AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X Review: Striking The Balance

[PaulAlcorn]

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X builds on all of the goodness offered by AMD's first-gen Threadripper processors. If you're looking to upgrade to an all-around crowd pleaser, Threadripper 2950X does not disappoint.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X Review: Striking The Balance : Read more

 

[Peter Martin]

nice

 

[djerinich]

see what are they not telling you is that you can actually run 2 maybe even 3 heavy tasks while getting no performance hit and still use your PC for gaming or whatever, now that's where the time savings and true potential of TR is! basically it replaces 3-4 computers that otherwise you'd need for same tasks. now that's a value.

 

[Peter Martin]

yeah, that is a very powerful processor. agreed.

 

[Hupiscratch]

Would love to see a high quality streaming test. With so many streaming channels nowadays, there is definitely people considering using these HEDT platforms for this.

 

[ElectrO_90]

So we all know what this CPU can do and know its ground breaking, and do some really great things. Even the verdict says its great but expensive?
Anyway then it gets 4.5/10

Another weird review with bias' throughout and a conclusion that doesn't make much sense.

I know, I'm going to buy a F1 race car and compare it to a pickup truck just to prove that the F1 car is shit, because it can't carry my shopping.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

So we all know what this CPU can do and know its ground breaking, and do some really great things. Even the verdict says its great but expensive?
Anyway then it gets 4.5/10

Another weird review with bias' throughout and a conclusion that doesn't make much sense.

I know, I'm going to buy a F1 race car and compare it to a pickup truck just to prove that the F1 car is shit, because it can't carry my shopping.

Hey electrO_90, thanks for sounding off. The rating is actually a 4.5 out of 5 (nearly perfect). Perhaps it isn't displaying correctly in your region, but I see the rating correctly here. Are you reading on the US site?

 

[ElectrO_90]

If its 4.5/5 then forgive my rant - but it clearly says here
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x-2990wx-cpu,review-34562.html
4.5/10 which is why I don't understand the answer.

And under https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x-2990wx-cpu,5797.html
it shows 4.5/5

 

[PaulAlcorn]

If its 4.5/5 then forgive my rant - but it clearly says here
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x-2990wx-cpu,review-34562.html
4.5/10 which is why I don't understand the answer.

And under https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x-2990wx-cpu,5797.html
it shows 4.5/5

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll report that to the relevant people.

 

[michael_732]

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X builds on all of the goodness offered by AMD's first-gen Threadripper processors. If you're looking to upgrade to an all-around crowd pleaser, Threadripper 2950X does not disappoint.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X Review: Striking The Balance : Read more

great review, on point and mirrors my experience. what i love about the 2950x is the fact you now have smaller boards (mATX) with TR4 and beefy vrms. it still isn't cheaper (by much) but you really have to look at each x399 mobo independently, regardless of your inclination, just because the vrm temps vary so widely across all models...even at the very top of the market..

 

[newsonline5000000]

ThreadRipper needs a ~$200 Motherboard to totally take the market from intel. X299 Motherboards can be found starting from $189

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

So, people are sounding off a lot about the cost of the motherboards, but you are saving hundreds of dollars on the CPUs vs Intel, so over all you are still coming out saving money. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is. Yes, the motherboards are expensive compared to x299, but who is only buying a motherboard for their build? Replacing a motherboard would be costly, but that doesn't happen very often. In the end you pay $350 for the motherboard, $900 for the CPU (comparing the 16 more models here) for a cost of $1250 where a competing Intel setup would be $200 for the board and $1700 for the CPU for a cost of $1900. You are still $650 better off. That is a significant amount of money. I'm not seeing the issue here.

 

[bbestomp]

MSI X399 SLI Plus mobo - $309.99 on Amazon. Works great.

 

[robert3892]

I don't know you listed as a 'con' the price is expensive. An 18 core Intel CPU costs 2000 dollars. That is my definition of expensive.

 

[spikey in tn]

Actually I'd be happy with either of them if I could afford it.

Something I've always wondered about is alluded to in your article, namely such-and-such a CPU, RAM, or whatever, has specs that are 1% better than a competitors, which can be proven by appropriate testing.

But, really, is the average computer user able to tell the difference in most situations?

 

[Lasselundberg]

1080p gaming test...ok that res shows off the cpu and not gpu...but who gets a 900$ cpu and sits behind a 1080P monitor ? people with money for this kind of cpu are gonna be behind 2-5K monitors....how about doing something different from the hundreds of other sites, and actually show off gaming at 4K

 

[Gam3r01]

1080p gaming test...ok that res shows off the cpu and not gpu...but who gets a 900$ cpu and sits behind a 1080P monitor ? people with money for this kind of cpu are gonna be behind 2-5K monitors....how about doing something different from the hundreds of other sites, and actually show off gaming at 4K

Maybe, just maybe, because this is not a gaming processor?

 

[ElectrO_90]

If its 4.5/5 then forgive my rant - but it clearly says here
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x-2990wx-cpu,review-34562.html
4.5/10 which is why I don't understand the answer.

And under https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2950x-2990wx-cpu,5797.html
it shows 4.5/5

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll report that to the relevant people.

Still not fixed....

 

[none12345]

"Unfortunately, the X399 platform remains prohibitively expensive"

I don't see how anyone could say this. Unless you are speaking to mainstream desktop users....this platform is NOT for the mainstream, nor is the x299 competition. Its like saying a SUV is prohibitively expensive compared to a sedan, if you need a SUV instead of a sedan, it doesn't matter that a sedan costs less.

The x399 platform is cheaper then the intel x299 equivalent. You spend more on the mobo, but far less on the cpu. Overall it's the same power, for less money, or more power for the same money. Which is anything but providently expensive in the HEDT market segment.

An extra 100-200 spent on a motherboard is nothing for a build that is likely going to be $3000-$4000+. Especially when you already saved 600 on the cpu...that's still saving 400 after the mobo cost diff.

Complaining about having to pay more for ram is also a red herring. If you spec a system for a specific amount of ram, there will be no material cost difference between splitting it into 4 dimms for the x399 platform vs 3 dimms for the x299 platform. 32 or 64 gigs of ram would cost the same on either platform. Of course non standard memory sizes could be easier on either platform. Industry standard is power of 2 increases to ram, and its easier to do power of 2 increases on x399 then x299, 3 dimms is non standard.

x399 being prohibitively expensive is only true for users who have no business buying HEDT in the first place. Those people should be buying mainstream platforms. If you need high end power, you pay high end prices....that's why its called high end desktop. In x399's case, its more high end power overall for less high end price.


There are of course specific workloads that will favor either platform. Neither is better in all workloads. You should tailor any hardware you buy to your workload.

 

[mischon123]

@Djernich> This is the correct use scenario of a many cores pc. There is no replacement for displacement and Ryzen and TR also Rev. Running FEA, encoding 4k, mail, txt, browse, 3d cad, slicing 3d models, gaming in 4k ultra and streaming music to two audio interfaces with convolution going and the system still has 80% headroom and responsivness is like nothing is running concurrently. Good times.

 

[newsonline5000000]

So, people are sounding off a lot about the cost of the motherboards, but you are saving hundreds of dollars on the CPUs vs Intel, so over all you are still coming out saving money. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is. Yes, the motherboards are expensive compared to x299, but who is only buying a motherboard for their build? Replacing a motherboard would be costly, but that doesn't happen very often. In the end you pay $350 for the motherboard, $900 for the CPU (comparing the 16 more models here) for a cost of $1250 where a competing Intel setup would be $200 for the board and $1700 for the CPU for a cost of $1900. You are still $650 better off. That is a significant amount of money. I'm not seeing the issue here.

A motherboard Price is a Motherboard price and not CPU price.

You cant take the Total and say the total is less to justify the lack of cheaper Threadripper Motherboard.

Asus , MSI , and others can do it . but it seems AMD is not allowing them to make cheaper motherboards for some reason.

and it is not about saving money VS intel offerings , it is about people with tight budget who want 16 cores CPU. and AMD is losing these customers and they are ALOT.

Half the options on AMD Threadripper expensive motherboard will not be used any ways . they should make minimum options motherboards for ~200 ..

That is , 4 slots only (4x16=64 lanes) , 4 Dimms in 4 channel mode not 8 dimms , cheaper onbopard sound instead of ALC1220 , one LAN , and one M2 only instead of 3 or 2 , and no leds .. etc.

 

[Finstar]

So, people are sounding off a lot about the cost of the motherboards, but you are saving hundreds of dollars on the CPUs vs Intel, so over all you are still coming out saving money. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is. Yes, the motherboards are expensive compared to x299, but who is only buying a motherboard for their build? Replacing a motherboard would be costly, but that doesn't happen very often. In the end you pay $350 for the motherboard, $900 for the CPU (comparing the 16 more models here) for a cost of $1250 where a competing Intel setup would be $200 for the board and $1700 for the CPU for a cost of $1900. You are still $650 better off. That is a significant amount of money. I'm not seeing the issue here.

A motherboard Price is a Motherboard price and not CPU price.

You cant take the Total and say the total is less to justify the lack of cheaper Threadripper Motherboard.

Asus , MSI , and others can do it . but it seems AMD is not allowing them to make cheaper motherboards for some reason.

and it is not about saving money VS intel offerings , it is about people with tight budget who want 16 cores CPU. and AMD is losing these customers and they are ALOT.

Half the options on AMD Threadripper expensive motherboard will not be used any ways . they should make minimum options motherboards for ~200 ..

That is , 4 slots only (4x16=64 lanes) , 4 Dimms in 4 channel mode not 8 dimms , cheaper onbopard sound instead of ALC1220 , one LAN , and one M2 only instead of 3 or 2 , and no leds .. etc.

There could be cheaper X399 boards but i think the price is still justified since you get the full thing with nothing disabled even with the cheapest TR processor there is.
Where as Intel locks away features on cheaper cpus despite you having to pay for them on the motherboard.

 

[newsonline5000000]

So, people are sounding off a lot about the cost of the motherboards, but you are saving hundreds of dollars on the CPUs vs Intel, so over all you are still coming out saving money. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is. Yes, the motherboards are expensive compared to x299, but who is only buying a motherboard for their build? Replacing a motherboard would be costly, but that doesn't happen very often. In the end you pay $350 for the motherboard, $900 for the CPU (comparing the 16 more models here) for a cost of $1250 where a competing Intel setup would be $200 for the board and $1700 for the CPU for a cost of $1900. You are still $650 better off. That is a significant amount of money. I'm not seeing the issue here.

A motherboard Price is a Motherboard price and not CPU price.

You cant take the Total and say the total is less to justify the lack of cheaper Threadripper Motherboard.

Asus , MSI , and others can do it . but it seems AMD is not allowing them to make cheaper motherboards for some reason.

and it is not about saving money VS intel offerings , it is about people with tight budget who want 16 cores CPU. and AMD is losing these customers and they are ALOT.

Half the options on AMD Threadripper expensive motherboard will not be used any ways . they should make minimum options motherboards for ~200 ..

That is , 4 slots only (4x16=64 lanes) , 4 Dimms in 4 channel mode not 8 dimms , cheaper onbopard sound instead of ALC1220 , one LAN , and one M2 only instead of 3 or 2 , and no leds .. etc.

There could be cheaper X399 boards but i think the price is still justified since you get the full thing with nothing disabled even with the cheapest TR processor there is.
Where as Intel locks away features on cheaper cpus despite you having to pay for them on the motherboard.

The Extra Price on the Expensive X399 are from optional extra things .

For example , If I dont want extra M2 slots , I dont want 6 or 7 slots , I dont want 8 memory Dimms , 4 are enough who wants 512 GB RAM anyways in a cheaper system ?? , I dont need ALC 1220 sound chip on motherboard , a normal sound chip is enopugh , I dont want Leds , I dont want two lans , only one, I dont want for example to overclock , no need for expensive overclocking components , I dont want front usb 3.1 C Gen 2 ...

such motherboards can reach lower than $200 without sacrificing anything that important...

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

So, people are sounding off a lot about the cost of the motherboards, but you are saving hundreds of dollars on the CPUs vs Intel, so over all you are still coming out saving money. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is. Yes, the motherboards are expensive compared to x299, but who is only buying a motherboard for their build? Replacing a motherboard would be costly, but that doesn't happen very often. In the end you pay $350 for the motherboard, $900 for the CPU (comparing the 16 more models here) for a cost of $1250 where a competing Intel setup would be $200 for the board and $1700 for the CPU for a cost of $1900. You are still $650 better off. That is a significant amount of money. I'm not seeing the issue here.

A motherboard Price is a Motherboard price and not CPU price.

You cant take the Total and say the total is less to justify the lack of cheaper Threadripper Motherboard.

Asus , MSI , and others can do it . but it seems AMD is not allowing them to make cheaper motherboards for some reason.

and it is not about saving money VS intel offerings , it is about people with tight budget who want 16 cores CPU. and AMD is losing these customers and they are ALOT.

Half the options on AMD Threadripper expensive motherboard will not be used any ways . they should make minimum options motherboards for ~200 ..

That is , 4 slots only (4x16=64 lanes) , 4 Dimms in 4 channel mode not 8 dimms , cheaper onbopard sound instead of ALC1220 , one LAN , and one M2 only instead of 3 or 2 , and no leds .. etc.

There could be cheaper X399 boards but i think the price is still justified since you get the full thing with nothing disabled even with the cheapest TR processor there is.
Where as Intel locks away features on cheaper cpus despite you having to pay for them on the motherboard.

The Extra Price on the Expensive X399 are from optional extra things .

For example , If I dont want extra M2 slots , I dont want 6 or 7 slots , I dont want 8 memory Dimms , 4 are enough who wants 512 GB RAM anyways in a cheaper system ?? , I dont need ALC 1220 sound chip on motherboard , a normal sound chip is enopugh , I dont want Leds , I dont want two lans , only one, I dont want for example to overclock , no need for expensive overclocking components , I dont want front usb 3.1 C Gen 2 ...

such motherboards can reach lower than $200 without sacrificing anything that important...

You don't build a Threadripper machine on a tight budget. You build it for a purpose. You are thinking like a gamer. Threadripper is not for gaming. If you are getting a Threadripper machine, you are getting it to do real work and having the option of M.2 and USB C is potential savings. Those are two fast technologies that will make professional work easier.

Effectively what you are saying is that you want a cut down budget B450 type motherboard that you can put a Threadripper on. That hobbles the platform. If you want that and more CPU power than you need, buy a B450 and put a Ryzen 7 2700x on it. Threadripper isn't for you. Threadripper is for professionals and people with more money than sense.

 

[newsonline5000000]

So, people are sounding off a lot about the cost of the motherboards, but you are saving hundreds of dollars on the CPUs vs Intel, so over all you are still coming out saving money. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is. Yes, the motherboards are expensive compared to x299, but who is only buying a motherboard for their build? Replacing a motherboard would be costly, but that doesn't happen very often. In the end you pay $350 for the motherboard, $900 for the CPU (comparing the 16 more models here) for a cost of $1250 where a competing Intel setup would be $200 for the board and $1700 for the CPU for a cost of $1900. You are still $650 better off. That is a significant amount of money. I'm not seeing the issue here.

A motherboard Price is a Motherboard price and not CPU price.

You cant take the Total and say the total is less to justify the lack of cheaper Threadripper Motherboard.

Asus , MSI , and others can do it . but it seems AMD is not allowing them to make cheaper motherboards for some reason.

and it is not about saving money VS intel offerings , it is about people with tight budget who want 16 cores CPU. and AMD is losing these customers and they are ALOT.

Half the options on AMD Threadripper expensive motherboard will not be used any ways . they should make minimum options motherboards for ~200 ..

That is , 4 slots only (4x16=64 lanes) , 4 Dimms in 4 channel mode not 8 dimms , cheaper onbopard sound instead of ALC1220 , one LAN , and one M2 only instead of 3 or 2 , and no leds .. etc.

There could be cheaper X399 boards but i think the price is still justified since you get the full thing with nothing disabled even with the cheapest TR processor there is.
Where as Intel locks away features on cheaper cpus despite you having to pay for them on the motherboard.

The Extra Price on the Expensive X399 are from optional extra things .

For example , If I dont want extra M2 slots , I dont want 6 or 7 slots , I dont want 8 memory Dimms , 4 are enough who wants 512 GB RAM anyways in a cheaper system ?? , I dont need ALC 1220 sound chip on motherboard , a normal sound chip is enopugh , I dont want Leds , I dont want two lans , only one, I dont want for example to overclock , no need for expensive overclocking components , I dont want front usb 3.1 C Gen 2 ...

such motherboards can reach lower than $200 without sacrificing anything that important...

You don't build a Threadripper machine on a tight budget. You build it for a purpose. You are thinking like a gamer. Threadripper is not for gaming. If you are getting a Threadripper machine, you are getting it to do real work and having the option of M.2 and USB C is potential savings. Those are two fast technologies that will make professional work easier.

Effectively what you are saying is that you want a cut down budget B450 type motherboard that you can put a Threadripper on. That hobbles the platform. If you want that and more CPU power than you need, buy a B450 and put a Ryzen 7 2700x on it. Threadripper isn't for you. Threadripper is for professionals and people with more money than sense.

Read carefully then reply .

you are the one thinking like a gamer not me .

in Rendering you care most about the number of cores and RAM , and fast storage , the rest is not important that much.

1- I did not say M2 optional , I said not more than one . one is enough , If I need another I can add them in cards later . no need to pay more if I will use only one M2.

2- USB C gen 2 ? 90% of people where I work dont use external Gen 2 Devices at all and are happy with USB3. Gen 2 C external drives are very expensive and not needed at all for MAJORITY of people.

3- Also paying for expensive sound chip is not important for professional work , ALC 1220 is for gamers and for music , and no one ads these chips on workstations .

4- no need for 6 or 7 slots , to reduce price , 4 slots are enough for 64 lanes .

5- no need for 8 Dimms , 4 Dimms work 4 channels and it is enough for 90% of people who don need more than 256GB of RAM . why pay more for something you will never use ?

6- Overclocking Circuit components raise the price alot for the motherboard , Turbo is enough no need to pay for overclocking motherboard. only gamers care about overclocking.

and finally , X299 motherboards can be found for $189 ..

you are the one who think like a gamer without even noticing.