Amd Ryzen Threadripper & X399 MegaThread! FAQ & Resources

[TechyInAZ]

Welcome to the Official AMD Ryzen Threadripper & X399 MegaThread!

This thread will serve as the primary discussion thread for all things regarding Ryzen Threadripper and the X399 platform.

Ryzen Threadripper:

For the first time in history AMD is launching it’s own HEDT platform based on their all new X399 platform. Powering this new platform will be AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper CPUs. AMD promises to bring more connectivity and CPU cores to HEDT than ever before. Threadripper’s flagship, the 1950X sports an astounding 16 cores, 32 threads and 60 PCIE lanes (technically 64 but 4 of those lanes are dedicated to the X399 chipset).

So far, AMD has announced three models of Ryzen Threadripper:

Threadripper 1950X:
16 Cores/32 Threads
3.4GHz (4GHz Turbo w/ 4.2GHz XFR)
32MB L3 Cache
Quad Channel Memory Support up to 2667MHz
Max Temp 68C
Price Tag: $999

Threadripper 1920X:
12 Cores/24 Threads
3.5GHz (4GHz Turbo w/ 4.2GHz XFR)
32MB L3 Cache
Quad Channel Memory Support up to 2667MHz
Max Temp 68C
Price Tag: $799

Threadripper 1900X:
8 Cores/16 Threads
3.8GHz (4.0GHz Turbo w/ 4.2GHz XFR)
20MB L3 Cache
Quad Channel Memory Support up to DDR4-2667
Price Tag: $549

Architecture:

Threadripper is still based off of the Ryzen architecture and still uses the same CCX's as all Ryzen 3, 5, and 7 CPUs. However, what's (significantly) different about Threadripper is it's multi die design (no pun intended), it's been nearly a decade since we last saw mutli die CPUs on the market and those being the Core 2 Quad CPUs from Intel).. In basic terms, Threadripper uses two Ryzen 7 CPU dies to make up it's total of 16 cores and 32 threads, clearly showing the full power and potential of AMD's infinity fabric technology.

However, it's not without it's flaws. Because of AMD's dual dies and massive core count on the 1950X and 1920X, certain games will actually crash due to too many cores being active. Also, because Threadripper is a multi-die architecture, when one or more cores have to communicate with a core or L3 cache on another die (NOT CCX), the latency penalty is very high compared to the likes of Ryzen 7 which only has to deal with core latency between CCX's.
To combat this, AMD has created hardware level CPU modes for Threadripper, something we've never seen before. AMD calls these two modes Creators Mode and Gaming Mode. Creator's mode is the default mode that Threadripper runs as this enables all CPU cores on the chip, meanwhile Gaming Mode completely disables one of the two dies on the CPU, effectively turning the 1950X into a higher clocked R7 1800X. This does improve gaming performance immensely, however because only half of the resources are enabled, it kills any type of content creation performance (like video rendering). You have to restart each time you change modes aswell.


Threadripper Performance:

In Gaming applications, Threadripper does indeed stink at FPS when in it's default mode. However when you switch to Gaming Mode, the performance is quite massive, yielding anywhere from 5 to almost 50% improvements in FPS.

Content creation as of right now is more hit and miss. In programs exclusively designed for rendering like Blender, the 1950X beats the whole competition, however in other applications like Adobe CC which are still single core heavy, the 7700K still beats out the 1950X.

The good news is that Threadripper is VERY new, so optimizations are always needed for a new architecture. I'd expect the 1950X to beat intel's current offerings in almost everything (except gaming) by the end of next year (optimizations will come before that but I mean optimizing as a whole).


Memory Support:

All Threadripper CPUs will run a quad channel memory configuration with a max of 1TB of supported RAM (you can thank EPYC for that). Official memory frequency maxes out at 2667Mhz, though this is just offical, if Ryzen 7 is any indicator Threadripper should be able to hit 3200MHz and above quite easily.

X399 Chipset:

Threadripper will be seating itself into the all new TR4 socket and connected via the X399 chipset. According to AMD specs, X399 is an absolute behemoth of a chipset with a monstrous amount of connectivity that doesn’t even come close to what Intel has done for us since the good ole days of Intel licensing Nvidia to make chipsets for their high end platforms.

X399 Specs:

Quad Channel DDR4 Memory
66 PCI Express Gen 3.0 Lanes (Including the 64 on Threadripper)
8 PCI Express Gen 2.0 Lanes
Nvidia SLI and AMD CrossFire Support
2 Native USB 3.1 Gen 2 Ports
14 Native USB 3.1 Gen 1 Ports
6 Native USB 2.0 Ports
12 SATA 3.0 Ports (With RAID 0, 1 and 10 support)

TR4 Socket:
You thought LGA 2011 was big, think again, the TR4 socket will put all CPU sockets to shame, easily being the largest socket to ever be produced for the consumer market. The TR4 socket by itself is about the size of two LGA 2011 sockets side by side and has over 4000 pins -- almost 2x the amount LGA 2011 has -- for threadripper to seat into.

While this might be cool as a wow factor, it’s most certainly not for CPU cooler manufacturers, the TR4 socket is very challenging to cool with conventional CPU coolers as it is physically impossible to cool the entire IHS with the coolers that we have today. Fortunately companies like Noctua and Fractile Define are already on this and have made new coolers specifically for threadripper.

X399 Motherboards:

Asus:
ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME X399
PRIME X399-A

Gigabyte:
X399 AORUS Gaming 7

ASRock:
X399 Taichi
Fatal1ty X399 Professional Gaming

MSI:
X399 GAMING PRO CARBON AC

****
So that is Threadripper in a nutshell, if you have any questions or want to chat about Threadripper, feel free to post a comment below.

 

[LTVETTE2]

Sure hope it takes off, just invested a bunch into AMD. Although should have done it in February at $2.00 a share. On another note, will this be the answer for a high end CAD workstation?

 

[juanrga]

The specs of the 1900X are known. The OP can be edited

Also this part "Ryzen Threadripper 1950X [...] handilly beating out the 7900X in most of the benchmarks we can see from both rumors and official reviewers" would remark this is only happening on workloads that scale up to 32-threads. The 1950X is slower on games and latency sensitive benches.

To me the more interesting review will be that comparing the 1900X and the 1800X. I expect the 1900X to be slower in a number of benches, due to the dual-die approach.

 

[TechyInAZ]

The specs of the 1900X are known. The OP can be edited

Also this part "Ryzen Threadripper 1950X [...] handilly beating out the 7900X in most of the benchmarks we can see from both rumors and official reviewers" would remark this is only happening on workloads that scale up to 32-threads. The 1950X is slower on games and latency sensitive benches.

To me the more interesting review will be that comparing the 1900X and the 1800X. I expect the 1900X to be slower in a number of benches, due to the dual-die approach.

Can you give me the exact link to that picture?? Thanks!! I will add this as soon as i can.

 

[jdwii]

I actually expect it to be faster dual to quad channel memory but who knows. Ryzen 16 core vs Intel 16 is going to be interesting since intel's 16 core has 21% less base frequency then 1950X.

 

[letsrun4it]

I am investing in a Threadripper. I'm going with the MSI board because I don't see large performance related differences in the mobos so I went with the cheapest Amazon option. Looking forward to being one of the early adapter and working through the kinks with everyone else over the forums and YT.

 

[jdwii]

I am investing in a Threadripper. I'm going with the MSI board because I don't see large performance related differences in the mobos so I went with the cheapest Amazon option. Looking forward to being one of the early adapter and working through the kinks with everyone else over the forums and YT.

Actually I bet MSI is using NIKO VRM which isn't that great your money would be better spent on something else. These CPU's are at 180TDP already and that is at stock. Not at 4.1 like this user

http://www.pcgamer.com/liquid-cooled-threadripper-1950x-cpu-gets-overclocked-to-41ghz/

 

[letsrun4it]

Amazon is quickly selling out of all the motherboards AND both threadripper cpus.

 

[letsrun4it]

I am investing in a Threadripper. I'm going with the MSI board because I don't see large performance related differences in the mobos so I went with the cheapest Amazon option. Looking forward to being one of the early adapter and working through the kinks with everyone else over the forums and YT.

Actually I bet MSI is using NIKO VRM which isn't that great your money would be better spent on something else. These CPU's are at 180TDP already and that is at stock. Not at 4.1 like this user

http://www.pcgamer.com/liquid-cooled-threadripper-1950x-cpu-gets-overclocked-to-41ghz/

we'll see. if i hate it, i'll buy a new one but i'll get this one and see how it goes, see what board turns out to the be the best, see what cooler options end up working the best.

 

[gamerk316]

I actually expect it to be faster dual to quad channel memory but who knows. Ryzen 16 core vs Intel 16 is going to be interesting since intel's 16 core has 21% less base frequency then 1950X.

But at the same time, Intel's higher IPC makes up the difference. Per-core performance likely still has a slight (~10-20%) Intel edge even factoring in the slower clock. So at the same number of cores, assuming full CPU utilization, Intel should be ahead by roughly that percent.

 

[Solarion]

But at the same time, Intel's higher IPC makes up the difference. Per-core performance likely still has a slight (~10-20%) Intel edge even factoring in the slower clock. So at the same number of cores, assuming full CPU utilization, Intel should be ahead by roughly that percent.

...which of course it would have to do to make up for the 70% higher pricetag. We'll know for sure in a couple months when both systems are out in the wild, but from a bang/buck perspective this battle is over.

What will be of particular interest to me is how well each HEDT platform performs under extended full load per dollar spent on cooling. Just looking at the specs the 165w TDP of the Sky-X chips looks great against the 180w TDP of TR...though I think we all know the 165w TDP rating of the Sky-X product is...well let's just say it doesn't jive with reality.

 

[juanrga]

The specs of the 1900X are known. The OP can be edited

Also this part "Ryzen Threadripper 1950X [...] handilly beating out the 7900X in most of the benchmarks we can see from both rumors and official reviewers" would remark this is only happening on workloads that scale up to 32-threads. The 1950X is slower on games and latency sensitive benches.

To me the more interesting review will be that comparing the 1900X and the 1800X. I expect the 1900X to be slower in a number of benches, due to the dual-die approach.

Can you give me the exact link to that picture?? Thanks!! I will add this as soon as i can.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/07/30/amd_ryzen_threadripper_specs_pricing_revealed/

 

[juanrga]

Ryzen 16 core vs Intel 16 is going to be interesting since intel's 16 core has 21% less base frequency then 1950X.

But higher single-core and all-core turbo.

 

[juanrga]

We'll know for sure in a couple months when both systems are out in the wild, but from a bang/buck perspective this battle is over.

Since performance is not a linear function of cost, the company that targets lower performance is always to win the "bang/buck" metric. But there is people that doesn't purchase based on that metric, but simply want the best.

What will be of particular interest to me is how well each HEDT platform performs under extended full load per dollar spent on cooling. Just looking at the specs the 165w TDP of the Sky-X chips looks great against the 180w TDP of TR...though I think we all know the 165w TDP rating of the Sky-X product is...well let's just say it doesn't jive with reality.

It is possible that the 16-core SKL breaks the official 165W TDP, albeit I would be surprised if this happens, seeing as up to now all the SKL models released satisfy the official 140W TDP. I would expect reviews to measure something around 175--180W at the socket level (including loses from non-perfect efficiency).

On the other hand the official TDP of RyZen products clearly disagrees with real TDP (e.g. 95W --> 128W) as RyZen reviews have demonstrated, and I have been advising for a while that the official 180W of TR doesn't correspond to reality either.

 

[Solarion]

Since performance is not a linear function of cost, the company that targets lower performance is always to win the "bang/buck" metric. But there is people that doesn't purchase based on that metric, but simply want the best.

Except today the company with the fastest desktop processor is also the company that offers more bang for the buck as you move up the performance scale. Allow me to demonstrate...

Company A:
1900x = 8/16 = $549 = $68.63/core
1920x = 12/24 = $799 = $66.58/core
1950x = 16/32 = $999 = $62.44/core

Company I:
7820x = 8/16 = $599 = $74.75/core
7900x = 10/20 = $999 = $99.99/core
7920x = 12/24 = $1199= $99.92/core
7940x = 14/28 = $1399= $99.93/core
7960x = 16/32 = $1699= $106.2/core
7980xe= 18/36= $1999= $111.1/core

Company A encourages buyers to purchase more of their cores by offering more bang/buck as you go up the stack, while their competitor does something best described as...gouging. Works great without completion, but will likely push customers away when there's a viable alternative...which there is at this time. I do not think this is a well thought out strategy on the part of company I.

It is possible that the 16-core SKL breaks the official 165W TDP, albeit I would be surprised if this happens, seeing as up to now all the SKL models released satisfy the official 140W TDP. I would expect reviews to measure something around 175--180W at the socket level (including loses from non-perfect efficiency).

On the other hand the official TDP of RyZen products clearly disagrees with real TDP (e.g. 95W --> 128W) as RyZen reviews have demonstrated, and I have been advising for a while that the official 180W of TR doesn't correspond to reality either.

Breaks the official 165w TDP? ...possibly? Sky-x doesn't just "possibly" break the official TDP, it stomps it into dust and does so early and often when pushed. There's a review on this very site of an x299 board reporting a CPU TDP of 231w under load and I think we've all seen TDP comparisons between the two architectures. Those comparison's are also not in company I's favor. All of this would be more palatable for company I's potential customer's if the performance delta was there, but it simply is not. With few exceptions it's pay more and get less with company I this product cycle for power users, content creators, heavy multitaskers, etc.

 

[gamerk316]

But at the same time, Intel's higher IPC makes up the difference. Per-core performance likely still has a slight (~10-20%) Intel edge even factoring in the slower clock. So at the same number of cores, assuming full CPU utilization, Intel should be ahead by roughly that percent.

...which of course it would have to do to make up for the 70% higher pricetag. We'll know for sure in a couple months when both systems are out in the wild, but from a bang/buck perspective this battle is over.

Unless your software license is several grand per physical core, in which case Intel wins price/performance by default.

I note per-core licensing in this day and age is stupid, but it does exist and does factor into platform choice.

 

[uguv]

But at the same time, Intel's higher IPC makes up the difference. Per-core performance likely still has a slight (~10-20%) Intel edge even factoring in the slower clock. So at the same number of cores, assuming full CPU utilization, Intel should be ahead by roughly that percent.

...which of course it would have to do to make up for the 70% higher pricetag. We'll know for sure in a couple months when both systems are out in the wild, but from a bang/buck perspective this battle is over.

Unless your software license is several grand per physical core, in which case Intel wins price/performance by default.

I note per-core licensing in this day and age is stupid, but it does exist and does factor into platform choice.

Not that it really applies to the HEDT market so much, but basically every Microsoft "2016" server product uses core-based licensing. I believe Oracle uses cores as a factor in licensing as well.

 

[Solarion]

But at the same time, Intel's higher IPC makes up the difference. Per-core performance likely still has a slight (~10-20%) Intel edge even factoring in the slower clock. So at the same number of cores, assuming full CPU utilization, Intel should be ahead by roughly that percent.

...which of course it would have to do to make up for the 70% higher pricetag. We'll know for sure in a couple months when both systems are out in the wild, but from a bang/buck perspective this battle is over.

Unless your software license is several grand per physical core, in which case Intel wins price/performance by default.

I note per-core licensing in this day and age is stupid, but it does exist and does factor into platform choice.

Plainly a topic more appropriately covered in a Xeon v Epyc thread...It's just not relevant here when comparing HEDT platforms.

 

[jdwii]

Well basically for 1000$ Intel is out matched in this market like people figured it would be. Didn't read any reviews but watched several videos so far. Very impressive if you are buying a CPU that isn't a 7700K for gaming or lower you are wasting your money to begin with.

For this market Ryzen has more PCI-E lanes even competes with Xeon has 6 full more cores that can be used for virtual machines or rendering machines oh yeah supports ECC memory which the 7900X doesn't.

If I was to buy either a 7900X or 1950X for dolphin emulator or BF1 i'd be in idiot.

Also temps seem to be great compared to the 7900X which is surprising sense the 7900X has a lower TDP.

Now I want to see how the boards do with VRM temps.

Keep in mind only the top 5% of ryzen dies are used for threadripper.

 

[juanrga]

Since performance is not a linear function of cost, the company that targets lower performance is always to win the "bang/buck" metric. But there is people that doesn't purchase based on that metric, but simply want the best.

Except today the company with the fastest desktop processor is also the company that offers more bang for the buck as you move up the performance scale. Allow me to demonstrate...

Company A:
1900x = 8/16 = $549 = $68.63/core
1920x = 12/24 = $799 = $66.58/core
1950x = 16/32 = $999 = $62.44/core

Company I:
7820x = 8/16 = $599 = $74.75/core
7900x = 10/20 = $999 = $99.99/core
7920x = 12/24 = $1199= $99.92/core
7940x = 14/28 = $1399= $99.93/core
7960x = 16/32 = $1699= $106.2/core
7980xe= 18/36= $1999= $111.1/core

Company A encourages buyers to purchase more of their cores by offering more bang/buck as you go up the stack, while their competitor does something best described as...gouging. Works great without completion, but will likely push customers away when there's a viable alternative...which there is at this time. I do not think this is a well thought out strategy on the part of company I.

It is possible that the 16-core SKL breaks the official 165W TDP, albeit I would be surprised if this happens, seeing as up to now all the SKL models released satisfy the official 140W TDP. I would expect reviews to measure something around 175--180W at the socket level (including loses from non-perfect efficiency).

On the other hand the official TDP of RyZen products clearly disagrees with real TDP (e.g. 95W --> 128W) as RyZen reviews have demonstrated, and I have been advising for a while that the official 180W of TR doesn't correspond to reality either.

Breaks the official 165w TDP? ...possibly? Sky-x doesn't just "possibly" break the official TDP, it stomps it into dust and does so early and often when pushed. There's a review on this very site of an x299 board reporting a CPU TDP of 231w under load and I think we've all seen TDP comparisons between the two architectures. Those comparison's are also not in company I's favor. All of this would be more palatable for company I's potential customer's if the performance delta was there, but it simply is not. With few exceptions it's pay more and get less with company I this product cycle for power users, content creators, heavy multitaskers, etc.

As mentioned above cost is not a linear function of performance, which makes the price per core irrelevant, because not all cores are the same.

Also the TR lines uses the same MCM approach and the same ZP dies. The difference is how many cores are disabled in each die. On the other hand the SKL line uses different dies. There three dies if my memory doesn't fail, and the cost of the larger dies used in models as the 7960X is much higher than the cost of a smaller die used in models like the 7820X. This gap in cost is again the result of another nonlinearity associated to yields. That is why comparing price per core means nothing.

This site measured 250W for the i9 7900X overclocked at 4.5GHz and without the AVX offset disabled. Correcting for stock settings one obtains something below the 140W. And several reviews confirmed that the chip is within official specifications.

 

[juanrga]

As expected the 10C SKL beats the 12C TR and is very close to the 16C TR on performance

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6sti2h/hardwarefrs_i97900x_results_10_cores_delivering/

 

[-Fran-]

As expected the 10C SKL beats the 12C TR and is very close to the 16C TR on performance

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6sti2h/hardwarefrs_i97900x_results_10_cores_delivering/

Good thing that a $1K CPU can beat a $700 CPU and *get close* to another $1K CPU!

And that is not even counting RAID restrictions, lack of ECC and less connectivity all around. But hey, it gets *close*!

Cheers!

 

[letsrun4it]

Has anyone's Amazon Threadripper order shipped? Mine is still pending. Makes me nervous because they are sold out now.

 

[ROBNTHROB]

Threadripper is kinda disappointing... Seems more hype than anything else.. The same folks that were upset about Intel selling CPUs at $1k are now trying to justify spending $1k for an AMD CPU...

 

[jdwii]

Threadripper is kinda disappointing... Seems more hype than anything else.. The same folks that were upset about Intel selling CPUs at $1k are now trying to justify sending $1k for an AMD CPU...

A lot of applications can't use 16 cores efficiently including Adobe.

I'm not even sure Handbrake uses 16 cores perfectly with great scaling I think it tops out around 12.