AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review

Re:AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review by dmoy on Thursday August 10, 2017 @02:24PM (#14982612)

I mean I could guess one way it'd fail - if they market it heavily to the PC gaming market, and their single threaded performance isn't as good at similar price points. There's still lot of workloads out there that can't take advantage of 4 threads, let alone 16/32+. I would assume they don't market it heavily to gaming, but it's like the second thing they mention on their main landing page, so... idk.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review by paulmd on Thursday August 10, 2017 @04:25PM (#14983833)

AMD is already making a big marketing push about "you need 32 lanes for SLI/CrossFire!".

Which is utterly false, at 3.0 speeds x8x8 only costs you a few percent at most. Strangely x16x16 can actually hurt you in a few titles, which suggests we may just be seeing some other kind of variation/noise anyway.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2488-pci-e-3-x8-vs-x16-per...

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Titan-X-Performan...

Threadripper is no better than a Ryzen 7 at gaming, and in fact is often worse (often closer to a Ryzen 5). If you really buy into the need for x16x16 then getting a 6850K is really the obvious answer, it competes with Ryzen core-for-core in both performance and efficiency and since it's a HEDT product you get the 40 PCIe lanes as well as quad-channel RAM. Somewhat pricier than Ryzen, given, but actually much cheaper than Threadripper.

[ Parent | on HN ]