Read more.The better bet for the well-heeled enthusiast?
Read more.The better bet for the well-heeled enthusiast?
Reading around other reviews, it appears that the 2990WX always runs in a NUMA configuration, and Windows is sufficiently aware to keep data & threads local to a single die. The 2950X by default runs in a UMA configuration so the data could be in memory attached to one die while the threads access it are running on the other. I'd say an overall 10% improvement in latency compared to 1st Gen Threadripper is pretty good, though...Memory analysis appears to be somewhat strange. There's excellent bandwidth but relatively poor latency.
Any thoughts on why Ryzen 2700x is sometimes noticably faster than 2950x? The clocks of 2950x (3.5 boost to 4.4ghz, compared to 3.7 boost to 4.3) seem comparable enough to expect similar performance.
Is this a case of software faltering on more cores, or something memory-related due to how the cores are packaged?
I was really hoping to find the 2950x was pretty much comparable to 2700x in all cases, and obviously better on heavy multi-threaded loads, but it doesn't seem to be quite so cut and dried...
This review is such AMD fanboy Bullcrap. Intel wipes the floor with this cpu, only a fool would opt for this over intel. If this was an intel review of the TOP END cpu it would get slated, yet because its AMD you state "Competent for Gaming" looool, you may as well just say that this is a paid for review and be done with it.
Most likely down to latency, since the biggest wins for the 2700X are in gaming which is usually latency sensitive. It'd be interesting to see the results in all of the benchmarks with the memory set to local mode, to see how that impacts different workloads...
I read it as a workstation chip (for which you'll select brand based on performance in your specific workloads) on which you can game. If you wanted a dedicated gaming system you'd be bonkers to guy this chip. This is not a "top end" chip in the sense it's in a different category to those suited to gaming. It just attempts to straddle the categories slightly and is said to do a "competent" job. It's not it's main focus and only an idiot would buy this for gaming when you can buy something far better suited at a much lower price - be it Intel or AMD.
Can I assume you've recently purchased an expensive Intel chip and don't like the idea that waiting a bit would have netted you this instead at a lower price with better and more flexible performance? That's the nature of PCs, something better is always just around the corner. That or you've misread this as a dedicated gaming chip when it's clearly not and love to get angry and arrogant online. Try sitting on the fence and not bothering about fanboyism. You can see both sides from the fence. Join us. Be a brand whore. You know you wanna.
afiretruck (16-08-2018),KN1GHT (17-08-2018)
Thanks for the review. This one is far more useful than the excessive end. The entry level chip is still going to be the most interesting.
What I think would be interesting is driving these chips with some level of crazy SLI. Obviously you're limited on the non-HEDT platforms to the number of PCIe lanes available - but on these chips, maxing our a x4-way SLI, is there any advantage to the 64 lanes on the AMD over the 44 on the Intel etc.
I think this is doing the review, and the processor a disservice. Most people don't buy the most expensive product. Most people need to balance cost with performance and it's not just raw FPS count in games that matter to everybody.
I suspect you'd probably be better off spending your money on a non-HEDT CPU and getting two GPUs instead if FPS is your only measure.
This chip "wipes the floor" when it comes to parallel processing tasks. It also does this for considerably less money.
I have a strong preference for Intel chips, but I don't think I could stomach buying an i9 over one of these at the current prices.
Lo Troopa
Fair play to Troopa, he's been a member along time, so let him have his space.
What CPU you rocking Troopa? Do you have one of the newer Intel's ?
HEXUS doesn't do Fanboy.... we're a bit grown up for that tbh. But it's good to see why you think it's bull? I myself just opted for a Ryzen 1700 over intel, with my own hard cash, because it better suited my needs and the VFM was exceptional, but intel make a series of lovely CPU's so lets see the Troops(ing) of the Colours
Last edited by Zak33; 16-08-2018 at 03:55 PM. Reason: more
Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
KN1GHT (17-08-2018)
KN1GHT (17-08-2018)
I think there is often a misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes a "workstation", and what constitutes "HEDT" and what crossover there is. That confusion then manifests in unusual ways as we see on this thread.
I have a requirement for a CPU that will crunch a sizeable chunk of video data (handbrake etc), and ideally leave me room to play some games, browse the web, and do "general" computing whilst that's going on in the background. At the moment, that's handled by a consumer-i7 CPU, but the crunching takes a very long time.
To my mind, this isn't workstation - that'd be dedicated video crunch, rendering, simulation etc, and that would benefit from ECC RAM and threadripper 2990ws/epyc/xeon type CPUs.
The Ryzen 2700x would probably give a tidy uplift over the i7, but I'd quite like a bit more "spare" processing when grinding, so threadripper fits the bill nicely. The 12 or 16 core offerings would seem the sweet spot. Gaming will drop compared to the i7, possibly, but equally benchmarks never look at this multitasking angle - my suspicion is that actually, a 16 core threadripper might actually game better than the i7 when asked to crunch and game simultaneously (would be interesting to find out).
I suspect I'm not alone in this kind of workload. The idea that we might want to do more than one thing at once must surely be the norm, now. That's not workstation load, but I think it goes a bit beyond "consumer" - it's the HEDT space I think. Intel will give you fewer cores, but perhaps a slightly more "standard" architecture, so you'll lose in the video crunch, but gain in games. AMD is basically the opposite, but a bit cheaper. I think you probably pay your money and take your choice depending on your priorities.
That being said, I'd love to see a bench test where a video game is benchmarked whilst something like Handbrake runs in the background. That kind of real-life use would, I suspect, be quite interesting.
KN1GHT (17-08-2018)
I'm pretty sure that if you're planning on doing that, this processor will be just the ticket. The game will throw out a few meaty threads and Handbrake can use the rest of the cores. The 1080p gaming benchmarks just aren't realistic in that I can't think of many people having the kind of wonga / requirement for this kind of CPU who would use a 1080 monitor - sure some will, but most will be looking at resolutions which are going to mean most games are GPU limited.
End result is that if you are the kind of person who likes to game whilst encoding, why not? You're unlikely to compromise on the gaming element enough to really notice.
Interestingly, when dual and quad core processors first started becoming mainstream, Hexus did run exactly this scenario, and reported both the game fps and productivity benchmark results (e.g. https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/1...omenal/?page=7).
Biscuit (16-08-2018)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)