Monday, August 30th 2021

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX CPU Appears In Benchmark

AMD's 64-core Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX will be the flagship processor for the upcoming Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series that will be launched later this year. This particular processor has already surfaced on the Milky Way@Home distributed computing database along with the Threadripper PRO 5945WX. This latest benchmark comes from PugetBench (now removed) where the processor was tested in the photogrammetry software Agisoft Metashape 10. The 5995WX was paired with an AMD reference platform Sharkstooth-CGL WRX80 motherboard and 64 GB of 3200 MHz memory.

The benchmark includes rendering times for various tests including Park Map, Rock Model, School Model, and School Map where the processor generates a 3D object from a set of photos. There are only extremely limited results with other processors to compare to so this benchmark cannot be used as an indication of performance. The Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series should be fully compatible with existing TRX80 and WRX80 motherboards and is currently expected to launch in Q4 2021.
Sources: Puget Systems (Internet Archive), VideoCardz (image)
Add your own comment

10 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX CPU Appears In Benchmark

#1
DeathtoGnomes
I can hear Intel cringing at these scores. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#2
ratirt
DeathtoGnomesI can hear Intel cringing at these scores. :rolleyes:
I don't think Intel will cry seeing those. Intel wont be competing in the 64core segment anyway.
Posted on Reply
#3
ARF
Yeah, Intel exists in a parallel universe where the quad core is a god.
Intel only believes in a quad core and doesn't see beyond that.
Posted on Reply
#4
ratirt
ARFYeah, Intel exists in a parallel universe where the quad core is a god.
Intel only believes in a quad core and doesn't see beyond that.
I disagree. the New CPUs are more cores than 4 but they do comprise of the big.little but still more cores. It is not what Intel believes but what it is capable to produce with their current node.
Posted on Reply
#5
ARF
ratirtI disagree. the New CPUs are more cores than 4 but they do comprise of the big.little but still more cores. It is not what Intel believes but what it is capable to produce with their current node.
Intel offers CPUs with more than 4 cores but the largest stock that it supplies is based around the 4-core variants. This is the mobile, lower-end Core i-series, etc., etc.

Intel can produce CPUs with more than 4 cores in these market segments, but it's the greed that stops it of doing so!

Anyways, don't take it too exactly. I didn't mean what you understood.
Posted on Reply
#6
DeathtoGnomes
ARFIntel offers CPUs with more than 4 cores but the largest stock that it supplies is based around the 4-core variants. This is the mobile, lower-end Core i-series, etc., etc.

Intel can produce CPUs with more than 4 cores in these market segments, but it's the greed that stops it of doing so!

Anyways, don't take it too exactly. I didn't mean what you understood.
Soooo what you're saying is there are hamsters glued together to stack up cores in groups of 4?
:roll::pimp::lovetpu:
Posted on Reply
#7
ratirt
ARFIntel offers CPUs with more than 4 cores but the largest stock that it supplies is based around the 4-core variants. This is the mobile, lower-end Core i-series, etc., etc.
ARFIntel can produce CPUs with more than 4 cores in these market segments, but it's the greed that stops it of doing so!

Anyways, don't take it too exactly. I didn't mean what you understood.
Still, your statement is incorrect. Even if Intel is using 4c in the mobile market, it doesn't mean it is without any other reason than 4c being treated as a God. From a technical point of view it may be due to power usage (an important aspect) and heat (another important aspect) and the performance must be adequate to the competition which it is. Either way there are processors for mobile market (laptops) from Intel which consist of 6c and 8c variants. So still disagree.
Posted on Reply
#8
ARF
ratirtStill, your statement is incorrect. Even if Intel is using 4c in the mobile market, it doesn't mean it is without any other reason than 4c being treated as a God. From a technical point of view it may be due to power usage (an important aspect) and heat (another important aspect) and the performance must be adequate to the competition which it is. Either way there are processors for mobile market (laptops) from Intel which consist of 6c and 8c variants. So still disagree.
No, your statement is wrong. You contradict with yourself by saying:

"From a technical point of view it may be due to power usage"

Also, Intel has stayed several years on a legacy quad-core design, from Sandy Bridge to Skylake.
Intel has always claimed that the consumers don't need anything more than quad-cores.
Intel also claims that the benchmarks are no longer relevant.

So, yes, in the Intel's universe, the quad-core is treated as god.

Why don't they compete with the 64-core Threadrippers?

It is not like there is a real silicon limit in the die size.
Posted on Reply
#9
Fouquin
ARFIt is not like there is a real silicon limit in the die size.
There absolutely is. It's called the reticle limit. It's a constraint of the lithography machinery to print with near-guaranteed detail a single mask. If your mask exceeds the reticle limit you end up with an incomplete print riddled with imperfections and errors, wasting material and time. It's the exact reason why AMD switched to chiplets; small chips that don't approach the reticle limits of the lithography equipment are less likely to contain errors, improving yields and reducing waste.
Posted on Reply
#10
ratirt
ARF"From a technical point of view it may be due to power usage"
Dude i said may be not is. At least my statement has some sort of an rational explanation and technical background not like yours.
ARFAlso, Intel has stayed several years on a legacy quad-core design, from Sandy Bridge to Skylake.
Intel has always claimed that the consumers don't need anything more than quad-cores.
Intel also claims that the benchmarks are no longer relevant.
No competition created that notion. Why try and give more when you will still sell everything you produce even if it is 4c CPUs that you produce cheap? Intel just didnt see a reason to go beyond 4c and why would it during that time?
ARFSo, yes, in the Intel's universe, the quad-core is treated as god.

Why don't they compete with the 64-core Threadrippers?

It is not like there is a real silicon limit in the die size.
No it is not treated as a God. They don't have the node and arch to do it and @Fouquin is right. There is a limit. Also there is one more thing. It needs to be profitable and yields have to be in place.
It requires planning, not just a stupid idea lets make 64 cores and boom they do it. Hundreds of billions of dollars company like Intel would have made the chip if they could, if it made sense and if they could get a profit. The company is about profit as well, Dont forget that.
Posted on Reply