Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 34

Thread: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    25,639
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,382 times in 518 posts

    AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Top end Threadripper achieves 4216/24723 in single-/multi-core scores.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    55
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Something doesn't add up to that multicore result...

  3. Received thanks from:

    Pleiades (15-06-2017)

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    1,432
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    182 times in 137 posts
    • virtuo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus GRYPHON Z87
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K @4.8Ghz Corsair H100i GTX
      • Memory:
      • 32Gb G.Skill TridentX 2400 @ CAS9
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 EVO 120Gb + Many, many HDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980Ti FTW
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 750W
      • Case:
      • be quiet! Dark Base Pro 900 (Orange)
      • Operating System:
      • Win10, Fedora
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x Dell U2515H 1440p DELL U3415W Ultrawide for Work
      • Internet:
      • PlusNet Unlimited 80Mb

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Looking forward to seeing some retail benchmarks, but so far that 1800X is too close (unless they are priced very closely as well)

    The new higher core count "i" chips might not have as much work to do than I thought if the 7700K can sit within swinging distance already.

  5. #4
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    10,461
    Thanks
    1,213
    Thanked
    909 times in 716 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z77 Pro4-M
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 3570 (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Crucial DDR3 1866MHz
      • Storage:
      • 240GB Crucial M4, 480GB Crucial M500, 2TB Seagate SSHD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • XFX 650W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2913WM & Philips E-line 234EL2SB
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Quote Originally Posted by GinoLatino View Post
    Something doesn't add up to that multicore result...
    Care to elaborate?

    Seems OK to me.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    523
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked
    43 times in 27 posts
    • Kanoe's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z9PE-D8 WS
      • CPU:
      • 2x Intel Xeon 2670 @ Stock
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Vengeance Arctic White 32GB (8 x 4GB) @ Stock
      • Storage:
      • 240GB SanDisk Extreme II System Disk, 960GB SanDisk Ultra Games Drive, 1TB Samsung F3 Backup Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 295X2 OC @ Stock
      • PSU:
      • Superflower 1200W
      • Case:
      • Phanteks Enthoo Primo v2
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 28" ASUS PB287Q 4k + 24" Dell U2412M
      • Internet:
      • VM @ 200/12

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    The multi-core score is mighty close to the 8C/16T chip score. Suggests that either the test they are using cannot utilise all of those cores / threads or there is some major bottle-necking in the infinity fabric that means really really multi threaded applications can't get the best out of it yet.

    Early days though...

  7. #6
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,493
    Thanks
    599
    Thanked
    817 times in 698 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Yup, I was thinking the same, especially when reading the FAQ on geekbench seems to suggest that the score is fairly linear.

    I.e. they use an example of the baseline being 2500 (for a certain i5 Mac) and then state that a score of 5000 implies that it is twice as fast.

    Maybe the benchmark doesn't do that many cores correctly or maybe thermal throttling is kicking in, a BIOS issue or a Windows scheduler issue.....guess we will find out soon enough.
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Lenovo Flex 2 / 12GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: HTC One M9 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM12.1 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    928
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    34 times in 30 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Yeah something is off there, either geekbench can't manage that many threads without further updates, which is possible as I have programs that won't work with more than 16 cores, or there's an issue somewhere else. There's no way AMD would release a cpu with 16c/32t that is slower than their 8c/16t when using all their cores....

    A quick google for a ryzen 5 geekbench score also backs up that there's an issue.... Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core @ 3200 MHz (6 cores)can do 3718 and 15481 for single and multi so it seems it's pretty linear scaling for ryzen based on cores/threads etc.

    Actually thinking about it, ryzen can have 'mutlti-threading' turned off so it could be that is's only using the main 16 cores to get that benchmark....

  9. #8
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    13,800
    Thanks
    1,089
    Thanked
    1,970 times in 1,648 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Quote Originally Posted by LSG501 View Post
    ... Actually thinking about it, ryzen can have 'mutlti-threading' turned off so it could be that is's only using the main 16 cores to get that benchmark....
    Hmmm, interesting theory, and that would actually fit in with the single-thread score being higher despite the fact that we're expecting lower boost clocks from Threadripper - disabling SMT should increase single-thread throughput. Or, it could be that this benchmark is complete toss: e.g. earlier rumours didn't have a 1950X at all, and the 195? chips were 10C/20T, not 16C/32T. I'm taking this one with an almighty pinch of salt...

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    MOMBASA
    Posts
    536
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    10 times in 9 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    if AMD is launching 32 core chip then it means infinity fabric is okay compared to the benchmark we are seeing here in the Multi-threading score. I doubt if this benchmark is accurate, AMD R7 is beating Broadwell E by big numbers in multi core test.

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    321
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    19 times in 16 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    I am willing to put money on either half the cores were disabled, Infinity Fabric was broken or this is a fake leak.

    Even with best case scenario I would have expected far greater than a sub 10% increase in multicore performance. Single core is within expected, this is a parallel processor, not a serial.

    I have a feeling someone was paid to gimp the results or fabricate them. If that is wrong and this is real, then holy crap AMD just majorly screwed up.

  12. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    928
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    34 times in 30 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    Or, it could be that this benchmark is complete toss: e.g. earlier rumours didn't have a 1950X at all, and the 195? chips were 10C/20T, not 16C/32T. I'm taking this one with an almighty pinch of salt...
    Yeah to be fair I've never really been a fan of geekbench as a performance measure in the first place but comparing the same architecture at least should be relative unlike what's being shown.

  13. #12
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    4 times in 3 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    I assume some of the above didn't read the article properly, in particular: "It's important to remember that these Threadripper Geekbench scores are early figures from a processor / system that is yet to go through a number of optimisations. Both AMD and its motherboard making partners will likely be working furiously at getting the best possible stable performance from these many-core processors ahead of launch in a few weeks."

    We need to wait and see how Threadripper performs when it is released.

  14. #13
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    13,800
    Thanks
    1,089
    Thanked
    1,970 times in 1,648 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Quote Originally Posted by Friesiansam View Post
    I assume some of the above didn't read the article properly ...
    No, we all did - the results are *way* off - far too far for it to simply be "not properly optimised". You've alledgedly got twice the cores/threads of an R7 1800X, but probably a lower core clock speed - so you'd expect a bit less than twice the multi-threaded performance. This leak suggests it's only got 7% more performance. That's just flat wrong. There's only 2 possibilities: either the chip was somehow gimped to produce a sub-par performance, or the result is completely fabricated.

    As I say, I'd favour the chip being run with SMT turned off - that would give you higher per-core performance than the 1800X even at lower clock speeds, as you're not sharing core resources anymore - it'd then be a straight comparison for both 1 thread and 16 thread tests with the 1800X, and you'd expect the SMT-off threadripper to narrowly win both of those ... which it does. I wouldn't rule out a completely fabricated test result, but the figures fit so nicely with this being a 16C/16T result... I mean, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck...

  15. Received thanks from:

    Pleiades (15-06-2017)

  16. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    928
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    34 times in 30 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Quote Originally Posted by Friesiansam View Post
    I assume some of the above didn't read the article properly, in particular: "It's important to remember that these Threadripper Geekbench scores are early figures from a processor / system that is yet to go through a number of optimisations. Both AMD and its motherboard making partners will likely be working furiously at getting the best possible stable performance from these many-core processors ahead of launch in a few weeks."
    There's being lower than expected and being as slow as the cpu with half the cores/threads......as someone who works with multithreaded software on a daily basis those results just aren't normal unless there's something causing it such as lack of support for more than 16 threads (unlikely) or some sort of other issue (smt disabled for example - which seems most likely now), neither of which are mentioned in the article.

  17. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    I am not sure I like the sound of being geekbenched.

  18. #16
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    44
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16C/32T CPU gets Geekbenched

    Multi-core performance seems 'meh' if you compare it by pure numbers.

    It takes AMD 16 "cores" on the new Threadripper chip to reach that score, but the Ryzen 7 and Intel can do it with half the number. And single core performance is also only just passable at this level.

    I now go back to wondering if AMD is actually using FULL logical cores or if they're doing the mini/half core thing again... These numbers seem to support either horrible optimization, or the chip isn't what they're telling us it is.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •