Enermax first out the gate with AIO for Threadripper.

[PSUGuru]

5 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Nice to see them come out with something so quickly, it'll be interesting to see how it performs.

I wonder how Threadripper will do in gaming...

Since it's based on the Zen architecture, it'll probably perform similar to Ryzen 7 in games.

[dizmo]

Just now, QuantumElement said:

Since it's based on the Zen architecture, it'll probably perform similar to Ryzen 7 in games.

More cores = less clock though. So, not quite.

[PSUGuru]

Just now, dizmo said:

More cores = less clock though. So, not quite.

3.0Ghz right out of the box and it could be OC'd to at least at 1700. All it is is two Ryzen 7 dies slapped together. (More or less)

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, dizmo said:

More cores = less clock though. So, not quite.

That's true with monolithic dies but for how the zen architecture is made it is quite likely that the thread ripper cpus will be able to achieve frequencies very comparable to the ryzen 7 lineup.

[dizmo]

7 minutes ago, QuantumElement said:

3.0Ghz right out of the box and it could be OC'd to at least at 1700. All it is is two Ryzen 7 dies slapped together. (More or less)

 

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That's true with monolithic dies but for how the zen architecture is made it is quite likely that the thread ripper cpus will be able to achieve frequencies very comparable to the ryzen 7 lineup.

 

Hmm, that wouldn't be too terrible if it proves true, though the 1700 doesn't perform as well as the 1600x in games.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, dizmo said:

 

 

Hmm, that wouldn't be too terrible if it proves true, though the 1700 doesn't perform as well as the 1600x in games.

when at stock clocks. when both are overclocked the 1700 is faster in games. not by a ton but that is because most games cant use more than 12 threads anyways.

[PSUGuru]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

 

 

Hmm, that wouldn't be too terrible if it proves true, though the 1700 doesn't perform as well as the 1600x in games.

Yeah. But with Intel coming out with more cores for their mainstream processors, developers for games will probably make their games run better with multiple cores. However, single core speed may still have a determining factor in most games.

 

We'll see how well TR overclocks and how lucky people get with the silicon lottery.

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

 

 

Hmm, that wouldn't be too terrible if it proves true, though the 1700 doesn't perform as well as the 1600x in games.

The best Ryzen CPU for games will be the 1900x due to it having a Base of 3.8 and Turbo to 4.0 and a XFR of 200Mhz. it also has the advantage of having quad channel ram.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

The best Ryzen CPU for games will be the 1900x due to it having a Base of 3.8 and Turbo to 4.0 and a XFR of 200Mhz. it also has the advantage of having quad channel ram.

yeah but I'm not sure many will be getting threadripper for gaming. or at least for gaming elusively.

[PSUGuru]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The best Ryzen CPU for games will be the 1900x due to it having a Base of 3.8 and Turbo to 4.0 and a XFR of 200Mhz. it also has the advantage of having quad channel ram.

But who buys threadripper for just games?

 

I know that's know why I am buying it.

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

yeah but I'm not sure many will be getting threadripper for gaming. or at least for gaming elusively.

Ya, I wouldn't call it a smart investment unless they want 3-4 way SLI/Crossfire. but my point was the fact the 1900x has higher clocks and seems to be binned really well it should edge out all the other Ryzen CPU's

 

1 minute ago, QuantumElement said:

But who buys threadripper for just games?

 

I know that's know why I am buying it.

Not saying people should get it, just that I expect it to beat R5 and R7 CPU's

[Brooksie359]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

Ya, I wouldn't call it a smart investment unless they want 3-4 way SLI/Crossfire. but my point was the fact the 1900x has higher clocks and seems to be binned really well it should edge out all the other Ryzen CPU's

 

Not saying people should get it, just that I expect it to beat R5 and R7 CPU's

unless you have a r7 cpu that can oc to 4.2. its rare but I believe some have gotten it.

[PSUGuru]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya, I wouldn't call it a smart investment unless they want 3-4 way SLI/Crossfire. but my point was the fact the 1900x has higher clocks and seems to be binned really well it should edge out all the other Ryzen CPU's

 

Not saying people should get it, just that I expect it to beat R5 and R7 CPU's

3-4 way SLI doesn't exist for modern GPUs. Crossfire however (looks at VEGA)

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

unless you have a r7 cpu that can oc to 4.2. its rare but I believe some have gotten it.

true, but the TR4 CPU's have a Tubro + XFR of 4.2 out of the box. I would expect every "x" TR4 CPU to hit 4.0 with far more TR4 CPU's hitting 4.1+ then AM4 CPU's.

[dizmo]

13 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

when at stock clocks. when both are overclocked the 1700 is faster in games. not by a ton but that is because most games cant use more than 12 threads anyways.

Not really. They trade blows or are within a 5fps delta, hardly what I'd call faster. R7 also seems to have more issues with frame timing. 

10 minutes ago, QuantumElement said:

Yeah. But with Intel coming out with more cores for their mainstream processors, developers for games will probably make their games run better with multiple cores. However, single core speed may still have a determining factor in most games.

 

We'll see how well TR overclocks and how lucky people get with the silicon lottery.

Intel has had more cores for a long, long time. The Devs are just slow to adopt them. 

8 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The best Ryzen CPU for games will be the 1900x due to it having a Base of 3.8 and Turbo to 4.0 and a XFR of 200Mhz. it also has the advantage of having quad channel ram.

I don't think quad channel memory actually affects gaming performance though, does it? 

[The Benjamins]

Just now, QuantumElement said:

3-4 way SLI doesn't exist for modern GPUs. Crossfire however (looks at VEGA)

ya I know, but it could change or someone could be updating a 4 way 980ti setup. or need 3+ GPU's for non gaming.

[PSUGuru]

Just now, dizmo said:

Not really. They trade blows or are within a 5fps delta, hardly what I'd call faster. R7 also seems to have more issues with frame timing. 

Intel has had more cores for a long, long time. The Devs are just slow to adopt them. 

I don't think quad channel memory actually affects gaming performance though, does it? 

Hm. Maybe not for Intel, but it's known that Ryzen benefits from fast RAM. So maybe there will be some gains with Quad-Channel with TR.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Not really. They trade blows or are within a 5fps delta, hardly what I'd call faster. R7 also seems to have more issues with frame timing. 

Intel has had more cores for a long, long time. The Devs are just slow to adopt them. 

I don't think quad channel memory actually affects gaming performance though, does it? 

Mostly no, but it might help in some.

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Not really. They trade blows or are within a 5fps delta, hardly what I'd call faster. R7 also seems to have more issues with frame timing. 

Intel has had more cores for a long, long time. The Devs are just slow to adopt them. 

I don't think quad channel memory actually affects gaming performance though, does it? 

your joking right? they are the same chip so there is no reason for the r5 1600 to beat the r7 ever when they are clocked at the same speed. the only reason why any reviews showed the r5 being faster when at the same clocks is because they didn't retest the r7 cpus with all the updates to games and bios. is it worth the price difference for the small increase in gaming performance? no, not really but to say the r7 isn't faster is complete nonsense.

[mariushm]

People keep ignoring that Threadripper is made out of two dies. 

There is a bit of latency when two threads across dies have to talk to each other or transfer data. Threads within a single die would work faster.

 

If you have a game using a few threads that need to exchange small bits of data but lots of times, that game may run slightly better on a Ryzen because all threads will be equal and would work on same die.

With Threadripper, every once in a while, the operating system will put some threads on one die and some threads on the other die. The OS may even periodically move threads from die to die in order to allocate core resources better.

 

Even if a game is extra careful about placing its threads and keeping them on one die, or maybe if AMD comes up with custom cpu driver that would place threads of one application preferentially on one die, with games you'd still have DX 12 threads, video card driver threads, then game threads .. which would be considered separate applications (i think).

 

So one Ryzen and one Threadripper both at same frequencies, ignoring the benefits of quad channel ddr4 of Threadripper... there's quite a possibility that Ryzen system will be slightly faster (maybe less than 1% difference in frame rates and all that)

 

It will be very small because threads in real world don't really talk a lot between each other and basically, there's a huge gap between  percentage of time spent talking and percentage of  time doing their job, so while there is some latency, the impact is very small in most cases.

 

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, mariushm said:

People keep ignoring that Threadripper is made out of two dies. 

There is a bit of latency when two threads across dies have to talk to each other or transfer data. Threads within a single die would work faster.

 

If you have a game using a few threads that need to exchange small bits of data but lots of times, that game may run slightly better on a Ryzen because all threads will be equal and would work on same die.

With Threadripper, every once in a while, the operating system will put some threads on one die and some threads on the other die. The OS may even periodically move threads from die to die in order to allocate core resources better.

 

Even if a game is extra careful about placing its threads and keeping them on one die, or maybe if AMD comes up with custom cpu driver that would place threads of one application preferentially on one die, with games you'd still have DX 12 threads, video card driver threads, then game threads .. which would be considered separate applications (i think).

 

So one Ryzen and one Threadripper both at same frequencies, ignoring the benefits of quad channel ddr4 of Threadripper... there's quite a possibility that Ryzen system will be slightly faster (maybe less than 1% difference in frame rates and all that)

 

It will be very small because threads in real world don't really talk a lot between each other and basically, there's a huge gap between  percentage of time spent talking and percentage of  time doing their job, so while there is some latency, the impact is very small in most cases.

 

you can do that through windows. just allocate the threads you want to gaming and now the problem is fixed.

[mariushm]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

you can do that through windows. just allocate the threads you want to gaming and now the problem is fixed.

No, that doesn't do shit in the case of Threadripper. Doesn't mean threads are placed on particular dies and kept on particular dies of the cpu.

 

And in general, i think you have some misconceptions about how that "feature" works.

 

[Brooksie359]

Just now, mariushm said:

No, that doesn't do shit in the case of Threadripper. Doesn't mean threads are placed on particular dies and kept on particular dies of the cpu.

 

https://www.windowscentral.com/assign-specific-processor-cores-apps-windows-10

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, mariushm said:

No, that doesn't do shit in the case of Threadripper. Doesn't mean threads are placed on particular dies and kept on particular dies of the cpu.

 

And in general, i think you have some misconceptions about how that "feature" works.

 

the feature was created to limit what cores the program can run on. idk how that wouldn't imply that it wont run on the other cores of the cpu. 

[mariushm]

That makes it possible to set the cores for the application only.  The application (game) interacts with video card driver, direct x , other things (like steam overlay for example), all those can have threads randomly created on the other die of the CPU.

You can't guarantee 100% of the time that everything which is used to run the game will run on just one die.

 

Your game is not something like a command like video encoder (x264), which is self contained and does everything from one executable.

The game relies on external things (DirectX , OpenGL, Cuda, Physix) and internal things like sound engines like Miles3D , physics engines like Havok, AI and other helper libraries ex pathfinding etc  etc)