Friday, July 7th 2017

AMD Threadripper 1950X 16-core Appears on Geekbench and SiSoft Sandra

With AMD's Threadripper family just a few weeks away from launch, it appears we are already getting some preliminary benchmark results in via both Geekbench and SiSoft Sandra benchmarks. This latest set of leaks isn't the first bench of the flagship 1950X, but it is the newest and thus should give us a more accurate picture of present optimizations.

Interestingly, the single core performance dropped a bit on GeekBench, from 4216 to 4074. It made up for it in multi-threading however, where the chip posted a result of 26768, up from 24723. Sadly, these numbers still pale in comparison to the 10-core i9-7900X, in both single threaded and multi-threaded figures. As the 1950X ships with significantly lower clocks compared to the i9-7900X's clocks (with boost considered, anyway), I suppose it truly will come down to whether these CPUs can close the gap via overclocking, or optimizations towards launch and beyond. Either way, it seems there may be a bit of a hill to climb to get there. Whether or not it is surmountable remains to be seen.
That said, keep in mind that even if AMD does not steal the crown, these CPUs could be a very good value (dare I say it? "Disruptive?"). That's up to AMD, but remember that any price slashes they make to compete with Intel on a value level hurts the company bottom-line. AMD probably would prefer the crown if they can have it so they can charge more, like any good business. Either way, competition never hurt the consumer, so let's hope for all our sakes the product is as "disruptive" as it possibly can be.
Sources: Geekbench, SiSoft Sandra
Add your own comment

39 Comments on AMD Threadripper 1950X 16-core Appears on Geekbench and SiSoft Sandra

#26
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Prima.VeraSorry, that is not accurate. Is the other way around actually. Nobody almost is jumping to the new platform due to 1 major thing. Unavailability of quality motherboards and insufficient stocks of the existing ones, the main reason most of them are sold out....
So you are saying nobody is buying x299 based on it being sold out? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#27
uuuaaaaaa
Vlada01116 core CPU need to give at least 38-40.000.
Without that that's not good CPU from my perspective.
16 cores Hey... Intel 10 cores 1000$ results are arround 35.000.
How 16 cores give same score as overclocked i7-5930K, that's big question.
AMD have 16 cores and Intel 6 core.

AMD plan to charge him 850$, why someone to pay so much for 26.000 score if Intel could reach 35.000 for 1000$. Intel i9 with 16 cores will reach over 40.000.

X299 is than not so bad option, when price of i9 line start to go down in next years people will have opportunity to buy them later. If they performance are far better than i9-7900X they will work as Xeons capable to OC. And you know how long Xeons serve customers, that's not platform for change on 10 months as mainstream just because new chipset arrive or new socket.
Read the first posts, the geekbench score is clearly off. 16C/32T Threadripper beaten by the same uarch 1800x, does that make any sense?
Posted on Reply
#29
kpderkp
davidenecoThis geekbench is a big fake
I also agree that some manufactors seems like to run some unfairly benchmarks.I think this benkmark resurt is not corret.
Posted on Reply
#30
EarthDog
davidenecoThis leak is sponsor by intel
Lololololololol
Posted on Reply
#31
daehxxiD
HopelesslyFaithfulthat is patently false. These appear to overclock fairly well.

The problem are the VRMs and not the CPUs.
And the TIM between is the ihs and silicon.
Posted on Reply
#32
Das Boot
I guess we will either have to wait until some legitimate benchmarks are revealed.
Posted on Reply
#33
Das Boot
HopelesslyFaithfulthere is no debate that intels CPU is better but for people who can get away without super good single thread and can effectively use all the cores of the AMD CPU it is a very attractive (potentially) system especially with all the PCIe lanes. Many people are PCIe lane starved and this is a very attractive offer. Also AMD might support ECC which intels do not so anyone who needs ECC and wants decent single thread AMD is the only option.

If Intel offered ECC support on HEDT they would steal a lot of AMDs customers.
You have a great point.
Posted on Reply
#34
EarthDog
TheGuruStudYeah, sure, I'll just use chilled water for 4.6ghz and dice for 4.8+. That's totally 24/7 stable. These things are nuclear reactors when OCed.
3x120 custom loop... :)
Posted on Reply
#35
Th3pwn3r
FrickSo you are saying nobody is buying x299 based on it being sold out? :laugh:
No demand so no supply?
Posted on Reply
#36
deu
Das BootI guess we will either have to wait until some legitimate benchmarks are revealed.
Dude its TP; people will not wait for sh**! :D The rumors goes that the graph also include RX VEGA performance, releasedate and AMDs quarterly result!
Posted on Reply
#37
xorbe
Who was first, X299 or X399? And was this intentional or what.
Posted on Reply
#38
Hood
Th3pwn3rNo demand so no supply?
Or maybe Intel is waiting to see how well they sell before they ramp up CPU and chipset production, same with board partners - lots of X99 parts are still on shelves, eventually heading for the "bargain bin", so they're being cautious. letting old X99 stock sell as long as possible before the inevitable price cuts.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jul 23rd, 2024 11:26 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts