• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Threadripper on Zen+ 32 Cores - Launching Q3 2018

If I had the monies I would still lean towards getting a micro ATX thread ripper build for a gaming pc as it's just something exciting to play with. Failing that I would go ryzen, been years since I've been amd.
 
bakes0310 said:
If I had the monies I would still lean towards getting a micro ATX thread ripper build for a gaming pc as it's just something exciting to play with. Failing that I would go ryzen, been years since I've been amd.
Click to expand...
My first pc was intel.

The first pc I built myself from components was an amd k6-2. Not had amd since that.

I'd really like to build out an amd machine thatll give 5+ years of use.

Not sure I'd bother with their gfx cards though...so it be a green card that goes in it.
 
chroniclard said:
Expect gaming will be similar to Ryzen+, which is good but not quite 8700K levels.
Click to expand...
Which is only something to consider if you're really only using a system for gaming.
And are you talking about < 1440P?
I know a 6700K is not an 8700K but at 1440P, using both a 1070 Ti and a TXP in both systems I found hardly any difference with a 1950X when compared to the same GPU in the 6700K, in fact no difference in a few cases where I switched the CPU to 8 cores only. It wasn't a broad test but enough to make me think gaming is a use that probably should be lower down the list of priorities when buying a CPU for 1440P+ gaming. Sure, if on a budget you'd go with the 8700K.
I cant imagine many buying >8 core CPU's using < 1440P monitors
 
DarrenM343 said:
Which is only something to consider if you're really only using a system for gaming.
And are you talking about < 1440P?
I know a 6700K is not an 8700K but at 1440P, using both a 1070 Ti and a TXP in both systems I found hardly any difference with a 1950X when compared to the same GPU in the 6700K, in fact no difference in a few cases where I switched the CPU to 8 cores only. It wasn't a broad test but enough to make me think gaming is a use that probably should be lower down the list of priorities when buying a CPU for 1440P+ gaming. Sure, if on a budget you'd go with the 8700K.
I cant imagine many buying >8 core CPU's using < 1440P monitors
Click to expand...

Yes. 8700K only has edge on 1080p with GTX1080Ti,
Any resolution above that, is irrelevant if you have 8700K or 1600 or 2600 or 2700X.
And is you have anything less than 1080Ti like 1080 or Vega, is irrelevant even at 1080p what CPU you have.
 
actually 8700k has a bit of edge on min framerates. There are a couple games which favor a lot frequency, so the 8700k will have some higher avg as well, but not anything gamebreaking (from 90's on 2700x to 100's on 8700k). But when you play on 144Hz screens, you might notice(or not).
It just comes to a bit of compound effect: faster ram + faster cpu(freq wise) just up the 8700k in games a bit more.
Take into consideration that most things now are built for intel cpu's (most of the compilers i know of are optimised for intel hw as far as I know), AMD might take an extra inch here and there in the future.
 
8700K still has the edge on gaming, especially those clocked around 5ghz.

Either way, if they match the 2700X for gaming they will be monster CPU's.
 
Keep hearing about low Res 1080p makes a high end CPU irrelevant and your better off spending it on a nicer GPU. So if you were being savy you would buy the cheapest CPU that the better GPU won't be bottlenecked, is that correct?
So I could for example get a i3 CPU and pair it up with a 1060 possibly a 1070 and if there's no to little bottleneck at 1080p, I've been clever with a build?
 
Silent_Scone said:
Monoblocks dump heat into the loop, they're purely for asthetics really. There's no real tangible benefit otherwise (if you can use active cooling)
Click to expand...

Lolwhut? I'm pretty sure "dumping heat into the loop" is the entire point.

VRMs need cooling, there's little airflow over them when you're on water, so monoblocks combine CPU and VRM cooling into a single package, thus solving the VRM cooling issue. They're no more for "aesthetics" than the rest of a water loop. It's only on the big boards like the Rampage Apex and Rampage Extreme has the VRM cooling not actually worked, but that seems to be a flaw with the monoblock design, rather then the concept; I've not seen 8 Pack complain about VRM temps with the AM4 and TR4 monoblocks.
 
depending on games. I think Civ and AOTS like threads.
That and I think i3/Rysen3 are pointless at this time, since i5/Rysen5 are more future proof and the upgrade is not that expensive.
tbh excluding the TOP cpu's, the rest are decently priced in both camps. I mean 170£ for R7 1700 is a good price
 
Full one year sum up while using 1950X, including all in his comments the windows update that fixed the scheduler and performance jumped on gaming.


And having seen more videos about the X399 MEG, is a tempting board that could possibly deal with the 64 core TR4 in 2 years time.
 
LePhuronn said:
Lolwhut? I'm pretty sure "dumping heat into the loop" is the entire point.

VRMs need cooling, there's little airflow over them when you're on water, so monoblocks combine CPU and VRM cooling into a single package, thus solving the VRM cooling issue. They're no more for "aesthetics" than the rest of a water loop. It's only on the big boards like the Rampage Apex and Rampage Extreme has the VRM cooling not actually worked, but that seems to be a flaw with the monoblock design, rather then the concept; I've not seen 8 Pack complain about VRM temps with the AM4 and TR4 monoblocks.
Click to expand...

VRM cooling not actually worked? Sorry, struggling to understand what you mean. Nobody is complaining about temps with the monoblocks, but the energy being dumped into the loop affects the ability to reach Delta-T and for really no tangible benefit if one can simply use a fan to cool the VRM. These things have a high tolerance, so it's not really necessary. As I've said above, if you can use active cooling then it's really only for aesthetics

So to answer your lulwhut, I'm right.
 
When testing the Rampage monoblocks, 8 Pack saw significantly worse VRM temps using the monoblocks rather than just a CPU block and leaving the VRMs be. But I've not seen a similar observation for the Z series Intel boards or AM4/TR4.

You say "if you use a fan" and "if you can use active cooling" and that was my point: what if you don't or can't? Airflow over a motherboard has always been something to consider when you're watercooling, especially as VRMs have become chunkier beasts. So the monoblock idea gets around an absence of airflow by combining their cooling with the CPU. Smaller cases or confined areas around that part of the motherboard may preclude just slapping a fan over the VRMs.

Now given how chunky VRMs have become of late, it's entirely possible that the monoblock idea is no longer viable (the Rampage blocks indicate this, and I dread to think what would happen with a MSI Meg monoblock). Yes, if you can slap a fan over the VRMs then don't bother with a monoblock, but if you can't (or won't) then surely there is a tangible benefit to putting them under water, but you'll have to consider your overall loop accordingly to handle the load.
 
It's horses for courses, at the end of the day. If every bit counts, some may not want to take a hit to CPU and GPU temps. Besides, the TurdRipper is a bit of a paving slab as it is, without having an even bigger block lol. 32 cores is just incredible, though. It's not quite up there in terms of being an enthusiast platform, but AMD has really put the wind under Intel's sails. I'm desperately trying not to fall for the hype and buy one, and I have no need at home for that many threads.
 
LePhuronn said:
TurdRipper? Really?
Click to expand...

When you slap two (or multiples) CPU together on the same substrate, can't do more than 3600 on the mems and can't really overclock it, then in my opinion, yes, really. Don't let that take anything away from it, though. It's still a relatively exceptional paving slab. It's the price that's incredible, really. So much horsepower for 1,600.
 
Panos said:
Yes. 8700K only has edge on 1080p with GTX1080Ti,
Any resolution above that, is irrelevant if you have 8700K or 1600 or 2600 or 2700X.
And is you have anything less than 1080Ti like 1080 or Vega, is irrelevant even at 1080p what CPU you have.
Click to expand...

Wrong, 8700k has the lead in many titles even at 1440p, see DF latest video to see this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom