming compared to an amazing 4.1GHz Ryzen with lower IPC......
> 
> Your just proving why i think humanity is a joke lol


Hmmm 1000MHz higher , high power draw, heat box and still just barely performs better

Yep that screams great deal

Intel forever screwing consumers and brainwashing


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Hmmm 1000MHz higher , high power draw, heat box and still just barely performs better
> 
> Yep that screams great deal
> 
> Intel forever screwing consumers and brainwashing


yes somehow 30% faster in single thread is barely better. You are a troll on a grand level to ignore basic mathematical facts.

Don't worry i wont feed this troll anymore. Just want readers to notice how much a troll and how basic facts fail him. Minimum frame rate is most important metric and causes the most issue in terms of quality of experience especially in FPS. When I play NS2 when other players shoot at my skulk I get massive FPS drops and makes it harder to bite marines. This is a fact in any game especially in single thread games.

Ryzen fails badly at 1000s of games that are still single thread and or people who game with VR or 120hz.



HopelesslyFaithful said:


> on a 6 year old cpu lol
> 
> 
> 
> yep and that makes VR and 120hz ULMB 100% unplayable





PowerPC said:


> The real question is what idiot buys a $1000 CPU and immediately voids the warranty by delidding it?
> 
> 
> Again, "serious gaming"... what does that mean? Do you even know how pretentious you sounds?
> ...




yea you obviously dont read peoples posts and just spam drivel. I stated it in my first post in this thread and in basically every post since.

Again most games and OS is single thread limited. Even older games that dont require a 980TI at 1500mhz like I have are still single thread limited on my rig and have been for over a decade (since game release). RCT3, Total War, Star Wars Empire at War, WAr Thunder, and 100s-1000s of others are still single thread limits and scale nearly perfectly so top tier OC 7700K vs a top tier ryzen OC is a solid 30% faster in FPS.

Fun Fact HL2 was single thread limited until 4-5GHz SB/IB systems. So drops below 120hz and as low as 60hz was quite common on my 3.33ghz nahelam.
It wasn't until my 4.2GHz IB that I no longer had major issues with HL2.

Again minimum frame rate is the most important thing for VR and 120hz ULMB and i even have stutters with my rig. You expect me or others to throw away 20-30% performance for unbearable stutters and frame drop?

jeez. Logic and facts fail you hard huh?

(this refers to single thread limits across all programs and OS so ryzen vs an OC Kaby has major differences in snappiness)
*This should be required reading for everyone because for some reason 35 years later people still don't understand this and this has been known since 1982! This is again why I don't use my Server as my main rig. It is substantially slower in day to day tasks and I can feel it.*

You might want to read this about OS responsiveness since you seem deeply uninformed.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...e-new-motherboards.235789/page-2#post-3704281

Read this post til the end of thread if you actually want to learn something.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> yea you obviously dont read peoples posts and just spam drivel. I stated it in my first post in this thread and in basically every post since.
> 
> Again most games and OS is single thread limited. Even older games that dont require a 980TI at 1500mhz like I have are still single thread limited on my rig and have been for over a decade (since game release). RCT3, Total War, Star Wars Empire at War, WAr Thunder, and 100s-1000s of others are still single thread limits and scale nearly perfectly so top tier OC 7700K vs a top tier ryzen OC is a solid 30% faster in FPS.
> 
> ...


You obviously didn't read mine. And are you expecting me to remember your other posts among over 150 in this thread alone? Sorry I don't have a photographic memory. If you want others to remember what you meant, it's no big effort to repeat it in every post, if you want to make multiple posts in a big thread like this. And you're not that important that I would remember you among thousands of other posters.

Back to topic.

You think I need to read all that just to get from it that most games are single thread limited on the CPU side, something I already know?

First of all, I don't see such big differences as you describe in the benchmarks. In most tests I see about 10%, not 30%.

But as I said multiple times, I think this kind of discussion is stupid to the core because it only applies to people like you who can already afford the most powerful GPU money can buy. (You notice how all those benchmarks are made with two Titans, right?) Your perspective is really boring and pointless for most people. You are completely neglecting the cost factor. How is someone going to be helped by calling Intel a "gaming CPU" and Ryzen a "non-gaming CPU" when he or she should definitely go for Ryzen with a normal $500-$1500 gaming PC budget, that includes a graphics card!?

Why do you insist on these stupid "gaming CPU" or "non-gaming CPU" terms by just isolating the CPU from the whole gaming PC? Terms like this are incredibly confusing and frustrating for consumers, as people will inadvertently end up buying a worse gaming PC with your alleged 6700K "gaming CPU", when they should have bought a much better gaming PC with a Ryzen and a better GPU for gaming!

Really, stop labeling CPUs "gaming" or "non-gaming". There is no such thing as gaming on a CPU in isolation without a GPU. If you want to say something about the CPU performance in games, don't just conveniently omit what GPU you used. You can only say a CPU is good or bad for gaming, if you include the GPU in that statement. Anything less is literally just nonsense or only applies to you. You're also directly playing into the Intel vs. AMD war, or simply neglecting to prevent it.


----------



## justimber (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Your just proving why i think humanity is a joke lol



don't you think you also belong to that group? unless you landed in Roswell from another planet lol

anyways, if it's price/performance ratio, AMD wins...and yeah I agree with them, we don't shit money like you do..unless you want to share that with us and we'll also make our eyes bleed with VR and 120hz 

why is it when I read the posts here it seems that Intel fanboys are on panic mode?


----------



## Totally (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Mental diarrhea and other senselessness



All your arguments are pointless to the brink of being delusional. Yes the chip you are so proud of scores  150fps in one vs AMD's chip that _only _gets 120fps. Does it matter at that point? That constitutes a very minor point. Justly defined as barely, the absolute difference is significant but the actual tangible benefits are next to none.

You are being the guy with a 800hp sports car bragging about how your car's estimated top speed is nearly 200mph and is getting butthurt when then other guy points out that speed limits top out at 75mph and their Corolla hit's that number just fine.

Then you go onto wax eloquent about how the chip performs on a nearly 20 year old game?


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

justimber said:


> don't you think you also belong to that group? unless you landed in Roswell from another planet lol
> 
> anyways, if it's price/performance ratio, AMD wins...and yeah I agree with them, we don't shit money like you do..unless you want to share that with us and we'll also make our eyes bleed with VR and 120hz
> 
> why is it when I read the posts here it seems that Intel fanboys are on panic mode?



As I pointed out in the other post linking to a discussion about IBMs study from 1982. There is substantial cost savings by having a faster system in regard to time saved and increased productivity, which is why I use fast quads for my main rig so yes....it is a worth while investment. You should read the IBM study.

Also if you can't afford a good CPU...why are you buying 60 dollar titles lol.

I rather buy games on sale and own a better rig but to each their own.



Totally said:


> All your arguments are pointless to the brink of being delusional. Yes the chip you are so proud of scores  150fps in one vs AMD's chip that _only _gets 120fps. Does it matter at point? That constitutes a very minor point. Justly defined as barely, the absolute difference is significant but the actual tangible benefits are next to none.
> 
> You are being the guy with a 800hp sports car bragging about how your car's estimated top speed is nearly 200mph and is getting butthurt when then other guy points out that speed limits top out at 75mph and their Corolla hit's that number just fine.
> 
> Then you go onto wax eloquent about how the chip performs on a nearly 20 year old game?



as I said before minimum frame rate is really the only metric that matters. Average FPS is not important. They also test only AAA games that are actually threaded. I dont see one single thread game tested.

Also it cant even average 120 fps let alone keep 99% or 99.9% of frames above it. lol (going from tweaktown picture in first thread)

There is a 36% difference in minimum frame rate with the 7740x vs 1800x. Lets see how much worse that looks when Kaby is at 5.2GHz vs 1800x at 4.1GHz. I bet more like 40-45% difference....yep....totally not noticeable.

That is also GTA:5 which is a very well threaded and optimized game. Try playing older games that arent even coded that well. Not happening.

If you only play AAA threaded games sure those ryzen maybe acceptable in that niche area of gaming. If you don't game with VR or 120hz sure....it may work. But if you VR or play at 120hz or want to play a wide range of games old and new at a smooth experience ryzen does not cut it....That is a fact.

Also your analogies are not even relevant and patently stupid but whatever.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> As I pointed out in the other post linking to a discussion about IBMs study from 1982. There is substantial cost savings by having a faster system in regard to time saved and increased productivity, which is why I use fast quads for my main rig so yes....it is a worth while investment. You should read the IBM study.


But... but... Ryzen Octacore wipes the floor with Intel Quadcore in productivity and multitasking. It's the same as having two monitors instead of one for a huge productivity boost. I won't even get into an argument over it because anything trying to contradict this could only be seen as trolling.

Totally's car analogy is actually perfect for that "gaming CPU" drivel.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> But... but... Ryzen Octacore wipes the floor with Intel Quadcore in productivity and multitasking. It's the same as having two monitors instead of one for a huge productivity boost. I won't even get into an argument over this because anything trying to contradict this could only be seen as trolling.
> 
> Totally's car analogy is actually perfect for that "gaming CPU" drivel.


Again as for win 7 is concerned most of the OS is single thread limited. Win10 is a bit better threaded but still single in most tasks.

Web browsing and PDF and most office programs and day to day tasks are not threaded and single thread is more important.

Go read IBMs study on responsiveness.

You still are wrong. A fast single thread is still better than many cores for day to day tasks. If it wasn't I wouldnt buy binned quad core CPUs.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Again as for win 7 is concerned most of the OS is single thread limited. Win10 is a bit better threaded but still single in most tasks.
> 
> Web browsing and PDF and most office programs and day to day tasks are not threaded and single thread is more important.
> 
> ...


Are you serious? You obviously have no clue about the benefits of having multiple cores.

Separate programs, even if they are single core limited will still always run in separate threads on different cores! Yes, an isolated PDF reader or office program may run just on a single core, but again, that's if you just isolate one of them. Each of those programs running in parallel still will be assigned to its own core. Even each tab in Chrome runs in it's own thread. Just look in your task manager. It means it will use multiple CPU cores.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Again as for win 7 is concerned most of the OS is single thread limited. Win10 is a bit better threaded but still single in most tasks.
> 
> Web browsing and PDF and most office programs and day to day tasks are not threaded and single thread is more important.
> 
> ...


You might as well have a P4 than


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> Are you serious? You obviously have no clue about the benefits of having multiple cores.
> 
> Separate programs, even if they are single core limited will still always run in separate threads on different cores! Yes, an isolated PDF reader or office program may run just on a single core, but again, that's if you just isolate one of them. Each of those programs running in parallel still will be assigned to its own core. Even each tab in Chrome runs in it's own thread. Just look in your task manager. It means it will use multiple CPU cores.


and my CPU almost never maxes out in said work loads and those select cases of maxing out is not worth the cost of single thread performance. I watch the load and log the load on my own system and know the added single thread performance is better hence why i dont use HEDT as main rig even though I have a 1650v3 (at 4.2-4.4 GHz) next to me.

Go read the IBMs study and educate yourself and do some math and log your system and see where you hit the wall the most. I single thread max out far more than multithread max.

The time saved with having a better single thread is substantial hence why i use quads and will get the 8700K when it comes out since that should overclock comparable and give me an extra 2 cores.  If a quad exists with 10% or more better single thread than a 6/8 core CPU it is overall better day to day CPU and better overall gaming CPU for those tasks.



Durvelle27 said:


> You might as well have a P4 than


and no surpise you post something meaningless devoid of facts.


----------



## Hood (Aug 10, 2017)

INSTG8R said:


> Not sure why people keep trotting out gaming performance...If you bought this for gaming you're doing it wrong...


I think it's because AMD and their board partners are marketing it towards gamers in a big way, probably because the legitimate workstation market is so small.  Bling it up with LEDs and call it ROG, Aorus Gaming, Gaming professional, or Gaming Pro carbon, and you trick a lot of people into wanting one for their gaming rig.  Too bad they'll have to find out it's FX all over again, except with a much higher price tag this time.  Well, maybe not as bad as FX, but the same concept - more cores = better (pay no attention to the abysmal single-thread performance - it has moar cores!).


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> and my CPU almost never maxes out in said work loads and those select cases of maxing out is not worth the cost of single thread performance. I watch the load and log the load on my own system and know the added single thread performance is better hence why i dont use HEDT as main rig even though I have a 1650v3 (at 4.2-4.4 GHz) next to me.
> 
> Go read the IBMs study and educate yourself and do some math and log your system and see where you hit the wall the most. I single thread max out far more than multithread max.
> 
> ...


I have seen a video where they opened a couple of programs, games and videos at the same time and the Ryzen 8-core didn't flinch like you could throw anything at it, while the Intel 4-core started having massive stutter in the game. That's the kind of real world testing you need to do, not math with pen and paper.

Chrome for example runs multiple tabs in different processes each with multiple threads. This means it will use multiple CPU cores just nicely, as many as you throw at it. You may say that single threaded performance is more important for productivity, but how exactly did you come to that conclusion except from a study that was conducted 40 years ago and personal "logging", as you say?

Maybe that your server configuration is more different to your desktop 4-core than just the CPU? (RAM, drives etc.)


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> I have seen a video where they opened a couple of programs, games and videos at the same time and the Ryzen 8-core didn't flinch like you could throw anything at it, while the Intel 4-core started having massive stutter in the game. That's the kind of real world testing you need to do, not math with pen and paper.
> 
> Chrome for example runs multiple tabs in different processes each with multiple threads. This means it will use multiple CPU cores just nicely, as many as you throw at it. You may say that single threaded performance is more important for productivity, but how exactly did you come to that conclusion except from a study that was conducted 40 years ago and personal "logging", as you say?


again as i keep saying and you ignoring. Go read the study and understand how human minds and productivity works and come back after you read the study and read the facts on how the human mind has and will always work.

each tab is single thread limited. fact.

where do most transactions occur? With in a single tab/loading 1 tab at a time.

Which hurts productivity more?
100 600ms responses vs 100 300ms responses?
30 seconds of total system delay
or
20 10 second responses vs 20 5 second responses?
100 seconds of total system delay.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> who care what out of the box stock is? No one buys an unlocked 1000 dollar chip and runs stock unless they are an idiot, Your point is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People who actually work on them for a living don't overclock them. And your point is silly, AMD has all CPUs unlocked anyway. Even bottom ones.


----------



## Khonjel (Aug 10, 2017)

Man, I don't understand people sometimes. I can understand people bashing Intel for stifling improvements and features but bashing AMD for finally introducing competition? What the hell!

And look at some guys bragging like "oohhh my $450k Ferrari or Lamborghini is still faster than a $100k GT-R35 lol"

People are gonna buy what they want. Hell, we might see people buying that 8-core TR just for the heck of it. No amount of loud-mouthing in the forums or YouTube comments will change that.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Which hurts productivity more?
> 100 600ms responses vs 100 300ms responses?
> 30 seconds of total system delay
> or
> ...


What is the difference here? Of course in both cases more delay hurts productivity.

I did read your other thread.

But what was shown in that video I described doesn't bother you? That's not just 100ms delay, if you can even prove that with something like Chrome. That's noticeable stutter in a game that makes it unplayable while running other programs in the background on a 4-core compared to completely smooth gameplay with the same programs running on the 8-core.

Did you actually capture those responses on video or can it maybe just be placebo with something like a word processor? Can't it be the monitor, lighting or so many other things at this point?


----------



## Melvis (Aug 10, 2017)

How the heck did this thread get 7 pages? 

TR OC's to 4.1GHz.....Cool? unlike all the other Ryzen CPU's do just with more cores?


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> What is the difference here? Of course in both cases more delay hurts productivity.
> 
> I did read your other thread.
> 
> ...


If you read the thread and IBMs study you would realize that there is 3 seconds of time saved ever every transaction between 600ms and 300ms delay. Granted, different tasks have different human response delays but it is universal in regards to the concept (humans see a larger time saved at lower delays). Go read the study.

There is no notable added human delay in a 10 vs 5 second delay.

According to IBMs study there is roughly 3 seconds human delay difference between 600 ms vs 300ms. *You would know this if you actually read it.....but you obviously didn't *

So the 600ms vs 300ms scenario is more damaging to productivity and enjoyably of using a system than large delays. So many small delays are more damaging than a few large delays. Small delays in system responsiveness are more common in day to day tasks which is why I build my system the way I do. *These delays are almost always linked to single thread.*

You can log and gauge your system using many tools. There is throttlestop, logging mouse actions (seeing how many transaction you do per hour..not a perfect method but gives usable statistics), windows tool I forget the name of it but it lets you look at all the threads and see where throttling is according. You can see this in throttlestop also to an extent.

I wish I know of a program that logged all single core/thread maxes and counted them and reported the delay for each instance so you didn't have to figure it out in a drawn out not perfectly accurate manner.

Those statistics would be amazing to read and to see how to optimize a system on a user by user and program by program basis.

From my work experience and watching, higher single thread is better if we are considering a 10% difference in single thread. Again depends on what you do but if you dont have a specific load where 8+ cores is needed your doing a disservice to yourself.

I dont get your last statement in post. It makes no sense.

*And go read the study. I am no longer going to bottle feed you because you want to be lazy and not take the chance to actually learn something*


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> I wish I know of a program that logged all single core/thread maxes and counted them and reported the delay for each instance so you didn't have to figure it out in a drawn out not perfectly accurate manner.
> 
> Those statistics would be amazing to read and to see how to optimize a system on a user by user and program by program basis.


This is exactly why I think this video would clear some things up. I found it btw. The test starts exactly 5 minutes in:









You can see there is a much greater hit in overall performance to all programs on Intel 6700K when having multiple programs open compared to the Ryzen 1700X. It shows that you maybe are underrating the effect somewhat.

Still, this seems like a far better argument for Intel than the tired and shameless "gaming CPU" argument. Responsiveness in desktop applications would actually depend purely on the CPU. I didn't think I'll be redefining my understanding of productivity using computers in this thread lol. Even though I feel like most people would probably find this kind of thing somewhat OCDish and would rather want to future proof their PC with double the cores rather than obsess about 100 ms more or less delay in responsiveness. Doesn't matter because the research is solid. At least for now, you probably will have a more responsive desktop experience with Intel, although what I meant was it's still something to be proven for me personally. Have you done the actual responsiveness measurements? Because you wrote somewhere that it just "feels" more responsive to you, but it still might actually be placebo or some other factor with your server compared to the 4-core PC. Have you ruled that out? Don't programs have some kind of maximum responsiveness anyway that you can't go beyond? I have never actually cared enough to think about this until 10 minutes ago. It's not exactly something that stands out when you use a computer with an already decent CPU.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> This is exactly why I think this video would clear some things up. I found it btw. The test starts exactly 5 minutes in:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was proven in 1982 and the data exists. Go read it. How the human brain works does not change.

Again I have analyzed my system and studied the logs and concluded single thread is the most hindrance to me for day to day tasks. If I am doing anything that maxes my CPU. I move it to my server to run the task.

Except it does stand out if you actually edit win 7 OS settings like remove fixed animations and other settings which is why I turned my S8 animations to .5x too.

What you just stated is the same though process that IBM disproved 35 years ago. 

Additionally, ryzen and intel mesh both have bad penalties switching between cores/clusters.

The 7700K and 8700K do not have those penalties either.

Do you have a ryzen chip? Run kraken on it for me.


and that video is a no duh....he is doing an extremely power hungry task in background derp derp...of course.

No where did I say running an encode or F@H in the background would be faster on a quad core chip lol.

Your example is stupid.


----------



## PowerPC (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> It was proven in 1982 and the data exists. Go read it. How the human brain works does not change.
> 
> Again I have analyzed my system and studied the logs and concluded single thread is the most hindrance to me for day to day tasks. If I am doing anything that maxes my CPU. I move it to my server to run the task.
> 
> ...


I don't have a Ryzen but I will buy it if the 8700K isn't going to come out soon and isn't cheap. I'm not going to go 4-core in 2017, no way. I generally use a CPU for way over 5 years and I'm sure multi-core applications will pick up, if they aren't already gaining momentum. Intel 6-core would be the only compromise, but there is not even a release date for it yet, or other information for that matter.

It's Ryzen 1700 or wait for me right now, those are the two only choices. Intel is sleeping behind the wheel.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Again most games and OS is single thread limited. Even older games that dont require a 980TI at 1500mhz like I have are still single thread limited on my rig and have been for over a decade (since game release). RCT3, Total War, Star Wars Empire at War, WAr Thunder, and 100s-1000s of others are still single thread limits and scale nearly perfectly so top tier OC 7700K vs a top tier ryzen OC is a solid 30% faster in FPS.
> 
> Fun Fact HL2 was single thread limited until 4-5GHz SB/IB systems. So drops below 120hz and as low as 60hz was quite common on my 3.33ghz nahelam.
> It wasn't until my 4.2GHz IB that I no longer had major issues with HL2.
> ...



Speaking of logic - why are you considering VR and 120hz a great investment if EVEN with that 30% higher single thread performance and top end gear, you STILL experience stutter?

Would it not be much more effective to lock at 90 fps, and scale a system on that, avoid stutter because you don't have that high a frame time variance altogether, AND reduce the total cost of the system so you can invest more towards GPU / future upgrades / whatever else in peripherals?

The only real logic here, is that high FPS/high refresh gaming AND VR simply aren't ready for market yet, because the performance level and optimization of the technology is far beyond the spec of the hardware it is used on. You're basically pointing that out yourself. Its on an even worse position right now than 4K, which is achievable but not comfortable on most hardware.

The fact still is, that the market for high refresh gaming is purely competitive of nature and VR and competitive don't mix at all, for now and the foreseeable future. The only failure in logic lies with you and your view of what is feasible, and what is possible with todays' tech.

The only real high refresh gaming that happens realistically is playing CS:GO and MOBAs at the lowest detail settings and at a high competitive level. Everything else is just a personal preference of which the vast majority of 'hardcore gamers' are just overinflated ego's like yourself that achieved nothing in life but a rank on some silly video game. You then apply that ego to everyone's buying decisions with regards to CPUs while the ONLY niche that the 7700K excels in, is high refresh gaming. For everyone else, Ryzen is the go-to CPU right now.

Get a life and some sense in your gut. Shit. Speaking of faith in humanity...


----------



## Hood (Aug 10, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> Intel 6-core would be the only compromise, but there is not even a release date for it yet, or other information for that matter.


I guess you missed this from Tuesday - https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...h-generation-core-family-on-august-21.235943/ - this is just a paper launch, but I think Intel usually follows with the retail launch fairly quickly, and "before the holidays" is implied in the press release, so probably Oct/Nov for pre-built systems and Dec. for CPUs.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Speaking of logic - why are you considering VR and 120hz a great investment if EVEN with that 30% higher single thread performance and top end gear, you STILL experience stutter?
> 
> Would it not be much more effective to lock at 90 fps, and scale a system on that, avoid stutter because you don't have that high a frame time variance altogether, AND reduce the total cost of the system so you can invest more towards GPU / future upgrades / whatever else in peripherals?
> 
> ...


you experience drastically less. The difference between my 4.4Ghz 1650v3 vs 4.8GHz 6700K is noticeable

my 1650v3 is probably slightly faster single thread than a ryzen but not by much (probably depends the type of processing). A 5.2GHz 7700K would be even better.

For War Thunder and NS2 (both single thread) my 6700K has a much better gaming experience over my 1650v3. Same goes for day to day tasks which is why I have the systems I have.

running lower FPS for ULMB is not a bad idea to be honest. The games I play at 4.8GHz are just barely below a consistent 120hz. A 5.2GHz KBY could probably be good enough. But that is a good idea for other games that can't do anywhere close to 120hz but can do 85hz. I'll take note of that for other games so thanks!

I game for fun and experience. Cutting corners to save a few bucks is not worth it. It is also why I only play older games and don't play new ones. I save money on buying games when prices are low. I also get the chance to play and experience the game at 100% max settings. So by time I buy 2017 games. I'll save a ton of money and have a killer rig at the time that can run 1440p or 4K at 120hz. So the cost of a binned quad is worth the money since it is my main hobby and I use my rig daily.

Again as I referenced and talked about the IBM study. I get a large amount of investment back in regards to time saved with having a snappier system.

I dont care about ego or rank...your resorting to personal attacks because you lack merit. I play for enjoyment and stutters drive me nuts. Just like crappy screens annoy me. Why buy 300-800 dollar monitors when a cheap 80 dollar TN screen works? It shows images.....Yea, hell no. I want good viewing angles and good colors with minimal ghosting. I also calibrate all my screens too.

So not devoid of logic. It is 100% based on logic but keep the personal attacks up because you lack merit lol.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> you experience drastically less. The difference between my 4.4Ghz 1650v3 vs 4.8GHz 6700K is noticeable
> 
> my 1650v3 is probably slightly faster single thread than a ryzen but not by much (probably depends the type of processing). A 5.2GHz 7700K would be even better.
> 
> ...



You're the one pulling out the troll insult here right? For someone who doesn't care about ego you go through a hell of a lot of effort to tell us all the hardware you own and your rationale behind it. And the problem with that is not you owning the hardware (nobody cares, really), but you applying that rationale to the buying decision on what is 'the best part' to get for everyone and that everything below it is sub-par or 'unfit for gaming'. In some way you're saying everyone who doesn't apply your dedication and money into a gaming rig is a stupid peasant - the only thing missing is that you've not yet explicitly said so.

I would suggest you let go of that quickly.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> You're the one pulling out the troll insult here right? For someone who doesn't care about ego you go through a hell of a lot of effort to tell us all the hardware you own and your rationale behind it. And the problem with that is not you owning the hardware (nobody cares, really), but you applying that rationale to the buying decision on what is 'the best part' to get for everyone and that everything below it is sub-par or 'unfit for gaming'. In some way you're saying everyone who doesn't apply your dedication and money into a gaming rig is a stupid peasant - the only thing missing is that you've not yet explicitly said so.
> 
> I would suggest you let go of that quickly.


Facts are facts.

Is the 7700K and probably 8700K better at gaming than a ryzen? Yes.
Do they provide a better gaming experience in regards to better frames and consistent play? Yes
Do stutters ruin quality of experience? Yes
Does ryzen cause more stutters? Yes
Does 7700K and probably 8700K cause less? Yes
Does 7700K play the vast majority of games better? Yes
Do you play games for the experience? Yes
Does the 7770K run a snappier better day to day computer? Yes
Does the 7700K provide better productivity do to it being faster for day to day tasks? Yes

Is the 7700K better than ryzen for said tasks? Yes
Why buy an inferior product lol


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 10, 2017)

HopelesslyFaithful said:


> Facts are facts.
> 
> Is the 7700K and probably 8700K better at gaming than a ryzen? Yes.
> Do they provide a better gaming experience in regards to better frames and consistent play? Yes
> ...



Welcome to my ignore, you clearly didn't get it. When you want to come down into the real world, let me know.

Its pretty rare to require only three posts to get there with me though, you're the second one on the list across 3 years of TPU.


----------



## HopelesslyFaithful (Aug 10, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Welcome to my ignore, you clearly didn't get it. When you want to come down into the real world, let me know.


Well facts fail you i guess and you run away instead of actually forming an intelligent argument based on reality. Have fun with willful ignorance.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 10, 2017)

Jesus Christ... it's like all the trolls gathered here. Actually there are like 2 of them but they managed to fill pages upon pages with nonsense. I got to say , I admire the dedication but not much else.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Aug 10, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> id bet money they will reach 4 ghz..



Only?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 10, 2017)

Ryzen stutters? Lololololol

All the reviewers say otherwise. Boy, I think Intel fanboys are having aneurisms.

Keep it coming. This is glorious.


----------



## jabbadap (Aug 10, 2017)

Well powerful they are, but power they need too. Tom's got it OC to 3.9GHz with all-core needing over 250W and gamernexus OC it to 4.0GHz all-core with maximum of 282W of power.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 10, 2017)

Seems like similar power scaling to Intel's chips... with 10c...


----------



## thesmokingman (Aug 10, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Seems like similar power scaling to Intel's chips... with 10c...



16 cores vs 10 cores, 20-30% more perf at 10% less draw is similar?


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 10, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> 16 cores vs 10 cores, 20-30% more perf at 10% less draw is similar?


Not sure i mentioned performance... but if added in the equation, you are spot on. 

I tried to infer both CPUs use a fair amount of power, cores and performance be damned. Clearly that matters, but 280-310w is a lot for any cpu. Likely need a robust board with good cooling on the vrm (gaming pro carbon looks anemic in heatsink category). Reading between the lines, it inferred the same thing you did about it being better than intel.

Hope that clears up the vague post.


----------



## RikuKawai (Sep 7, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> That single core score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single core @ 4.9GHz.



Last I checked that's not only lower but your clock speed is way higher.


----------

