Wednesday, August 9th 2017

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Overclocked to 4.1 GHz With Liquid Cooling

Redditor "callingthewolf" has posted what is an awe-inspiring result for AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (that's an interesting username for sure; let's hope that's the only similarity to the boy who cried wolf.) The 16-core, 32-thread processor stands as the likely taker for the HEDT performance crown (at least until Intel's 14-core plus HEDT CPUs make their debut on the X299 platform.) With that many cores, highly thread-aware applications naturally look to see tremendous increases in performance from any frequency increase. In this case, the 1950X's base 3.4 GHz were upped to a whopping 4.0 GHz (@ 1.25 V core) and 4.1 GHz (at 1.4 V core; personally, I'd stick with the 4.0 GHz and call it a day.)

The feat was achieved under a Thermaltake Water 3.0 liquid cooler, on a non-specified ASRock motherboard with all DIMM channels populated with 8 x 8 GB 3066 MHz DIMMs. At 4.0 GHz, the Threadripper 1950X achieves a 3337 points score on Cinebench R15. And at 4.1GHz, the big chip that can (we can't really call it small now can we?) manages to score 58391 points in Geekbench 3. While those scores are certainly impressive, I would just like to point out the fact that this is a 16-core CPU that overclocks as well as (and in some cases, even better than) AMD's 8-core Ryzen 7 CPUs. The frequency potential of this Threadripper part is in the same ballpark of AMD's 8-core dies, which speaks to either an architecture limit or a manufacturing one at around 4 GHz. The Threadripper 1950X is, by all measurements, an impressively "glued together" piece of silicon.

Sources: Reddit user @ callingthewolf, via WCCFTech
Add your own comment

188 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Overclocked to 4.1 GHz With Liquid Cooling

#1
dwade
Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#2
noel_fs
dwade said:
Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.
LOL?
Posted on Reply
#4
springs113
dwade said:
Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.
Sounds like you're mad, if so why?
Posted on Reply
#5
dwade
MrGenius said:
That single thread score in GB3 is pretty...weak. My 3570K will do 4326 single thread @ 4.9GHz.
What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#6
Nuckles56
dwade said:
What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.
Umm what?
Posted on Reply
#8
R-T-B
dwade said:
What do you expect? It's Ryzen with moar cores. It's an overclocked Sandy Bridge in games, a Broadwell-E (sometimes) in benchmarks.
It's really variable, honestly, and has a lot to do with the IMC quality and ram kit you use. If you can push 3200Mhz it really helps the Infinity Fabric and brings it far higher in the gaming realm.
Posted on Reply
#10
dwade
Nuckles56 said:
Umm what?

LOL the same ol' Hardware Unboxed video and no one else's review.
There's a reason why AMD used an Intel config when they showed off Vega because of Ryzen's inferior gaming performance.

Posted on Reply
#11
phanbuey
Nuckles56 said:
Umm what?

it's a good showing but it basically loses every test except civ 5, some by a large margin.

dwade said:
LOL the same ol' Hardware Unboxed video and no one else's review.
There's a reason why AMD used an Intel config when they showed off Vega because of Ryzen's inferior gaming performance.


also look at those 1440p mins... what happened there?
Posted on Reply
#12
B-Real
dwade said:
Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.
Hehe, cry more, baby. :D And you are linking one game benchmark, and you still know that in Techpowerup's 16 game average, Ryzen CPUs are only about 11-12% from the top 7700K. Poor guy, really. :)
Posted on Reply
#13
Kronauer
New Multi-core beast is on the market?!?!?! Lets benchmark it with a 4 year old trash game that was ported to PC, not developed for it.
#sarcasm
Posted on Reply
#14
B-Real
Kronauer said:
New Multi-core beast is on the market?!?!?! Lets benchmark it with a 4 year old trash game that was ported to PC, not developed for it.
#sarcasm
:) Let that benchmark for Intel fanboiz.
Posted on Reply
#15
Hugh Mungus
Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.
Posted on Reply
#16
Durvelle27
Hugh Mungus said:
Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.
If you think a higher end Ryzen will bottleneck a Vega GPU you are sadly mistaken
Posted on Reply
#17
Lionheart
Hugh Mungus said:
Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.
Bottleneck? What? o_O
Posted on Reply
#18
B-Real
Hugh Mungus said:
Zen's gaming performance isn't amazing and may bottleneck rx vega at 1440p. Got a feeling that because I don't NEED 12 cores anymore because I'm going to be a streamer/gamer first, youtuber second, I'm going to end up getting a coffee lake 6-core, which I might sell for a possible 10nm upgrade early next year, which could actually be a free/profitable upgrade because of tax breaks when you buy a cpu and/or mobo in Holland. My gpu has to be rx vega because I want a 32" WQHD main monitor, which leaves normal or freesync options and I really want adaptive sync.


On a 30 game average, the 7800X was 5% faster on base clocks, and 1% (!) faster on OC! And you get this for a whopping 170$ extra cost, which is more than 75% extra cost. So you get a base clock 5% advantage (and 1% for OC) for 75+ % extra money. Not to speak about the huge price diff bw the motherboards. Moreover, the 7800X is consuming 20-25% more power. You shouldn't expect a lot more from a 6/12 Coffee Lake.
Posted on Reply
#19
Manu_PT
Good luck locking your games on 144fps. GamerNexus couldn´t do it in any game, always minimum fps way below 144, while 7700k flies. Cheers.
Posted on Reply
#20
the54thvoid
To what some are talking about above, at 1440p, Ryzen can hold back a 1080ti. Not across all titles but certainly where fps is higher (and therefore to most, irrelevant).
I game at 1440p with a 3.8Ghz Ryzen and a 2Ghz 1080ti. FWIW
Posted on Reply
#21
jawad
I own 1070 carda nd ryzon 1700 , and 144 monitor , and its treating me well .. i dont know why people say it bottleneck the card thats not ture at all !!! most of the games i have decent fps with free sync and 100fps + !!!!
Posted on Reply
#22
B-Real
Manu_PT said:
Good luck locking your games on 144fps. GamerNexus couldn´t do it in any game, always minimum fps way below 144, while 7700k flies. Cheers.
Well, you know, someone who is willing to play 144Hz monitor probably has a quite expensive rig. And when you have that expensive rig, you may get money for a Freesync or G-Sync monitor... please.
Posted on Reply
#23
bogami
There is very little room for the OC and as I saw on the first ALIEN Rysen Threadriper tests the results of the core frequency ranged from 3.9Gh to 4.2 Gh. The result is nice because there are 16 cores and this becomes hot.
In real terms, the price is still unavailable to many intuitions. Also to me! And in real terms, it should not be more expensive than $ 700 (prices, AMD Ryzen1500X x 4). And if you do not need as much CPU power (which many do not), it's not important to cope with latency problems that are the main problem of this engineering.
Here are all the reasons for the results.
Posted on Reply
#24
PowerPC
dwade said:
Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.
What a great way to start out a thread. :wtf:

What people don't get in these CPU fps debate threads is how price efficient Ryzen and TR are. With that price difference you should easily be able to buy a much better graphics card with a Ryzen/TR system and still have more cores in the end for your future proofing needs... People always compare Ryzen to Intel as if they somehow cost the same, when actually people in the 'real world' would be able to buy a better graphics card and it would be over.

CPU fps only matters when you already have the best graphics card in the world and there is no other way to increase your fps, so probably for less than 1% of people. But somehow this is the only thing that seems to matter in these threads and all the arguments revolve around it.
Posted on Reply
#25
springs113
I don't get why ppl say we don't need so much cpu power. I want it all and whatever i want I'm going to get (whatever i can afford to get)...and if that is 16 cores then so be it. I will not compromise because of what someone else thinks/says. Majority of us build a computer to last, regardless of the upgrade path you choose.
Anyways glad to see so many AMD processors in fellow forum members build. A year ago who would've thunk it. AMD has come a long way and i will support the competition as well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment