Ryzen 1700x or Threadripper 1900x?

[WhiteWulfe]

Alright I understand that the Threadripper is mostly for workstation rigs, but the current issue with the ryzen 1500 through to the 1800x, is that they will not support sli x16 for two graphics cards at once, because theyso  do not have enough lanes. I believe they have 24 off the top of my head if I remember correctly? The cpu also uses up about 4 lanes as well itself, so with the amount of lanes, there leaves much to be desired. Every Threadripper will utilize the same chipset, and they will all support  whopping 64 lanes, which is more than enough to run two sli, and even 3 sli cards with lanes still remaining at 16x each. My question is...Do the 16x pcie slots make that much of a difference speed wise in sli, or should I go the cheaper route and simply get the 1700x, and run two graphics cards in sli utilizing the 8x slots instead? Is the price difference between the threadripper 1900x and the 1700x worth it for that simply alone? I do not care for quad dimm memory and such either, so that would not be used by me on the Threadripper either. 

[FloRolf]

If you want 3x sli (which is not recommended) then Threadripper might makes sense. For 2x a 1700 is fine. 

[WhiteWulfe]

Yeah and 8 cores is beyond enough cores for gaming haha. I will be using my rig to stream as well though, but I've watched videos and the ryzen 1700x beats the tar out of the intel i7-7700k in gaming and streaming both, though with the intel u could mess around in obs and it made intel perform a bit better when streaming and gaming. Honestly don't even know what obs is, just know the video said that. 

[DrMikeNZ]

You do not need PCIe gen 3 x16 to run GPUs, SLI in x8 x8 is fine. Just stick with a X370 board and an R7 1700 or 1600 if you are just gaming.

Edited August 17, 2017 by DrMikeNZ
1700 is better for streaming

[WhiteWulfe]

Yeah I wanna stream and game at the same time without sacraficing much, that's why I wanted to go the red team this time around. I thought for some reason the x16 made a difference but apparently not. Why have all these terms if they do not do much of anything.

[JoostinOnline]

7 minutes ago, WhiteWulfe said:

Alright I understand that the Threadripper is mostly for workstation rigs, but the current issue with the ryzen 1500 through to the 1800x, is that they will not support sli x16 for two graphics cards at once, because theyso  do not have enough lanes. I believe they have 24 off the top of my head if I remember correctly? The cpu also uses up about 4 lanes as well itself, so with the amount of lanes, there leaves much to be desired. Every Threadripper will utilize the same chipset, and they will all support  whopping 64 lanes, which is more than enough to run two sli, and even 3 sli cards with lanes still remaining at 16x each. My question is...Do the 16x pcie slots make that much of a difference speed wise in sli, or should I go the cheaper route and simply get the 1700x, and run two graphics cards in sli utilizing the 8x slots instead? Is the price difference between the threadripper 1900x and the 1700x worth it for that simply alone? I do not care for quad dimm memory and such either, so that would not be used by me on the Threadripper either. 

You are vastly overestimating how many lanes are necessary for three GPU's.

[WhiteWulfe]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

You are vastly overestimating how many lanes are necessary for three GPU's.

Yeah I thought that the x16 made the video cards faster or something, I'm still learning here! haha.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, WhiteWulfe said:

Yeah I thought that the x16 made the video cards faster or something, I'm still learning here! haha.

x16 would be necessary for PCIe 2.0.  Not for 3.0 though.  Even though NVIDIA prevents you from running them in anything below 8x when in SLI, they should theoretically not be affected at all by using 4x slots if you use a riser.

[WhiteWulfe]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

x16 would be necessary for PCIe 2.0.  Not for 3.0 though.  Even though NVIDIA prevents you from running them in anything below 8x when in SLI, they should theoretically not be affected at all by using 4x slots if you use a riser.

Interesting, never heard of a riser before. I'll have to check that out to ease my curiosity a bit.

[WhiteWulfe]

Just now, WhiteWulfe said:

Interesting, never heard of a riser before. I'll have to check that out to ease my curiosity a bit.

So a riser card simply adds more pcie slots? I don't know if this is a dumb question or not, but won't that spread the bandwidth or something between slots, making things connected to them slower?

[JoostinOnline]

5 minutes ago, WhiteWulfe said:

Interesting, never heard of a riser before. I'll have to check that out to ease my curiosity a bit.

In a few years, when PCIe 4.0 is released, new cards will probably use enough bandwidth to require 16x slots for PCIe 3.0.  At least if the pattern repeats itself.  Take a look at these:

 

 

Instead of a riser, it could also just saw out the back part of a 4x slot and it would work.

3 minutes ago, WhiteWulfe said:

So a riser card simply adds more pcie slots? I don't know if this is a dumb question or not, but won't that spread the bandwidth or something between slots, making things connected to them slower?

It doesn't increase the slots, or the bandwidth.  It just makes a 16x card fit into a slot that is smaller.

[WhiteWulfe]

10 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

In a few years, when PCIe 4.0 is released, new cards will probably use enough bandwidth to require 16x slots for PCIe 3.0.  At least if the pattern repeats itself.  Take a look at these:

 

 

Instead of a riser, it could also just saw out the back part of a 4x slot and it would work.

It doesn't increase the slots, or the bandwidth.  It just makes a 16x card fit into a slot that is smaller.

Gen 2 and gen 3 slots on the first video he is referring to 2.0 pcie and 3.0 pcie am I correct?

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, WhiteWulfe said:

Gen 2 and gen 3 slots on the first video he is referring to 2.0 pcie and 3.0 pcie am I correct?

Yep.  Keep in mind that if you have more than 16 lanes, you've got more than any consumer Intel CPU.  It's not really something you need to worry about with AMD.

 

PS: Don't feel embarrassed to ask questions.

[WhiteWulfe]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Yep.  Keep in mind that if you have more than 16 lanes, you've got more than any consumer Intel CPU.  It's not really something you need to worry about with AMD.

 

PS: Don't feel embarrassed to ask questions.

Slightly off topic in this particular forum, but seems like i got your attention a bit, so figured I'd ask another quick question. What do you think of sound cards and are they worth it by todays standards, considering like all MOBOS support onboard audio that are typically 7.1 surround sound and such anyways?

[Jumper118]

2 hours ago, WhiteWulfe said:

Slightly off topic in this particular forum, but seems like i got your attention a bit, so figured I'd ask another quick question. What do you think of sound cards and are they worth it by todays standards, considering like all MOBOS support onboard audio that are typically 7.1 surround sound and such anyways?

No, if you get a decent high end motherboard then the on board audio is fine. Sound cards are mostly for people who think they need 9000 ohm headphones and diamond pla8 wires snake oil cards