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
Vya Domus
4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.
Posted on Reply
#2
Ginpo236
Reading and looking a lot of folks posting single thread performance about Threadripper. Anyone who buys this chip solely for gaming has too many dollars and not enough sense.

You can bash AMD all you want, they did a great job with this architecture and I surely will be looking to buy one in the near future for what I do in the professional realm.
Posted on Reply
#3
EarthDog
Vya Domus said:
4.1 Ghz on the 16-core Threadripper is outstanding. 7900X already hits a huge wall in terms of temperature and power consumption. If they don't do anything about that the 16-core and 18-core are going to be horrible overclockers.
id bet money they will reach 4 ghz.. ;)
Posted on Reply
#4
Manu_PT
B-Real said:
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.
Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.
Posted on Reply
#5
Vya Domus
EarthDog said:
id bet money they will reach 4 ghz.. ;)
I have my doubts , the TIM really hurts OCing , unless they solder the IHS I really don't see how that will be possible.
Posted on Reply
#6
EarthDog
Considering 4.5 ghz is possible on an average non delidded 7900x...i have less doubt than you do. :)

Now, you may need 3x120 aio or custom to get there, but id bet 4 ghz all cores no delid is possible. :)
Posted on Reply
#7
Vya Domus
7980XE is almost twice the silicon that the 7900X is so...yeah
Posted on Reply
#8
EarthDog
Indeed it is. Ill let you know when you mention something I didnt already consider. :p

Edit: the thing boosts to 4.2 ghz on boost 2.0 and 4.4ghz on boost 3.0. Now that clearly isnt all cores (4.4 is one core), but... says a little something too. :)
Posted on Reply
#9
Nihilus
As if a person who buys a 16 core processor cares about waiting a couple extra seconds for a single thread app.

18 core SKLx at 4.0 ghz? Not likely.

There is a reason they dropped thr clocks so much for the 7820x.

Even still, the 7980xe is twice as much.
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
Nihilus said:
18 core SKL-x at 4.5 ghz? Yeah, dream on buddy.
who said that? 4 ghz all cores is what im saying. ;)
Posted on Reply
#12
Tartaros
Manu_PT said:
Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.
Almost no existant input lag with those, those exist because people wanted vsync without input lag xD. The only moment they can lag is below low fps threshold and those type of games aren't usually very demanding, in fact is common to quit eye candy.
Posted on Reply
#14
FR@NK
Konceptz said:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1457-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-octa-core/

Notice that when both sides of the argument are clocked at 4.0ghz with matching ram speeds, there really isn't that much of a difference, accept the astronomical price of the Intel chips
You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?

At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.
Posted on Reply
#15
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
This has got Intel running scared. Perfect.
Posted on Reply
#16
NicklasAPJ
Well im a bit disappointed, Intel gonna win again in Raw Power sadly :/

had hope it would be more powerfull when it had 16 cores, mabye next time I buy AMD.
Posted on Reply
#18
dcf-joe
Manu_PT said:
Gsync and Freesync have no room on competitive games. Input lag.
A youtuber by the name of Battle Nonsense makes youtube videos where he extensively tests input lag on multiplayer games using a high speed camera and a LED wired to a mouse button.

Anyways, he did a test on how much limiting frames actually affects input lag. In CS:GO, G-sync literally added 0.2 milliseconds of input lag, while Overwatch actually decreased 0.2 milliseconds of input lag.

This test is done in a less than 7 minute video. It is very informational and I recommend watching the entire video, as well as his other videos. However, if you are just interested in the comparison graphs, pause the video at 5:15:

Posted on Reply
#19
RejZoR
FR@NK said:
You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?

At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.
Turbo clock is not a baseline clock. It'll NEVER operate at 4GHz on ALL cores. So, when you overclock both to 4GHz on ALL cores, that means both actually operated at 4GHz on all cores at all times. Something NEITHER does out of the box, tubo or not.

Don't mix up special "All Core Turbo" settings in BIOS that forces CPU to run the turbo clocks on all cores. But that's not what any Intel CPU does when within factory specs.
Posted on Reply
#20
krusha03
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.
Tax breaks for buying PC hardware in NL? Please tell me more :D
Posted on Reply
#21
Konceptz
FR@NK said:
You do understand that clocking the 8 core skylake-x @4ghz is actually downclocking it right?

At stock it will turbo two cores up to 4.5GHz and the all core turbo is already at 4GHz.
That's not the point, clocking both at the same speeds gives the best comparison.
Posted on Reply
#22
johnnyfiive
The amount of salt from some of the Intel fanboys around here is really annoying....
Posted on Reply
#23
B-Real
NicklasAPJ said:
Well im a bit disappointed, Intel gonna win again in Raw Power sadly :/

had hope it would be more powerfull when it had 16 cores, mabye next time I buy AMD.
Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you. :D
Posted on Reply
#24
NicklasAPJ
B-Real said:
Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you. :D
For 999, TR 16 core is cheap yes yes. Dont get me worng, I would love for AMD to win this fight, for sure, so i COULD buy TR. But can see I need to buy Intel again :)
Posted on Reply
#25
Konceptz
B-Real said:
Actually you want to buy a 16-core CPU or what? Because its single core performance will not be that much higher while at same cores Intel should be better in multi tasking by about 10-20%. And for what price? Yeah, twice the price. No thank you. :D
Intel is at best 10% faster, charging 75% more for their CPUs. Id love to try an Intel platform out (its been years), but the way my mortgage is setup....nah I'll stick with Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment