AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X - AMD's core competency put to the test | Page 16

Yes, so for a good read- time: The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X has a whopping 16 cores, or 32 threads, 2 TB of addressable memory (which you couldn't even theoretically use in the absence of suitable 256 GB modules), ... Since it is difficult to get a pronounced server CPU for gaming optimally fit, AMD has provided in the Ryzen Master Tool a so-called game mode, which should help the Ryzen Threadripper to offer more performance in the current games. En... The AI test of Civilization VI is not a prime example of the Ryzen threadripper. Only the combination of overclocking and game mode (but only then) surpasses at least the Core i7-7820X. In the VRMark you can find the hierachia between the ... Frames per second Clock goes before core count, whereby the subtleties in detail again matter. Average and minimum FPS values are not everything. Nevertheless, all Ryzen Threadripper perform quite acceptable. The FPS history as a cure... Frames per second Clock again precedes core count, a typical symptom especially for older DX11 titles or Games whose engines don't really scale well with the number of possible threads. The FPS history as curves over the entire ru... Frames per second Why aren't we surprised? Clock is again (almost) everything, so that even the performance of the overclocked CPUs does not really surprise us. However, we refer to our detailed lists below, because also ... Frames per second Hitman (2106) is an Intel domain, which hasn't changed with Ryzen Threadripper. The differences in this benchmark are really serious. Despite or just because of DirectX12? The fact is, however, that from approx. 140 FPS about... Frames per second The stronger CPUs are not so far apart in the end, which may also be due to the fact that the graphics card already starts to limit easily. However, despite the higher clock speed, the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X can not... Frames per second All CPUs are at a similarly high level, but there are differences. The FPS history as curves over the entire run looks like this when comparing all CPUs: Total Listing: Frame Times, Variance... Frames per second All CPUs are almost the same, which of course is also due to the graphics card. However, it also shows very nicely that you don't always have to have the thickest CPU to swim with older titles at the top. ... Frames per second Clock goes over core count and Intel dominates AMD. The differences are sometimes really serious. The FPS history as curves over the entire run looks like this when comparing all CPUs: Total listing: Frame Times, Va... Frames per second Clock goes over core count and Intel dominates AMD again - it's a similar image to Project Cars. The differences are mainly found in the Frame Times and their variances, but also the more detailed consideration of the... Frames per second We'll again forgo the game's slightly crashed DX12 mode and prefer to measure with the IX11 implementation. No matter which rendering path, AMD must beat the Intel CPUs in all variants. That doesn't mean it... Frames per second At first glance, the differences are rather marginal, because even with Ultra-HD, graphics-side limitations already occur. Nevertheless, it has above all the frame time and its variances in itself. Clock goes before Kerna... Important preliminary remark on CPU selection and overclocking Contrary to our usual handling, not benchmarking the productive areas with overclocked CPUs, as it is also rather unlikely in reality, this time we have both Ryze... 2D Performance In order to better understand some of the later results, we are putting forward a good old acquaintance. With our GDI/GDI+ benchmark, we are first testing two different output methods for 2D objects, how to... CPU Performance: Workstation Of course, in the production area, not only the 3D graphics performance is important in the production area for the just-set applications, because many things are calculated by the CPU in parallel within these applications (Simu... For these test series, we use benchmarks from the rather versatile SPECwpc suite for workstations, which rely on very different mathematical calculations, which on the one hand can be perfectly parallelized and where it is at the same time a... The right cooling is important! One thing in advance: AMD dispenses with thermal paste between Die and IHS at the Ryzen Threadripper, but relies on the good old lot. This will open up completely new perspectives for us later on in the case of overclocking. En... Introduction We determine the performance values of the package in a special sensor loop, i.e. exactly the value for what is absorbed by the CPU in terms of power and then almost completely returned to the cooling system as heat. Surely it would be unfair and hateful if AMD were simply to be assumed, as with the Vega Frontier Edition, that everything that does not make it to the top positions in gaming is simply as productive hardware for the so-called prosumer (o...

2D Performance

In order to better understand some of the later results, we are putting forward a good old acquaintance. With our GDI/GDI+ benchmark, we are first testing two different output methods for 2D objects, as found in older applications and print outputs, and how it is still used today in the same or modified form for the display of the GUI. However, it is very easy to use the throughput when writing directly to the device or the storage performance during handling in a huge DIB.

Synthetic benchmarks (Tom 2D)

First, let's consider writing directly to a device. Here, the graphics driver uses the CPU very extensively, but mostly only with a few threads. After all, since the introduction of the Unified Shader architecture, there is no real 2D hardware acceleration and the Windows driver model is also a real brake in this regard.

Now we bring the memory into play and use the only remaining 2D function in hardware: the direct plotting of the functions in the stores, the subsequent copying of the graphics created in memory to the output device. We complete exactly the same sequences, but draw first into a virtual bitmap and not on the monitor. First we blew the complete graphics to the output device. Even if the current CPU usage is slightly higher, because the bottle neck of the rest of the system is omitted, the result is somewhat astounding. The Ryzen Threadripper dominate everything, even the otherwise almost unbeatable Core i7-7700K.

AutoCAD 2016 (2D)

We are now comparing our own benchmark with AutoCAD, although directX is used here. But this program does nothing else when drawing than to recreate every single drawing function in software first. However, since the IPC is more important because AutoCAD scales poorly over the core count, the result was predictable.

3D performance

Many of the professional applications in the development area have been optimized and compiled specifically for Intel CPUs, which you will of course also notice in the overall performance. In spite of everything, we cannot and do not want to exclude them in terms of the overall picture, but at the same time it should be an incentive for the developers to focus more on AMD and Ryzen, as well as to openly openly open lyses themselves and the users to both options. Keep. this also applies to better multi-core optimization, as far as this is reasonable and possible.

AutoCAD 2016 (3D)

Clock goes before core count, with Ryzen 7 and Ryzen Threadripper quite close together. Since AutoCAD relies on DirectX, but is hardly multi-core optimized, it is also very close to the game results of many older titles.

Cinebench R15 OpenGL

With The OpenCL benchmark from Cinebench, we also see what to expect if software has not been optimized for Ryzen. Clock is close to core, with Cinebench remaining an Intel domain in the OpenGL benchmark.

Solidworks 2015

The same applies to Solidworks 2015, where even a Ryzen Threadripper 1920X overclocked at 4.1 GHz is shortened against a Ryzen 7 1800X. If you change the memory access options in the BIOS, there would be at least a tie. But then most computing tasks would be at a disadvantage. Either-or, it is and remains a difficult decision where to set your priorities.

Creo 3.0

Creo provides a similar picture, whereby here, at least with the Ryzen Threadripper, the core number dominates a little over the clock. Nevertheless, they remain at the end of the 3D food chain. With optimized BIOS options, it would be enough, at least for midfield, but then the CPU composite would look a little worse again (see next page).

Blender (real-time 3D preview)

If you leave out the Core i7-7700K, the result in Blender is acceptable. Together with the superior rendering performance (see next page), the result is a very positive assessment.

Catia V6 R2012

For the graphics output literally dead-optimized, the benchmark from the free SPECviewperf-12 suite draws a pretty good picture, at least for the CPU performance. What has been written several times applies: Clock is everything.

2013 Maya

Finally, the same applies to Maya, where the entire output in real-time 3D is only part of the truth. When the final render is rendered, Threadripper is the winner of the hour.

Intermediate conclusion

Both Ryzen Threadrippers are not unsuitable for the pure design and construction tasks, but they also can not be quite convincing. Depending on the proportion of additional, more parallelizable tasks, one can certainly also think about a deployment, but in general other CPUs will certainly be preferred here.