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
HopelesslyFaithful
Vayra86 said:
Speaking of logic - why are you considering VR and 120hz a great investment if EVEN with that 30% higher single thread performance and top end gear, you STILL experience stutter?

Would it not be much more effective to lock at 90 fps, and scale a system on that, avoid stutter because you don't have that high a frame time variance altogether, AND reduce the total cost of the system so you can invest more towards GPU / future upgrades / whatever else in peripherals?

The only real logic here, is that high FPS/high refresh gaming AND VR simply aren't ready for market yet, because the performance level and optimization of the technology is far beyond the spec of the hardware it is used on. You're basically pointing that out yourself.

The fact still is, that the market for high refresh gaming is purely competitive of nature and VR and competitive don't mix at all, for now and the foreseeable future. The only failure in logic lies with you and your view of what is feasible, and what is possible with todays' tech.

The only real high refresh gaming that happens realistically is playing CS:GO and MOBAs at the lowest detail settings and at a high competitive level. Everything else is just a personal preference of which the vast majority of 'hardcore gamers' are just overinflated ego's like yourself that achieved nothing in life but a rank on some silly video game. You then apply that ego to everyone's buying decisions with regards to CPUs while the ONLY niche that the 7700K excels in, is high refresh gaming. For everyone else, Ryzen is the go-to CPU right now.

Get a life and some sense in your gut. Shit. Speaking of faith in humanity...
you experience drastically less. The difference between my 4.4Ghz 1650v3 vs 4.8GHz 6700K is noticeable

my 1650v3 is probably slightly faster single thread than a ryzen but not by much (probably depends the type of processing). A 5.2GHz 7700K would be even better.

For War Thunder and NS2 (both single thread) my 6700K has a much better gaming experience over my 1650v3. Same goes for day to day tasks which is why I have the systems I have.

running lower FPS for ULMB is not a bad idea to be honest. The games I play at 4.8GHz are just barely below a consistent 120hz. A 5.2GHz KBY could probably be good enough. But that is a good idea for other games that can't do anywhere close to 120hz but can do 85hz. I'll take note of that for other games so thanks!

I game for fun and experience. Cutting corners to save a few bucks is not worth it. It is also why I only play older games and don't play new ones. I save money on buying games when prices are low. I also get the chance to play and experience the game at 100% max settings. So by time I buy 2017 games. I'll save a ton of money and have a killer rig at the time that can run 1440p or 4K at 120hz. So the cost of a binned quad is worth the money since it is my main hobby and I use my rig daily.

Again as I referenced and talked about the IBM study. I get a large amount of investment back in regards to time saved with having a snappier system.

I dont care about ego or rank...your resorting to personal attacks because you lack merit. I play for enjoyment and stutters drive me nuts. Just like crappy screens annoy me. Why buy 300-800 dollar monitors when a cheap 80 dollar TN screen works? It shows images.....Yea, hell no. I want good viewing angles and good colors with minimal ghosting. I also calibrate all my screens too.

So not devoid of logic. It is 100% based on logic but keep the personal attacks up because you lack merit lol.
Posted on Reply
#2
Vayra86
HopelesslyFaithful said:
you experience drastically less. The difference between my 4.4Ghz 1650v3 vs 4.8GHz 6700K is noticeable

my 1650v3 is probably slightly faster single thread than a ryzen but not by much (probably depends the type of processing). A 5.2GHz 7700K would be even better.

For War Thunder and NS2 (both single thread) my 6700K has a much better gaming experience over my 1650v3. Same goes for day to day tasks which is why I have the systems I have.

running lower FPS for ULMB is not a bad idea to be honest. The games I play at 4.8GHz are just barely below a consistent 120hz. A 5.2GHz KBY could probably be good enough. But that is a good idea for other games that can't do anywhere close to 120hz but can do 85hz. I'll take note of that for other games so thanks!

I game for fun and experience. Cutting corners to save a few bucks is not worth it. The cost of a binned quad is worth the money since it is my main hobby and I use my rig daily.

Again as I referenced and talked about the IBM study. I get a large amount of investment back in regards to time saved with having a snappier system.

I dont care about ego or rank...your resorting to personal attacks because you lack merit. I play for enjoyment and stutters drive me nuts. Just like crappy screens annoy me. Why buy 300-800 dollar monitors when a cheap 80 dollar TN screen works? It shows images.....Yea, hell no. I want good viewing angles and good colors. I calibrate all my screens too.
You're the one pulling out the troll insult here right? For someone who doesn't care about ego you go through a hell of a lot of effort to tell us all the hardware you own and your rationale behind it. And the problem with that is not you owning the hardware (nobody cares, really), but you applying that rationale to the buying decision on what is 'the best part' to get for everyone and that everything below it is sub-par or 'unfit for gaming'. In some way you're saying everyone who doesn't apply your dedication and money into a gaming rig is a stupid peasant - the only thing missing is that you've not yet explicitly said so.

I would suggest you let go of that quickly.
Posted on Reply
#3
HopelesslyFaithful
Vayra86 said:
You're the one pulling out the troll insult here right? For someone who doesn't care about ego you go through a hell of a lot of effort to tell us all the hardware you own and your rationale behind it. And the problem with that is not you owning the hardware (nobody cares, really), but you applying that rationale to the buying decision on what is 'the best part' to get for everyone and that everything below it is sub-par or 'unfit for gaming'. In some way you're saying everyone who doesn't apply your dedication and money into a gaming rig is a stupid peasant - the only thing missing is that you've not yet explicitly said so.

I would suggest you let go of that quickly.
Facts are facts.

Is the 7700K and probably 8700K better at gaming than a ryzen? Yes.
Do they provide a better gaming experience in regards to better frames and consistent play? Yes
Do stutters ruin quality of experience? Yes
Does ryzen cause more stutters? Yes
Does 7700K and probably 8700K cause less? Yes
Does 7700K play the vast majority of games better? Yes
Do you play games for the experience? Yes
Does the 7770K run a snappier better day to day computer? Yes
Does the 7700K provide better productivity do to it being faster for day to day tasks? Yes

Is the 7700K better than ryzen for said tasks? Yes
Why buy an inferior product lol
Posted on Reply
#4
Vayra86
HopelesslyFaithful said:
Facts are facts.

Is the 7700K and probably 8700K better at gaming than a ryzen? Yes.
Do they provide a better gaming experience in regards to better frames and consistent play? Yes
Do stutters ruin quality of experience? Yes
Does ryzen cause more stutters? Yes
Does 7700K and probably 8700K cause less? Yes
Does 7700K play the vast majority of games better? Yes
Do you play games for the experience? Yes
Does the 7770K run a snappier better day to day computer? Yes

Is the 7700K better than ryzen for said tasks? Yes
Why buy an inferior product lol
Welcome to my ignore, you clearly didn't get it. When you want to come down into the real world, let me know.

Its pretty rare to require only three posts to get there with me though, you're the second one on the list across 3 years of TPU.
Posted on Reply
#5
HopelesslyFaithful
Vayra86 said:
Welcome to my ignore, you clearly didn't get it. When you want to come down into the real world, let me know.
Well facts fail you i guess and you run away instead of actually forming an intelligent argument based on reality. Have fun with willful ignorance.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vya Domus
Jesus Christ... it's like all the trolls gathered here. Actually there are like 2 of them but they managed to fill pages upon pages with nonsense. I got to say , I admire the dedication but not much else.
Posted on Reply
#7
[XC] Oj101
EarthDog said:
id bet money they will reach 4 ghz.. ;)
Only? ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
TheGuruStud
Ryzen stutters? Lololololol

All the reviewers say otherwise. Boy, I think Intel fanboys are having aneurisms.

Keep it coming. This is glorious.
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
Seems like similar power scaling to Intel's chips... with 10c...
Posted on Reply
#11
thesmokingman
EarthDog said:
Seems like similar power scaling to Intel's chips... with 10c...
16 cores vs 10 cores, 20-30% more perf at 10% less draw is similar?
Posted on Reply
#12
EarthDog
thesmokingman said:
16 cores vs 10 cores, 20-30% more perf at 10% less draw is similar?
Not sure i mentioned performance... but if added in the equation, you are spot on. :)

I tried to infer both CPUs use a fair amount of power, cores and performance be damned. Clearly that matters, but 280-310w is a lot for any cpu. Likely need a robust board with good cooling on the vrm (gaming pro carbon looks anemic in heatsink category). Reading between the lines, it inferred the same thing you did about it being better than intel.

Hope that clears up the vague post.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment