Mar 13th, 2025 08:33 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

Wednesday, August 9th 2017

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

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (188 Comments)
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.
Sources: Reddit user @ callingthewolf, via WCCFTech

Related News

Add your own comment

188 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Overclocked to 4.1 GHz With Liquid Cooling

#76
Vya Domus
NicklasAPJI 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.
Posted on Reply
#77
uplink777
B-RealAnd 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.
Posted on Reply
#78
Durvelle27
uplink777Hmm, I go around 5400 - 5600 per core [7900X @ 4.5 - 4.7 GHz], this guy 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 :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#79
uplink777
Durvelle27Hmmmm 700MHz higher and just barely 10% faster

But Multi just straight trash :laugh:
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.
Posted on Reply
#80
B-Real
uplink777Not 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.
Posted on Reply
#81
Durvelle27
uplink777Not 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 :roll:

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

I like them odds
Posted on Reply
#82
uplink777
B-RealYou 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 :)
Posted on Reply
#83
B-Real
uplink777Not 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? :)
Posted on Reply
#84
Vya Domus
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 ?
Posted on Reply
#85
Durvelle27
uplink777You 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 :roll:

More like let down

Intel I know you could do better o_O
Posted on Reply
#86
uplink777
B-Real1950X 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]

Posted on Reply
#87
Durvelle27
Vya DomusThere 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
Posted on Reply
#88
B-Real
uplink777And 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. :(
Posted on Reply
#89
Vya Domus
7900X's official MSRP is 999$ so is 1950X's MSRP.
Posted on Reply
#90
uplink777
B-Real7900X:
Newegg: 1060$, Amazon: 1100$

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

Please stop being a liar. :(
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 ;).
Posted on Reply
#92
uplink777
Vya Domus7900X'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.
Posted on Reply
#93
B-Real
uplink777I 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.
Posted on Reply
#96
uplink777
B-RealYou 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.
Posted on Reply
#97
NicklasAPJ
Vya DomusYou'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.
Posted on Reply
#98
Durvelle27
uplink777What? 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
Posted on Reply
#99
B-Real
uplink777What? 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? :D Still, check Amazon and Newegg prices to get the right prices. They are equally priced, get over it. Bye. :)
Posted on Reply
#100
Vya Domus
Durvelle27But 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.
NicklasAPJI 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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 13th, 2025 08:33 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts