After much speculation and an official unveiling last week, it's finally time to check if Threadripper can compete with the high-end desktop segment while delivering the value and efficiency we expect from other Ryzen processors.
Before we jump to the benchmarks, we set up the comparison as follows. For this test, we will test the new Threadripper 1950X and 1920X together with the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1800X as well as the competing Intel Core i7-7800X, 7820X and Core i9-7900X.
Compared to the Ryzen 7 1800X, which was previously the leading AMD package, the Threadripper 1920X offers a price premium of 75% and 50% more cores. You also get support for quad-channel storage and significantly more PCI Express lanes.
While we're excited to see how Threadripper fights AMD's cheaper range of products, I'm more interested in how they compare to Intel's Skylake-X parts. Therefore, you can expect these results to be in the foreground.
The Skylake-X CPUs were installed on an Asrock Fatal1ty X299 Professional Gaming i9 motherboard, while the Threadripper CPUs were tested on the Asrock X399 Taichi motherboard. Both platforms were equipped with the 64 GB Quad Channel TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 from G.Skill. A big thank you to G.Skill for providing all of these memories.
The X299 platform was installed on the practice wetbench and cooled using Thermaltake's custom liquid-cooled Pacific RL360 kit Pacific RL360. Meanwhile, Threadripper was tested on a foam board on my desk and cooled with the Thermaltake Floe Riing RGB 360 AIO liquid cooler.
Ryzen Threadripper system specifications
Skylake-X system specifications
Ryzen 7 system specifications
First, the memory bandwidth performance. As you probably know, Ryzen 7 CPUs have a two-channel memory controller, while Threadripper, like Skylake-X, offers four-channel memory access. As a result, memory bandwidth has been increased by 50% over Ryzen 7, and Threadripper is now comparable to the Core i9-7900X.
As promised by AMD, the 1950X is good for an incredible multithreaded score of 3028 points in Cinebench. That's a 39% increase over the i9-7900X, both of which cost $ 1,000.
The Core i9 CPU is 10% faster for single-thread tasks, but that's exactly what these CPUs are not about. The 1920X was also 13% faster than the 7900X and 40% faster than the i7-7820X, which is a significant gain in price and performance for AMD.
Before we move on to the more serious benchmarks, I wanted to see how Threadripper gets up in PCMark 10, which deals with office-type workloads and is usually not core-heavy. To my surprise, Threadripper did very well in this test and performed significantly better than the Core i9-7900X.