AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Review

[bit_user]

so what now , i don't understand the review , shall i buy AMD or Intel ???? i have i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz waiting to be replaced sometime soon .

Read the last page:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-cpu,5167-15.html

If that's still too much detail, just skip to the bottom. But, if you have to ask, then this might not be the CPU for you. Instead, you should probably check out this feature:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

 

[Mateus_Montenegro]

HI.. I work with Adobe cc, Photoshop, illustrator and Indesign. From what I saw in the benchmarks, the best cpu still the 7700k. I only have one question, does the benchmarks use only one software at a time? Because in my work, I usually have all three open and running big files, and the browser with around 50 tabs open. Is there a more appropriate benchmark for this kinda work and does the 7700k still the best for this kind of workload?
Hope to get some answers... Thanks

 

[AgentLozen]

HI.. I work with Adobe cc, Photoshop, illustrator and Indesign. From what I saw in the benchmarks, the best cpu still the 7700k. I only have one question, does the benchmarks use only one software at a time? Because in my work, I usually have all three open and running big files, and the browser with around 50 tabs open. Is there a more appropriate benchmark for this kinda work and does the 7700k still the best for this kind of workload?
Hope to get some answers... Thanks

I've seen people mention this a lot. They want Tomshardware to test for a situation with a lot of different software running.

I've argued against this in the past. I've said that it would be really hard to decided on a configuration that would please everyone. Even if you tried to test for this, how many extra benchmarks would this produce? How much more time would it take for the reviewers?

I think that its more practical for everyone if single applications are tested one at a time. Of course, people have disagreed with me too.

 

[FormatC]

The problem is - to be reproducible in such benchmarks - the additional background load. If this factor is not really constant, it makes no sense to compare different runs. And exactly this is the problem.

Adobe CC is generally not optimized for multi-threading (ok, with exception of some encoding parts). At the end each core more in asynchronous PC utilization will help you. Benchmark values are only one thing, the subjective feeling another one. As longer a process/job needs to run, as more you will mention a difference.

 

[Reynod]

HI.. I work with Adobe cc, Photoshop, illustrator and Indesign. From what I saw in the benchmarks, the best cpu still the 7700k. I only have one question, does the benchmarks use only one software at a time? Because in my work, I usually have all three open and running big files, and the browser with around 50 tabs open. Is there a more appropriate benchmark for this kinda work and does the 7700k still the best for this kind of workload?
Hope to get some answers... Thanks

For that kind of workload threadRipper would be ideal ... and the 7700k would be miserable by comparison.

The difference would be stellar ...

 

[zippyzion]

@Mateus_Montenegro

As always, adding cores and adding memory will help with multitasking. I would say in general that if you are running multiple multi-threaded applications, that you may be hitting the thread wall, as it were. The 7700k is a fantastically fast chip, but it only has 4 cores and 8 threads. A 7700k is going to be fast, but only has so many lanes, where as something like an i9 or Ryzen 7 is a little slower but can as much as double the possible lanes, and do more work as a result, though not necessarily faster work. In programs that can take advantage of it, you'll see a big performance boost, even with multiple programs running. People like to champion Ryzen 7 because you can game and stream on the same machine with little to no performance loss.

I don't think we will ever see benchmarks for this kind of thing. Even running Blender, Photoshop, and Cinebench at the same time would produce variable results that wouldn't give you more than just an idea of how it multitasks. However, in general, more cores will multitask more efficiently.

The Threadripper 1950X would be a good CPU that you would probably not max out with that workload. It might be more cost effective to look at the 1920X or the 1900X. Your workload would also benefit from the higher base clock speed and you might not actually need all the 32 threads... unless you plan on overclocking, then my suggestion flies out the window as the 1950X can reach the same speeds as the 1900X. However, don't count out the Ryzen 7 chips. Although they are mainstream they are still 8 core 16 thread chips. They could be the much less expensive solution if you find yourself maxing out that 7700K too often.

 

[pamodeo]

Very interesting and illuminating for some respects, although I would have liked to see also some results from the "Life Science" section of SPECwpc, both for my own professional interests and since they are somewhat indicative of balance in "real world intensive calculations" between core capability (on integers and, especially, FPs), core number, I/O and memory access.