If threadripper isn't for gaming...

[IsaacThePooper]

Couldn't you just disable 14 of the cores and get a 4 core processor with insane overclocks since it's boost clock was 4.0GHz on all 16 cores...?

[VikingGaming]

That is not how CPUs work

[PCGuy_5960]

41 minutes ago, IsaacThePooper said:

Couldn't you just disable 14 of the cores and get a 4 core processor with insane overclocks since it's boost clock was 4.0GHz on all 16 cores...?

Nope because that's not how overclocking works. Even if you disable 12 cores, you won't be able to overclock past 4.1-4.2GHz unless you use LN2

[just_dave]

2 minutes ago, IsaacThePooper said:

Couldn't you just disable 14 of the cores and get a 4 core processor with insane overclocks since it's boost clock was 4.0GHz on all 16 cores...?

Boost clock 4.0 is only for 2 or 1 core.

I think that 1900X is perfect for high-end gaming, because it clocks high and has enough PCIE lanes to drive 2 GTX1080Tis in x16 SLI

[Shiv78]

3 minutes ago, IsaacThePooper said:

Couldn't you just disable 14 of the cores and get a 4 core processor with insane overclocks since it's boost clock was 4.0GHz on all 16 cores...?

couldn't you just OC a Ryzen 3 1200 to 5GHz?

no...

Ryzen/TR doesn't reach thermal limits, it just kinda 'stops' at a certain point and can't go any further a lot sooner than something like a 7700K

[Coaxialgamer]

4 minutes ago, IsaacThePooper said:

Couldn't you just disable 14 of the cores and get a 4 core processor with insane overclocks since it's boost clock was 4.0GHz on all 16 cores...?

A_Threadripper is 16 core chip , so 16-14 = 2 cores 

B_ Threadripper's clock speed wall seems to be a process limitation , not a thermal or power wall .

C_Why are you buying a 16 core 1000$ chip when a 300$ 7700k would do just as well if not better?

[just_dave]

Just now, Shiv78 said:

couldn't you just OC a Ryzen 3 1200 to 5GHz?

no...

Ryzen/TR doesn't reach thermal limits, it just kinda 'stops' at a certain point and can't go any further a lot sooner than something like a 7700K

Ryzen has probably 2GHz headroom from 4GHz but it requires really high voltages and LN2 cooling

[3 Lions]

That really defeats the object of having loads of cores, if you are only gaming then get a 7700K or wait for the 8700K. 

[VikingGaming]

OC is based on so many different aspects. The cores themself, power delivery, base clocks, chipsets, die design (and core design for that matter)

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, dave_k said:

I think that 1900X is perfect for high-end gaming, because it clocks high and has enough PCIE lanes to drive 2 GTX1080Tis in x16 SLI

That doesn't change the fact that games are terribly optimized for TR, so it performs worse than a Ryzen 7 CPU in games. If all you do is play games, get a Ryzen 5/7 CPU or a 7700K/8700K, don't waste money on X299/X399

[Coaxialgamer]

Just now, dave_k said:

Ryzen has probably 2GHz headroom from 4GHz but it requires really high voltages and LN2 cooling

Well , current record under ln2 is 5.37 ghz , so i don't believe it can be pushed much farther .

[DocSwag]

Ryzen just hits a wall at around 4 ghz. I am yet to see a CPU that can even hit 4.3 ghz on even just one core. 4.2 is already super duper rare.

3 minutes ago, dave_k said:

Boost clock 4.0 is only for 2 or 1 core.

I think that 1900X is perfect for high-end gaming, because it clocks high and has enough PCIE lanes to drive 2 GTX1080Tis in x16 SLI

I disagree, the numa stuff actually hurts performance so TR actually does worse in gaming than an 1800x. And the pcie lanes don't matter since x8 is enough anyways.

[just_dave]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

That doesn't change the fact that games are terribly optimized for TR, so it performs worse than a Ryzen 7 CPU in games. If all you do is play games, get a Ryzen 5/7 CPU or a 7700K/8700K, don't waste money on X299/X399

1900X is just like 1800X, it doesnt have any optimization issues, some games dont like the big amount of threads on the 1950/1920X

[DocSwag]

5 minutes ago, dave_k said:

Ryzen has probably 2GHz headroom from 4GHz but it requires really high voltages and LN2 cooling

I think even under ln2 the max I've seen Ryzen go is around 5.8 ghz. The only ln2 of I've seen on TR was 5.2

 

3 minutes ago, dave_k said:

1900X is just like 1800X, it doesnt have any optimization issues, some games dont like the big amount of threads on the 1950/1920X

Not true, it has 4 cores per die enabled.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, dave_k said:

1900X is just like 1800X, it doesnr have any optimization issues, some games dont like the big amount of threads on the 1950/1920X

No, the 1900X is using 2 Ryzen dies, which is what's causing the issue. You shouldn't get a 1900X for gaming, a 7820X for only $50 more is a much better option (if you need 8 cores for gaming)

Spoiler

You don't need 8 cores for gaming

 

[VikingGaming]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No, the 1900X is using 2 Ryzen dies, which is what's causing the issue. You shouldn't get a 1900X for gaming, a 7820X for only $50 more is a much better option (if you need 8 cores for gaming)

  Hide contents

You don't need 8 cores for gaming

 

True, 8 cores for gaming is overkill. Even if streaming, a quad core will get you a long way.

[just_dave]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No, the 1900X is using 2 Ryzen dies, which is what's causing the issue. You shouldn't get a 1900X for gaming, a 7820X for only $50 more is a much better option (if you need 8 cores for gaming)

  Reveal hidden contents

You don't need 8 cores for gaming

 

Oh, really? I know it has 2 dies and probably 4 cores enabled per die but from the benchmarks i've seen that Game Mode helped it quite a lot when the core count was halved. 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, VikingGaming said:

True, 8 cores for gaming is overkill. Even if streaming, a quad core will get you a long way.

If you're streaming more cores help, but no games can *properly* use 8 cores/16 threads. Most games can use up to 8/12 threads

Just now, dave_k said:

Oh, really? I know it has 2 dies and probably 2 cores enabled per die but from the benchmarks i've seen that Game Mode helped it quite a lot when the core count was halved. 

4 cores per die or 2 cores per CCX  

 

Game mode on the 1900X is stupid though, because it disables half the cores and you end up with a 1500X with 60 PCIe lanes

[just_dave]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

If you're streaming more cores help, but no games can *properly* use 8 cores/16 threads. Most games can use up to 8/12 threads

4 cores per die or 2 cores per CCX  

 

Game mode on the 1900X is stupid though, because it disables half the cores and you end up with a 1500X with 60 PCIe lanes

I know it has 4 cores per die, i missclicked.

I was talking about Game Mode on 1950 and 1920X

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, dave_k said:

I was talking about Game Mode on 1950 and 1920X

If gaming is a priority, the 7900X is a better option than the 1950X and the 7820X is a better option than the 1920X, but anyways. 

[Sauron]

Clock speed is not something you can "take" and "transfer" between cores... it's just the frequency at which the core does operations. It doesn't matter how many cores there are in total. The only reason higher core count cpus usually run at lower clock speeds is that more cores produce more heat, and running the same frequency as a quad core on a 16 core would produce a LOT more heat, making it unstable if not cooled properly. Plus, the chances of all the cores being stable at the same frequency are lower.

 

So, long story short, clock speed is not cumulative and more cores does not mean more capacity for overclock per core. It's not a binary choice between clock speeds and core count. If you want to play games, buy a ryzen 5. Or an i5.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

If gaming is a priority, the 7900X is a better option than the 1950X and the 7820X is a better option than the 1920X, but anyways. 

And all 3 are pointless overkill for games.

[IsaacThePooper]

geez okay

[just_dave]

16 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

If gaming is a priority, the 7900X is a better option than the 1950X and the 7820X is a better option than the 1920X, but anyways. 

Yeah sure. I am not saying they are for gaming, R5 1600 exists for a reason. Skylake-X is bullshit at its finest

[kelvinhall05]

I'm agreeing with like half the comments, but I think it was a rhetorical question.

@IsaacThePooper