• 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 x1900 vs i7 7820x

Yes that would be a great start but I bought the board before the CPU. I decided on the Asus Prime as it was less than the others and I don't need all that stuff. It looks like a good board and I hope it has the same clocking features as its bigger stablemate the Zenith Extreme. As mentioned by someone earlier in the thread; the reduced cost of this CPU and mobo has allowed me to opt for 32GB RAM and a 256GB M2, which I intend to run in RAID 0 when I add another 2, from 21st September or whenever they release a BIOS to support it.

I'm not overly worried if it's slower than an Intel rival, I fancied a change but am hoping for a snappy system with good memory timings. It's nice to have some competition for a change I hope it will help reduce the prices from Intel but we will see :)
P_setting_fff_1_90_end_500.png
 
it wont.3.8-4.0 is the max most will get.until new steppings .then that will be just 200mhz more.this happens every chips since forever.
 
X399 Prime A Twst tried in the office. Working well he said.

I would personally go binned 7820x 4.9 bin.
 
We did some this week obviously not know the site yet. Takes time to book in the stock on binned codes and set up the products.
 
rush_syndrome said:
Yes that would be a great start but I bought the board before the CPU. I decided on the Asus Prime as it was less than the others and I don't need all that stuff. It looks like a good board and I hope it has the same clocking features as its bigger stablemate the Zenith Extreme. As mentioned by someone earlier in the thread; the reduced cost of this CPU and mobo has allowed me to opt for 32GB RAM and a 256GB M2, which I intend to run in RAID 0 when I add another 2, from 21st September or whenever they release a BIOS to support it.

I'm not overly worried if it's slower than an Intel rival, I fancied a change but am hoping for a snappy system with good memory timings. It's nice to have some competition for a change I hope it will help reduce the prices from Intel but we will see :)
P_setting_fff_1_90_end_500.png
Click to expand...

I hope you got compatible 3600mhz C14 ram to rip the benefits of the platform. :)
 
james_2k said:
My prediction is that it wont be as fast, as the per core performance of the tr is generally not as high as the intel equivalent. This may be offset slightly if it can be clocked higher, we shall see. But 99.9% it will be cheaper and thus better value, if you are in to that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

You have been around here long enough to know what you are saying here is nonsense, i don't understand why you keep at it so doggedly, there is so much stuff on the net which disproves everything you say.

For example, This (Cinebench) is Intel's favourite benchmarking app, AMD matching Intel thread for thread, perhaps its not their favourite anymore.....?

@ the OP, the performance between Threadripper and the equivalent core count Intel is about the same, not everywhere, they are different CPU's so they differ from eachother, Video encoding and games they are about equal.

Clock rates, don't get sucked in by high overclocked clock rates on the Intel CPU's, as i'm sure you know clock rate is not a measure of performance, The Intel chips run at much higher clock rates but thats not helping them beat AMD, also take into account when looking at pre overclocked Intel CPU's that they are already clocked pretty high and the way the advertised speeds on Intel chips is presented can be misleading, for example the 7700K, reviewers always put "4.2" on the slides, its not actually running at 4.2Ghz, it has an all core boost of 4.5Ghz and thats what its actually running at, so when people go on about 5Ghz overclocks when you delid its only 10% over what its running at out of the box, think of them a bit like nVidia's pascal GPU's, i have one, advertised as around 1600Mhz, actually runs at around 1900Mhz, the 7820X has an all core turbo of 4Ghz, so when looking at reviews its running at 4Ghz, 4.4Ghz is 10% higher clock speed, the AMD chips also overclock by about 10%.

There is one odd thing about Threadripper, it has a 'Gaming Button' in the Ryzen master software, you need that to get the full gaming performance out of it, its actually only a few % over if you just leave it as is, which is what i would do.

Below is an example where Intel CPU with the same number of threads and much higher clock rates cannot beat the AMD equivalent, this isn't a couple of cherry picked games, its a 30 game average.

To sum up i'm not saying you should buy one over the other, I have nothing to gain from convincing you to buying one or the other, but some people are relentlessly trying to drill misleading information into people as if their life depended on it.

Intel do have a per thread performance advantage, not huge but it is there and differs depending on what its doing, but in multithreaded tasks AMD come off much better than they do in low of single threaded because their SMT is better than Intel's, even if the Intel CPU is much higher clocked the AMD CPU's are still at least just as fast, even in some games, but not all, some they are slower...
The chips and platform is more cost effective on the AMD side and AMD tend to keep the same sockets for more generations making them more future proof, AMD are also more power efficient and you don't have to pull the Heat Spreader off them to keep them cool at high overclocks.

Make an informed decision.

jliokhj.png


cut.jpg
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
You have been around here long enough to know what you are saying here is nonsense, i don't understand why you keep at it so doggedly, there is so much stuff on the net which disproves everything you say.
For example, This (Cinebench) is Intel's favourite benchmarking app, AMD matching Intel thread for thread, perhaps its not their favourite anymore.....?

@ the OP, the performance between Threadripper and the equivalent core count Intel is about the same, not everywhere, they are different CPU's so they differ from eachother, Video encoding and games they are about equal.

Clock rates, don't get sucked in by high overclocked clock rates on the Intel CPU's, as i'm sure you know clock rate is not a measure of performance, The Intel chips run at much higher clock rates but thats not helping them beat AMD, also take into account when looking at pre overclocked Intel CPU's that they are already clocked pretty high and the way the advertised speeds on Intel chips is presented can be misleading, for example the 7700K, reviewers always put "4.2" on the slides, its not actually running at 4.2Ghz, it has an all core boost of 4.5Ghz and thats what its actually running at, so when people go on about 5Ghz overclocks when you delid its only 10% over what its running at out of the box, think of them a bit like nVidia's pascal GPU's, i have one, advertised as around 1600Mhz, actually runs at around 1900Mhz, the 7820X has an all core turbo of 4Ghz, so when looking at reviews its running at 4Ghz, 4.4Ghz is 10% higher clock speed, the AMD chips also overclock by about 10%.

There is one odd thing about Threadripper, it has a 'Gaming Button' in the Ryzen master software, you need that to get the full gaming performance out of it, its actually only a few % over if you just leave it as is, which is what i would do.

Below is an example where Intel CPU with the same number of threads and much higher clock rates cannot beat the AMD equivalent, this isn't a couple of cherry picked games, its a 30 game average.

To sum up i'm not saying you should buy one over the other, I have nothing to gain from convincing you to buying one or the other, but some people are relentlessly trying to drill misleading information into people as if their life depended on it.

Intel do have a per thread performance advantage, not huge but it is there and differs depending on what its doing, but in multithreaded tasks AMD come off much better than they do in low of single threaded because their SMT is better than Intel's, even if the Intel CPU is much higher clocked the AMD CPU's are still at least just as fast, even in some games, but not all, some they are slower...
The chips and platform is more cost effective on the AMD side and AMD tend to keep the same sockets for more generations making them more future proof, AMD are also more power efficient and you don't have to pull the Heat Spreader off them to keep them cool at high overclocks.

Make an informed decision.

jliokhj.png


cut.jpg
Click to expand...

To assist some who read humbug's post
https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/

Game by game using GTX1080ti and 3200mhz Ram.

And compare also the values with the 8 core head to head.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1457-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-octa-core/page2.html

Again GTX1080ti is been used with 3200mhz ram.

So both benchmarks are the same, and someone could join the charts to see the bigger picture....

It does shows 4 things.
a) Nvidia in DX12 with Ryzen shows some weird results, compared to DX11 mode on some games.

b) 7820X @ 4.5Ghz with 3Ghz Mesh and 3200Mhz ram, is getting beaten by the 7700K and 6900K, while it burns 130W more than the 6900K and almost 100W than the 1700.

c) Ring topology CPUs (7700K7740X and to an extend 6900K and upcoming 8700K) have (will have) the lead because everything was optimised up to now for them, but not on games that are coming out now or getting developed now.
 
Last edited:
everyday everyway humbug and his 30 game avg post lol.

as previously said about 50 times thats mainly games where cpu difference doesnt even matter aka mainly single player games.

go check battlefield in 64 mp x99 even beats any amd chips.check crisis 3 upto 30 fps difference.on x299 platform.

i wish someone would just do a honest benchmark with most of the decent cpus and with mp games that isnt biased.you would see the differences then.

have a look here even i5 7600k can beat in gaming in the best threaded cpu game of recent times at stock lol. battlefield 1

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
everyday everyway humbug and his 30 game avg post lol.

as previously said about 50 times thats mainly games where cpu difference doesnt even matter aka mainly single player games.

go check battlefield in 64 mp x99 even beats any amd chips.check crisis 3 upto 30 fps difference.on x299 platform.

i wish someone would just do a honest benchmark with most of the decent cpus and with mp games that isnt biased.you would see the differences then.
Click to expand...

Whilst I think your statement does hold some water, ie, both said CPU's are getting the most from the GPU.
Why can't you post benchmarks? You keep saying this and have tried both but have shown nothing to back this up.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
everyday everyway humbug and his 30 game avg post lol.

as previously said about 50 times thats mainly games where cpu difference doesnt even matter aka mainly single player games.

go check battlefield in 64 mp x99 even beats any amd chips.check crisis 3 upto 30 fps difference.on x299 platform.

i wish someone would just do a honest benchmark with most of the decent cpus and with mp games that isnt biased.you would see the differences then.

have a look here even i5 7600k can beat in gaming in the best threaded cpu game of recent times at stock lol. battlefield 1

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
Click to expand...

Crysis 3? If you're talking about actually stressing the CPU's it doesn't look good for Intel, or at least not in Crysis 3. other games i'm sure Intel do better, i'm not trying to make the point Intel = not as good, unlike you with AMD, your blanket statement just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Pulled from another thread.

humbug said:
Thats far too simplistic. neither... :)

There is a difference between using an 8 core and needing an 8 core, if the game isn't demanding enough a Socket 478 Pentium 4 HT will keep pace with a 5Ghz 7700K even if the game can make use of 32 cores, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the 7700K, it just means the game doesn't need that kind of power.

However in this case as CAT pointed out an i3 can just about keep pace with an i7 while Ryzen is 'apparently' struggling to keep pace with both, what that tells us is this game is in fact bottlenecked by low threading, its not making use of the extra threads the i7 or Ryzen have....

Yet even that is still far too simplistic.

The fact of the matter is all this says about Ryzen is that its different to Intel, if you look at extensive game benchmarking what you find is that Ryzen appears to have much higher IPC vs any Intel is some games and much lower IPC in others, of course, hey are both equally capable CPU's, there just not the same CPU's.

PS: this perfectly illustrates how a game can benefit one CPU in one moment and be completely bottlenecked by it in the next.

Its an Intel Win... of course right? higher clocks. apparently higher IPC...

But wait... the next moment its a massive AMD win, almost twice as fast, of course Ryzen 5 has more threads but is it reall two times the CPU the i5 is? It is not twice as fast as the the i5 so how do you suppose it can thrash the i5 like this?

Different CPU's behaving differently when different demands are placed on it, with it you can make Intel or AMD look like the winner. the truth is in another scene of Destiny 2 Ryzen could just as easily make Intel CPU's look like there is something wrong with them. certainly if you look only at the second image here you'd think something was wrong with the Intel CPU there, right? :)

Intel win...

Intel_Win.png



Massive AMD Win

AMD_Win.png



Ryzen is every bit as capable in games as Intel, it just isn't an Intel clone.
Don't get so hung up on bar chart slides, they are utterly meaningless, worse with some vendors having a history of paying for a desired narrative they can be used to push a false agenda.

https://youtu.be/4RMbYe4X2LI?t=5m
Click to expand...
humbug said:
Um... well its certainly nothing like as pronounced but the 7700K can still fall behind even the Ryzen 1600X let alone the 1700.

What that means is the 7700K @ 4.8Ghz is in these instances bottlenecking the GPU more than the 4Ghz 1600X, when push comes to shove the 1600X has more grunt, no getting away from that.

And look at the light blue 7700K line, its all over the place compared with the smooth lines on the AMD chips.

Intel_Win2.png


AMD_Win2.png


https://youtu.be/2_fAzBB_oAQ?t=8m47s
Click to expand...
 
Considering Humbug doesn't own a Ryzen CPU, he doesn't half spend some time trying to sell them. Almost makes me want to sell my own 1700.
If core counts are matching, I'd take a CPU with faster overall core for core performance, unless the price difference matters that much to you.
But frankly I'd just get an R7 1700 for yourself. They've been as low as 270 pound.
 
humbug i posted other day the crysis 3 image i really cant be bothered to upload it again but i know you seen it.most of the intel chips against ryzen were upto 30 fps up on them.


for anyone buying for gaming only here what you should buy.with no bs.

single player mainly odd game mp = ryzen.
mainly mp games like battlefield and pubg = intel and nvidia.
multitasking and media on a budget = ryzen 1800 or threadripper.
multitasking and media and mp gaming no budget best performance = x299
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom