vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

by Tarinder Sandhu on 15 August 2018, 14:00

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadwhf

Add to My Vault: x

Conclusion

In apps that can take advantage of 32 threads, however, Threadripper continues to sock it to the price-equivalent Intel...

The launch of the 32-core, 64-thread Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has rightfully stolen the headlines this week. Incredible in workloads that can take advantage of such parallelism, it's not the only new Threadripper on the scene.

It's the 2950X that arguably is far more relevant to an enthusiast audience. This 16-core, 32-thread beastie mimics much of what was good about last-generation 1950X but improves upon it by using a refined 12nm process, Precision Boost 2 and higher frequencies. The end result is performance that's a little higher than 1950X in every application we cared to test.

More importantly for AMD, the 2950X continues to beat out the rival Intel Core i9-7900X in many-core benchmarks, and though it remains behind in 1080p gaming, the gap narrows somewhat, thanks to the combination of higher speeds on the core and faster memory support.

In apps that can take advantage of 32 threads, however, Threadripper continues to sock it to the price-equivalent Intel, and the gap is big enough that it becomes very relevant in the buying decision.

The bottom line is $899 Ryzen Threadripper 2950X cements AMD's position in the HEDT space by improving upon the last generation in every meaningful way. Recommended if you want uber-impressive CPU grunt that can also game well.

The Good
 
The Bad
Better than 1950X in every way
Competent for gaming
Drop-in upgrade over last-gen TR
Quad-channel memory
 
Single-thread not as good as Intel



AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

HEXUS.where2buy

TBC.

HEXUS.right2reply

At HEXUS, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any company representatives for the products reviewed choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.



HEXUS Forums :: 23 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Memory analysis appears to be somewhat strange. There's excellent bandwidth but relatively poor latency.

Reading around other reviews, it appears that the 2990WX always runs in a NUMA configuration, and Windows is sufficiently aware to keep data & threads local to a single die. The 2950X by default runs in a UMA configuration so the data could be in memory attached to one die while the threads access it are running on the other. I'd say an overall 10% improvement in latency compared to 1st Gen Threadripper is pretty good, though…
scaryjim
Reading around other reviews, it appears that the 2990WX always runs in a NUMA configuration, and Windows is sufficiently aware to keep data & threads local to a single die. The 2950X by default runs in a UMA configuration so the data could be in memory attached to one die while the threads access it are running on the other. I'd say an overall 10% improvement in latency compared to 1st Gen Threadripper is pretty good, though…

Its down to improvements in the caches.
Any thoughts on why Ryzen 2700x is sometimes noticably faster than 2950x? The clocks of 2950x (3.5 boost to 4.4ghz, compared to 3.7 boost to 4.3) seem comparable enough to expect similar performance.

Is this a case of software faltering on more cores, or something memory-related due to how the cores are packaged?

I was really hoping to find the 2950x was pretty much comparable to 2700x in all cases, and obviously better on heavy multi-threaded loads, but it doesn't seem to be quite so cut and dried…
Irien
Any thoughts on why Ryzen 2700x is sometimes noticably faster than 2950x? The clocks of 2950x (3.5 boost to 4.4ghz, compared to 3.7 boost to 4.3) seem comparable enough to expect similar performance.

Is this a case of software faltering on more cores, or something memory-related due to how the cores are packaged?

I was really hoping to find the 2950x was pretty much comparable to 2700x in all cases, and obviously better on heavy multi-threaded loads, but it doesn't seem to be quite so cut and dried…

It could be down to actual realworld clockspeeds and latency due to the use of dual chips??
This review is such AMD fanboy Bullcrap. Intel wipes the floor with this cpu, only a fool would opt for this over intel. If this was an intel review of the TOP END cpu it would get slated, yet because its AMD you state “Competent for Gaming” looool, you may as well just say that this is a paid for review and be done with it.