• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

Tomorrow probably, still need to do a lot of testing

Is 2970WX tested in Local, Dynamic or Distributed Mode?
relative-performance-cpu.png

Btw, I start to feel this chart very misleading. Instead of a single CPU tests chart, should be 3:
1. Single or few (4 threads at most) threaded tests
2. Same as 1 plus including 1080p gaming
3. Multithreaded tests
And if you could update/add this charts to all the CPU reviews since first Ryzen please

Because how is it possible that 2920X and 9900K are faster on average than 2970W.
 
I question the choice of games, most of them thrive on single core which the advantage goes to Intel. Also, If you are going to add overclocking maybe in the future you can add undervolted power consumption.

Thanks for the review @W1zzard, looking forward to the next one.
 
"We'd like to draw your attention to energy efficiency (power consumed for work done). Here, the 2920X emerges more efficient than even the Core i9-9900K mainstream-desktop processor—getting work done quicker with less power. A remarkable feat."

Ouch for Intel...
 
So dynamic local mode is available now? I need to visit my friend's 2990WX build tomorrow then.
 
How could a con "high price" be? Nothing in that range for $650.
For what 2920x can do, price is perfect.
 
Perfect CPU. Finally a worthy upgrade path coming from AMD. So what are we looking at, 650$ CPU, Motherboard of over 250$, 500$ worth of RAM and the rest of additional stuff?
 
Agreed, If price was the "most important" AMD would be selling everything and intel would cry.
Intel has significantly higher 'mindshare'; don't assume all consumers buying Intel CPUs are doing so for a valid reason. Many of them don't even consider Ryzen or Threadripper and just buy a worse intel CPU for more money because it says Intel on the box. ffs.
 
How could a con "high price" be? Nothing in that range for $650.
For what 2920x can do, price is perfect.
i was questioning myself on that too ... since the closest in that range doesn't even compete with it and is also dubbed as high price (while it should be "obscenely overpriced" )

well one thing that is also better than i thought is : the threadripper box look less a gimmick and is actually practical than the new Intel one ... when you copy someone that has a practical design, indeed you need to change enough on the look to be a little original but one recommendation : don't go overboard and make it impractical...
 
So at moment you get a 12/24 CPU for 70$ more than a 9900K. Very nice. :D Anyway regarding normal 9900K pricing, it's still only 150-160$. Intel lold.
 
Intel has significantly higher 'mindshare'; don't assume all consumers buying Intel CPUs are doing so for a valid reason. Many of them don't even consider Ryzen or Threadripper and just buy a worse intel CPU for more money because it says Intel on the box. ffs.
A large number of them don't even know what "AMD" is :shadedshu:
 
A large number of them don't even know what "AMD" is :shadedshu:
Thats always been an issue with AMD, not enough advertising.
 
Last edited:
Thats always been and issue with AMD, not enough advertising.
i agree ... well for me i did start serious computer business back in the day of the K6 when the seller at my local computer shop recommended me AMD as they were : "just as good as Intel and more budget friendly for people like me" well that was 21yrs ago ...
 
Agreed, If price was the "most important" AMD would be selling everything and intel would cry.

You can't be this naive, surely? AMD should have a higher than 10% CPU marketshare but there is this thing called marketing and mindshare that Intel have invested billions in over the past 20 years, investment that absolutely dwarfs AMD's.

AMD's Q3 financial report showed a quarterly operating income of $100m.
Intel's Q3 financial report showed a quaterly operating income of.....$7.3 BILLION!!

Given the circumstances, that AMD can produce a CPU like this that competes and betters Intel's in some areas is a minor miracle. You would do well to cut them some slack.
 
"We'd like to draw your attention to energy efficiency (power consumed for work done). Here, the 2920X emerges more efficient than even the Core i9-9900K mainstream-desktop processor—getting work done quicker with less power. A remarkable feat."

Ouch for Intel...
Ouch indeed. At the same time, we get >60W idle power draw.
I was just wondering, at what point does idle power start to become a con? Because, you know, systems tend to idle most of time anyway.
 
You can't be this naive, surely? AMD should have a higher than 10% CPU marketshare but there is this thing called marketing and mindshare that Intel have invested billions in over the past 20 years, investment that absolutely dwarfs AMD's.

AMD's Q3 financial report showed a quarterly operating income of $100m.
Intel's Q3 financial report showed a quaterly operating income of.....$7.3 BILLION!!

Given the circumstances, that AMD can produce a CPU like this that competes and betters Intel's in some areas is a minor miracle. You would do well to cut them some slack.
You can't be that stupid to reply to a message you didn't read? Go and read the previous messages, someone said "price" is the most important - If it was AMD would've won already.
 
You can't be that stupid to reply to a message you didn't read? Go and read the previous messages, someone said "price" is the most important - If it was AMD would've won already.

That 'previous message' was posted by me numpty, if you can't follow more than 1 post at a time then you need an examination. :kookoo:
 
That 'previous message' was posted by me numpty, if you can't follow more than 1 post at a time then you need an examination. :kookoo:
1540913785761.png

Do you have a reading disorder? It's not the most "important" thing - If it was AMD would've won since nobody would've bought intel anymore back in the day when processors were new and amd entered the market- you need an examination for thinking intel has always been rich from the start :shadedshu::kookoo:

AMD's Q3 financial report showed a quarterly operating income of $100m.
Intel's Q3 financial report showed a quaterly operating income of.....$7.3 BILLION!!
Tell us something we don't know - It's obvious intel outsells AMD - they have the money to invest in marketing and amd goes un noticed, the only reason they produced something excellent is because Intel has been slacking big time and have been on quad cores up until skylake- intel need competition to actually produce anything good.

Intel has significantly higher 'mindshare'; don't assume all consumers buying Intel CPUs are doing so for a valid reason. Many of them don't even consider Ryzen or Threadripper and just buy a worse intel CPU for more money because it says Intel on the box. ffs.
That's because AMD didn't have the money to advertise :kookoo: and they were behind in gaming (even if it's a few frames back then it was clear AMD didn't do so well), even if they pump out better cpus than intel - brand loyalty will kick in and people will continue to support intel.
 
who buys a 24 core workstation processor and looks single core performance???

super pi is single core and outdated!
 
who buys a 24 core workstation processor and looks single core performance???

super pi is single core and outdated!
Then don't look at SuperPi and look at whatever test you prefer.
Is your argument "let's ignore certain tests to show the product in a more favorable light" ?
 
Then don't look at SuperPi and look at whatever test you prefer.
Is your argument "let's ignore certain tests to show the product in a more favorable light" ?
I'd suggest not feeding the trolls, but ya know, ignorance is bliss to them. SuperPi is not deal breaker but I like to see its results for the fun of it.
 
Back
Top