Tuesday, June 19th 2018

First Benchmarks, CPU-Z Screenshots of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 32-core CPU Surface

First benchmarks and CPU-Z screenshots of AMD's upcoming Ryzen Threadripper 32-core monster have surfaced, courtesy of HKEPC. The on-time-for-launch (as AMD puts it) 12 nm "Pinnacle Ridge" processor has apparently been christened "Threadripper 2990X", which does make sense - should AMD be thinking of keeping the 2920X moniker for 12 cores and 1950X for 16-cores, then it follows a 20-core 2960X, a 24-core 2970X, a 28-core 2980X, and the aforementioned 32-core 2990X. whether AMD would want to offer such a tiered lineup of HEDT processors, however, is another matter entirely, and certainly open for discussion - too much of a good thing can actually happen, at least where ASP of the Threadripper portfolio is concerned.

On the CPU-Z screenshot, the 2990X is running at 3.4 GHz base with up to 4.0 GHz XFR, and carries a 250 W TDP - a believable and very impressive achievement, testament to the 12 nm process and the low leakage it apparently produces. The chip was then overclocked up to 4.2 GHz on all cores, which caused for some thermal throttling, since performance was lower than when the chip was clocked at just 4 GHz on all cores. Gains on this particular piece of silicon were reserved up to 4.12 GHz - the jump to 4.2 GHz must have required another bump in voltage that led to the aforementioned throttling. At 4.12 GHz, the chip scored 6,399 points in Cinebench - a remarkable achievement.
Sources: HKEPC, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

70 Comments on First Benchmarks, CPU-Z Screenshots of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 32-core CPU Surface

#1
Vya Domus
4 Ghz on all cores on a 32 core CPU is very impressive indeed , and because this isn't a monolithic die the power consumption and heat output scales pretty much linearly.
Posted on Reply
#2
NicklasAPJ
Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.

Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweetspot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.
Posted on Reply
#3
KarymidoN
NicklasAPJ said:
Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.

Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweetspot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.
man even intel (the kings of IPC) can't put this amout of cores/clock together.... AMD Maybe, but just when they go 7nm... Or intel 10nm... but not right now...

I'm just amazed with the 32/64 performance possibilities... just imagine how sweet this processor will be.
Posted on Reply
#4
DeathtoGnomes
NicklasAPJ said:
Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.

Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweetspot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.
Hahaha, Cinebench is the app that sets the bar for measuring speeds in the media, but this real world performance you about you need to explain what you mean. And low clock speed? what is there to compare to that has 32/64 cores? Epyc?

There is no Core War, Amd won, get over it.

Are you referring to the one that was cooled by a Chiller? LOL
Posted on Reply
#5
ShurikN
NicklasAPJ said:
Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.
In the real world this CPU will be used with apps that will can harness the power of 64 threads to the fullest. And for those apps 4 GHz is more than enough.
Posted on Reply
#6
mcraygsx
NicklasAPJ said:
Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.

Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweetspot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.
I am still certain INTEL will continue to increase more counts while maintaing their IPC lead over AMD's CPU architecture. But ZEN has certainly opened up Pandora's box. 32 Physicals cores incoming to a consumer market at reasonable cost is nothing less then astonishing.
Posted on Reply
#7
xkm1948
Holy mother of god wow
Posted on Reply
#8
NicklasAPJ
DeathtoGnomes said:
Hahaha, Cinebench is the app that sets the bar for measuring speeds in the media, but this real world performance you about you need to explain what you mean. And low clock speed? what is there to compare to that has 32/64 cores? Epyc?

There is no Core War, Amd won, get over it.

Are you referring to the one that was cooled by a Chiller? LOL
What are you so angry over? I just Want less cores with more clock speed. But fair, you gave me a laugh. Im not a intel fan, but your clearly a amd fan boy wich you Cant have a Real talk with.

mcraygsx said:
I am still certain INTEL will continue to increase more counts while maintaing their IPC lead over AMD's CPU architecture. But ZEN has certainly opened up Pandora's box. 32 Physicals cores incoming to a consumer market at reasonable cost is nothing less then astonishing.
Idd it is, i just thing this have go to far, they are only putting more cores In there cpus to fight, instead of incresse clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#9
ShurikN
NicklasAPJ said:
I just Want less cores with more clock speed. But fair, you gave me a laugh.
Then buy a 8700K. It has everything you need.
Posted on Reply
#10
NicklasAPJ
ShurikN said:
Then buy a 8700K. It has everything you need.
No it does not mate, i neeed a 14/18 cores 4.9ghz + my 7980 XE Can Do 4.8ghz. But Thats not Good with The watt it output. Hope next gen Will be better :-)
Posted on Reply
#11
Joss
Any news on motherboards? Will there be an X499?
Posted on Reply
#12
ShurikN
Joss said:
Any news on motherboards? Will there be an X499?
X399 refreshes that were shown at Computex

EDIT
I mean, it will fit into existing X399 boards perfectly, but probably wont be able boost that much.
Posted on Reply
#13
Imsochobo
NicklasAPJ said:
No it does not mate, i neeed a 14/18 cores 4.9ghz + my 7980 XE Can Do 4.8ghz. But Thats not Good with The watt it output. Hope next gen Will be better :)
So you have half the cores, lower IPC in many instances, and higher power consumption for less performance but might slightly beat it in lower core count utilization?
Impressive...

Skylake-x IPC is indeed not mighty, it's not having same ipc as coffee, please see:



4.6 ghz vs 4.2 and it's a even fight...

Coffee lake is great, but skl-x is the biggest disappointment I've seen from Intel the past 10 years.
Posted on Reply
#14
NicklasAPJ
Imsochobo said:
So you have half the cores, lower IPC in many instances, and higher power consumption for less performance but might slightly beat it in lower core count utilization?
Impressive...

Skylake-x IPC is indeed not mighty, it's not having same ipc as coffee, please see:



4.6 ghz vs 4.2 and it's a even fight...

Coffee lake is great, but skl-x is the biggest disappointment I've seen from Intel the past 10 years.
When did i Said that it have better IPC than coffe leak? But you Cant Compage all cpus over 7900x with 7800x there is a IPC chance, cause of more cache. My 7980 XE 4.5ghz Do 196+ In cinebench single core. 7800x,7820x Got low IPC somehow, wich they fixed with 7900x +

2700x 4.4ghz doing The same as my old 6900k @4.4ghz In The benchmarks i need to run.
Posted on Reply
#15
cellar door
NicklasAPJ said:
No it does not mate, i neeed a 14/18 cores 4.9ghz + my 7980 XE Can Do 4.8ghz. But Thats not Good with The watt it output. Hope next gen Will be better :)
You absolutely NEED it - for what? Are you having trouble managing the heat output on the 7980 XE? Wait you can afford a chip like that but you can't afford proper cooling for that OC?

Sorry mate there is soo much wrong with everything you wrote.
Posted on Reply
#16
NicklasAPJ
cellar door said:
You absolutely NEED it - for what? Are you having trouble managing the heat output on the 7980 XE? Wait you can afford a chip like that but you can't afford proper cooling for that OC?

Sorry mate there is soo much wrong with everything you wrote.
I run 1x quad and 1x trippe rad. If you dont know What you talk about, then dont start to play smart. The heat and watt output is really hot at that point, We talk 700 watt + Alone from The cpu, The waterblock cant Get The heat away from The die that Quick. And Yes is delied. 87c at 4.8ghz
Posted on Reply
#17
KarymidoN
cellar door said:
You absolutely NEED it - for what? Are you having trouble managing the heat output on the 7980 XE? Wait you can afford a chip like that but you can't afford proper cooling for that OC?

Sorry mate there is soo much wrong with everything you wrote.
probab just a troll. no way you *NEED* 14-18 cores at 4.9ghz+ for GAMING.
If you not gaming then core is irrelevant on most of the cases, most WORK apps need high bandwich, high IPC, fast memory with low latency at a good temp and low power consumption... you really a fool if you think 5ghz 6 cores that gives you 2000CB is better than 3.8ghz 8cores that gives you 2200CB and consumes less energy and needs less cooling. just stop it man.
Posted on Reply
#18
NicklasAPJ
KarymidoN said:
probab just a troll. no way you *NEED* 14-18 cores at 4.9ghz+ for GAMING.
If you not gaming then core is irrelevant on most of the cases, most WORK apps need high bandwich, high IPC, fast memory with low latency at a good temp and low power consumption... you really a fool if you think 5ghz 6 cores that gives you 2000CB is better than 3.8ghz 8cores that gives you 2200CB and consumes less energy and needs less cooling. just stop it man.
Where did i Said i need it for gameing? You takeing tings out of no where.
14-18 cores is for my NEEDS of use, not Gaming, but 3D benchmarking.
Posted on Reply
#19
cellar door
NicklasAPJ said:
I run 1x quad and 1x trippe rad. If you dont know What you talk about, then dont start to play smart. The heat and watt output is really hot at that point, We talk 700 watt + Alone from The cpu, The waterblock cant Get The heat away from The die that Quick. And Yes is delied. 87c at 4.8ghz
Sorry, but this is laughable what you are describing here. And you didn't even answer the question? - "You absolutely NEED it - for what?" Sorry but I can't stop laughing how you MUST have 16cores at 4.9+ Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#20
NicklasAPJ
cellar door said:
Sorry, but this is laughable what you are describing here. And you didn't even answer the question? - "You absolutely NEED it - for what?" Sorry but I can't stop laughing how you MUST have 16cores at 4.9+ Ghz.
Look above you, 3D Benchmarking.
Posted on Reply
#21
cellar door
NicklasAPJ said:
Look above you, 3D Benchmarking.
Then buy a chiller like Intel did for their demo and wait like everyone else until the technology is there to make your 'dream' come true - because it it not gonna happen right now.
Posted on Reply
#22
NicklasAPJ
cellar door said:
Then buy a chiller like Intel did for their demo and wait like everyone else until the technology is there to make your 'dream' come true - because it it not gonna happen right now.
My hobby is overclock and benchmarking, BUT i dont Want to go minus C, i like to stay over The ambait temps, I have played with LN2, but The other is more Fun to see What you Can Do with normal “water” cooling. Im just saying, i wish We could Get cpus that are higher clocks. Not that it would happen right now, maybe with amd 7 nm, or intel next gen, We Can only wait and see :-)
Posted on Reply
#23
KarymidoN
NicklasAPJ said:
Where did i Said i need it for gameing? You takeing tings out of no where.
14-18 cores is for my NEEDS of use, not Gaming, but 3D benchmarking.
good luck living in alaska, cause you need that cooling tho...
Posted on Reply
#24
NicklasAPJ
KarymidoN said:
good luck living in alaska, cause you need that cooling tho...
Haha, I wish i did, but is not to bad here In Denmark right now Aleast, last week We had 29-30c In The Day, but now is more 19-21c
Posted on Reply
#25
phill
So much want... Well, maybe my 5960X is going to be the last Intel CPU I do buy.....
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment