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

#51
B-Real
"NicklasAPJ said:
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 :)
And for what purpose are you buying these CPUs?
Posted on Reply
#52
INSTG8R
Not sure why people keep trotting out gaming performance...If you bought this for gaming you're doing it wrong...:wtf:
Posted on Reply
#53
PowerPC
"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.
"NicklasAPJ said:
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 :)
So you won't buy a CPU until it is the best, no matter the cost? And you just want AMD to 'win the fight' first before you buy it, that's all? What fight? Sorry, but this sounds like it's actually some kind of Intel forum bot lol. :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#54
Bytales
"PowerPC said:
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.
You can't expect everyone to be smart. Thats just how Gauss Curve works in real life. Some are smart, some are dumb, but most are average.
Posted on Reply
#55
NicklasAPJ
"B-Real said:
And for what purpose are you buying these CPUs?
"PowerPC said:
So you're saying you need the best CPU at all cost and this is actually your opinion? So you won't buy a CPU until it is the best, no matter the cost? And you just want AMD to 'win the fight' first before you buy it, that's all? What fight? Sorry, but this sounds like it's actually some kind of Intel forum bot lol. :kookoo:
I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.


So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah :)
Posted on Reply
#56
Slizzo
"NicklasAPJ said:
I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.


So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah :)
How much money you making these days from benchmarking?
Posted on Reply
#57
EarthDog
"NicklasAPJ said:
I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.


So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah :)
Though those respond to cores, you may find its clock limits will hold you back and the Intel scores better due to higher clock speed and IPC. ;)
Posted on Reply
#58
PowerPC
"INSTG8R said:
Not sure why people keep trotting out gaming performance...If you bought this for gaming you're doing it wrong...:wtf:
You're right, it's nonsense. But even if for some reason you did want to game with it, you could literally buy another 1080ti with the price difference TR has over Intel...

"NicklasAPJ said:
I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.
So you already have two 1080tis in SLI and on LN2, right?
Posted on Reply
#59
NicklasAPJ
"EarthDog said:
Though those respond to cores, you may find its clock limits will hold you back and the Intel scores better due to higher clock speed and IPC. ;)
We can only wait and see ! :) 4.5Ghz on Intel 14/16 Core, should be about right. but lets see. hope for the best ! :)
Posted on Reply
#60
B-Real
"NicklasAPJ said:
I need the best CPU, cause im a 3D Benchmarker/Overclocker, Firestirke/Timespy and stuff. For heaven the best CPU is 7740K.


So thats why, if it turns out TR beats intel, then I buy TR, so simple is it for me, that CPU that provides the best CPU Power/Score in my budget will I buy.
if I JUST was a normal gamer, I would not spent that much on a CPU, ahah :)
Actually I find the CPU records with a 6950X in Heaven, Firestrike, Firestrike Ultra and Time Spy benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#61
EarthDog
"RejZoR said:
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.
Correct, not all cores will reach those boost clocks... that is(should be) a given. However, there is typically a couple-few hundred MHz bump with all cores. Intel doesn't seem to have 7th gen turbo breakdown as they do for previous generations yet. But I would imagine it to be AT LEAST 3.8 GHz if not 4 Ghz. Wiki (I know...lol, I know..) has it at 4 GHz. ;)

Boost 3.0 will place 2 cores at 4.5 GHz while boost 2.0 maxes out at 4.3 GHz.

EDIT: Also note, many motherboards by default will boost to all thread turbo out of the box. The Prime had my 7900X at 4 GHz all cores from the first boot. It did this on the mainstream platform across other vendors as well.
Posted on Reply
#62
Prince Valiant
Has anything been posted about TR power usage?

"EarthDog said:
Correct, not all cores will reach those boost clocks... that is(should be) a given. However, there is typically a couple-few hundred MHz bump with all cores. Intel doesn't seem to have 7th gen turbo breakdown as they do for previous generations yet. But I would imagine it to be AT LEAST 3.8 GHz if not 4 Ghz.
I'm sure some OC team will find out what the limits are so no normal user has to risk having a $2000 lump.
Posted on Reply
#63
Captain_Tom
"dwade said:
Great in synthetic benchmark but falls short in real world like Ryzen.
To fall short doesn't there technically have to be something ahead of it?

LOL this is the strongest CPU on the desktop market. Period.


At 4.1GHz+ this will have near the same single-threaded performance as even an overclocked Kabylake, and certainly at least matching any Skylake-X IPC.
Posted on Reply
#64
Captain_Tom
"NicklasAPJ said:
We can only wait and see ! :) 4.5Ghz on Intel 14/16 Core, should be about right. but lets see. hope for the best ! :)
The question is if any of those chips can clock higher. The 7900X already throttles under stock turbo (4.5GHz), and so I doubt anything above the 14-core can even reach an all-core turbo higher than 4.4GHz no matter how well they are binned.
Posted on Reply
#65
EarthDog
I think today must be double post day... Why can't people edit their shiz???????????

1. Strongest CPU on the market... wow. Core for core Intel is a bit faster. The problem is the price per core is offputting.
2. IPC doesn't increase as the clocks go up. If TR is beating Intel at 3Ghz by 5%, its going to be beating INtel at 4 GHz by 5% (when testing IPC).
3. We've seen one hit 4.1 Ghz...
3a. The 7900X doesn't throttle under stock turbo... 4.5 GHz is 2 cores boss. ;)
Posted on Reply
#66
B-Real
"EarthDog said:
I think today must be double post day... Why can't people edit their shiz???????????

1. Strongest CPU on the market... wow. Core for core Intel is a bit faster. The problem is the price per core is offputting.
2. IPC doesn't increase as the clocks go up. If TR is beating Intel at 3Ghz by 5%, its going to be beating INtel at 4 GHz by 5% (when testing IPC).
3. We've seen one hit 4.1 Ghz...
3a. The 7900X doesn't throttle under stock turbo... 4.5 GHz is 2 cores boss. ;)
Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering... :)
Posted on Reply
#67
jabbadap
"Captain_Tom said:
The question is if any of those chips can clock higher. The 7900X already throttles under stock turbo (4.5GHz), and so I doubt anything above the 14-core can even reach an all-core turbo higher than 4.4GHz no matter how well they are binned.
Uhm was it cpu that was throttling or the motherboard vrms. Guru3d oc 7900x to 4.8GHz with all core clocks and it took horrible amount of power to get there. No doubt if one want's to OC those there will be need for much much beefier vrms from current x299 motherboards. Other thing which is not really sure is will those HCC chips use that tooth paste tim too. But yeah it seems that current generation zen has that 4-4.2GHz wall without extreme cooling, while intels wall is more close to 5GHz. So for arch/manuf. process PoV intel has slight upper hand, when we are strictly talking about pure clocks.
Posted on Reply
#68
PowerPC
"B-Real said:
Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering... :)
Or a 12 core 1920X with $200 extra for other things.
Posted on Reply
#69
Durvelle27
"Vya Domus said:
I have my doubts , the TIM really hurts OCing , unless they solder the IHS I really don't see how that will be possible.
TR is soldiered
Posted on Reply
#71
Vya Domus
"Durvelle27 said:
TR is soldiered
I know , was talking about Skylake-X.
Posted on Reply
#72
Durvelle27
"Vya Domus said:
I know , was talking about Skylake-X.
Oh ok
Posted on Reply
#74
uplink777
"B-Real said:
Can I ask what made you buy a 1000$ 10 core CPU instead of a 1000$ 16 core CPU? Just wondering... :)
You don't have much experience with Ryzen architecture now, do You? Not sure if You're trolling, or only a lucky guy, but for daily use AMD CPUs are a disaster. All topics are rounding around AMD bugs, year after it's release. XMP not working, problems with OC, low OC, and many more. Maybe he's fed up with all that AMD crap, just like I am. I'm an ex owner of 1700X. Never more.

I'm 99% positive that TR will be a software/compatibility disaster for the first 6 months, when they finally fix it somewhat up, there will be Coffee Lake and 18 core beast from Intel. One of the reasons...
Posted on Reply
#75
B-Real
"uplink777 said:
Hmm, I go around 5400 - 5600 per core [7900X @ 4.5 - 4.7 GHz], this guy https://browser.geekbench.com/user/124365 goes 6300 per core. Why is the TR Core so weak? :/

I mean even at the same freq, it's still gonna miss some numbers.
And what extra do you get from beside the numbers? :)

+ Mate, I can't believe you given the fact that you say the CPU is a year old on market. Actually it launched 5 months ago... :D

"All topics are rounding around AMD bugs, year after it's release. XMP not working, problems with OC, low OC, and many more"

Maybe if you don't buy it on debut and wait a month or 2 for the new BIOSes, you don't tell that lie.

"Maybe he's fed up with all that AMD crap"

He didn't write anything like that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment