*** Official Ryzen Threadripper Owners Thread ***

[james_2k]

Ahhh, why the hell not!

Let the ribbing commence!

haha, i couldnt, it wouldn't be nice! like kicking a puppy! looks like 25% faster on the 7900x @4.8 with a 216 score. So id say they are both a decent match, 25 % either way depending on thread usage. and at similar prices say they both are decent cpus!

16th on 3dmark hall of fame

https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+physics+score/version+1.1

check out the top one on that list, now THATS a beast cpu.

 

[RSR]

16th on 3dmark hall of fame

https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+physics+score/version+1.1

Id expect to see a top 10 result soon then?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

haha, i couldnt, it wouldn't be nice! like kicking a puppy! looks like 25% faster on the 7900x @4.8 with a 216 score. So id say they are both a decent match, 25 % either way depending on thread usage. and at similar prices say they both are decent cpus!

Yeah, single core Cinebench is remarkably good at showing IPC. (174/4.0)*4.8=208. Add about 1% and you get 216. Most reviews show Skylake to be about 1-2% infront of Ryzen in terms of IPC.

check out the top one on that list, now THATS a beast cpu.

Yu[p, Intel Engineering Sample cpus are always impressive

 

[Vince]

Had a go at the memory again tonight, first time I tried and I appear to be nice and stable at 3200. Might even try for 3466. All I needed to do was add a little bit (0.1) to the soc voltage.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Ok, tried the newest bios, set a new high in Cinebench - same clocks as before (4.1ghz).



Stock settings very strong as well, seems to boost to 3.5ghz on all cores instead of a shade over 3.4 as before (3000 run is stock).

Threadripper performance seems to be coming along nicely

 

[Journey]

Had a go at the memory again tonight, first time I tried and I appear to be nice and stable at 3200. Might even try for 3466. All I needed to do was add a little bit (0.1) to the soc voltage.

You should look at getting the timings tighter, it makes more of a difference than going from 3200 - 3466 with slack timings, do a comparison at 3200 first, try and get 14/14/14/34-1T once you've benched the 3200 16-16-16-36-1T, then knock it up to 3333/3466 you'll probably end up with a worse result.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You should look at getting the timings tighter, it makes more of a difference than going from 3200 - 3466 with slack timings, do a comparison at 3200 first, try and get 14/14/14/34-1T once you've benched the 3200 16-16-16-36-1T, then knock it up to 3333/3466 you'll probably end up with a worse result.

3466 @ 16-18-18-18-36-75 is quicker than 3200 @ 14-14-14-34-48 for me, although marginally.

 

[Journey]

3466 @ 16-18-18-18-36-75 is quicker than 3200 @ 14-14-14-34-48 for me, although marginally.

Are you running quad channel though?

EDIT: Sorry misread your timings, how marginal is it?

 

[rush_syndrome]

Ok here is my single threaded CB. The CPU is a 1900X running @ 4.1Ghz flawlessly without a single crash since I built it over a week ago.. I'm going to look at tweaking it again as I have done is change the multiplier to X41. The system IS used as a games PC and I am very happy with it to date and it's stable. There is definitely more to come.

I must say that the EVO 960's really help with the snappy desktop performance and I am not going back to SATA after this


Here is my new multi score, it's up on the last one and I haven't done any tweaking.. maybe I will leave it a few weeks and it might catch up with Amga's

 

[jigger]

Is CB unable to report the clockspeeds?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Is CB unable to report the clockspeeds?

Yup.

 

[ToTheMax]

Anyone else interesting in the upcoming NVME raid drivers? With each drive getting a dedicated 4 PCIE lanes I'm expecting some epic performance / benches.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Yup - intending to use it for my Premiere/AE workflow.

 

[atomic7431]

Anyone who has a threadripper or 7900x, do you have planet coaster?
if so can you run some tests on parks with say 4000 guests in plus?

This game uses my 5820k ocd to 4.5ghz at just around 80% per core and im interested to see what fps peeps get in a similar situation.
It seems extremely cpu hungry and i need to see what more cores/threads does to performance vs straight up speed of clocks.

In my current park im getting 32fps with everything maxed out @ 3440x1440 screen res.

 

[rush_syndrome]

Anyone else interesting in the upcoming NVME raid drivers? With each drive getting a dedicated 4 PCIE lanes I'm expecting some epic performance / benches.

Yes I am, I want to RAID 0 two Samsung Evo's but at the moment my BIOS does not even see two drives on both NVME slots. I'm also on the only BIOS available (1900X) whereas the 1920/1950X boys already have a BIOS update.. I hope they don't forget us 1900X owners.

 

[pete910]

OK, so I'm rendering out a Blender file that takes 18gb ram, rendering an after effects sequence, upscaling a video with media encoder from 1080p to 4k and playing some Rocket League while it does all it's stuff - this machine is nuts!

If anyone wants a play with the Blender file, it's here https://download.blender.org/demo/test/benchmark.zip - I rendered it in a shade under 23mins.

Thought I'd see what a 1700x took, 28.27 mins. Not too shabby for a lowly 8 core.

 

[atomic7431]

That 1950x has similar single core results to my 4.5ghz 5820k, but with the benefit of way more cores.




I keep wondering about an upgrade, the itch, and wife wants me to as well lol, just need some more results from the i9 7900x to compare single core performance.

 

[kitfit1]

That 1950x has similar single core results to my 4.5ghz 5820k, but with the benefit of way more cores

You do know that a single core Cinebench run uses just that, 1 core ? It makes no difference to the result if the cpu had 68 cores, it's still only going to use 1 core.

 

[atomic7431]

yes its just interesting as i was reading people saying the single core performance from AMD isnt as good as intel in general and in gaming terms.

With it performing as good as my 5820k in that way, then the threadripper is arguably better than my 5820k ocd.

Im just trying to decide whats worth the upgrade and what isnt.

I play Planet coaster right now and it uses all cores and maxes them out, fps is down to 30s, im in two minds if the threadripper would help enough and if there is anything better/compromise between more cores and out right speed.

 

[kitfit1]

yes its just interesting as i was reading people saying the single core performance from AMD isnt as good as intel in general and in gaming terms.

With it performing as good as my 5820k in that way, then the threadripper is arguably better than my 5820k ocd.

Im just trying to decide whats worth the upgrade and what isnt.

I play Planet coaster right now and it uses all cores and maxes them out, fps is down to 30s, im in two minds if the threadripper would help enough and if there is anything better/compromise between more cores and out right speed.

As your 5820K was clocked at 4.5Ghz and the 1950X was clocked at 4.1Ghz, it could be argued that the 1950X is faster i would think.