The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review: CPUs on Steroids
by Ian Cutress on August 10, 2017 9:00 AM ESTPower Consumption and Distribution
With Threadripper weighing in at a TDP of 180W, it comes across as a big jump from previous AMD platforms that hover at 45-95W, or Intel platforms that are sub-95W for mainstream and up to 140W for the high-end desktop. Let us not forget that AMD actually released a 220W TDP processor in the form of the FX-9590 running at 5 GHz, which was initially sold for 12+ months as a part purely for OEMs and system integrators in order to ensure that users had sufficient cooling. Eventually it was released as a consumer product, bundled with a beefy double width liquid cooler and a pair of fans. AMD sampled us a CPU, not before I went and spent £300 on one myself and reviewed it:
Nonetheless, 180W for AMD isn’t a new concept for TDP. For this review I’ve been using the liquid cooler AMD shipped with our FX-9590 sample, because it was designed to handle at least 220W. (AMD also sampled a 3x120 Thermaltake cooler with Threadripper, which would have taken a lot longer to organise on the test bed.)
For our power testing, we run Prime95 for at least 60 seconds then use software to poll the integrated power counters on the chip to get results. Depending on the CPU, we can get data for the full chip, per core, DRAM, uncore or integrated graphics – it relies on our tool being up to date or the registers for this data to be known. Normally this way of reading the power consumption can be a smidge inaccurate compared to more invasive methods, it is quick and scriptable, and it is this data that governs if and when a CPU is hitting power limits and needs to adjust fan speeds/frequencies to compensate.
To start, let us take the full package power consumption for Threadripper.
On the whole, Threadripper is a hungry chip even at idle. Most of the power here is being consumed by the memory controller and PCIe bus to keep the GPU ticking over with a static display. The fact that the 1950X running DDR4-3200 memory is pulling another 13W+ from the CPU shows how much of an impact the memory controller has on total power consumption. For all the chips, we’re recording sub 2W power draw from the cores.
When we load up the package with a single thread, it fires up the uncore/mesh as well as the memory and puts the system into its peak turbo state. Depending on the way the CPU is designed, this could fire up a single core or a bank of cores, so although in a bank of cores only one will be doing the work, it can still train power to be noticeable.
The results show all the Threadripper CPUs again hitting around the same mark, well above the Ryzen CPUs, and matching the 10C/8C parts from Broadwell-E and Haswell-E respectively. The 1950X running DDR4-3200 is still pulling an additional +13W, but interestingly the Skylake-X cores have jumped in power consumption to around this level. It would appear that the MoDe-X interconnect used in Skylake-X can also draw substantial power.
The next test is running the CPU will a full complement of threads for the design of the chip. This usually puts maximum strain on all the cores, the interconnect and the memory controller.
All the Threadripper CPUs hit around 177W, just under the 180W TDP, while the Skylake-X CPUs move to their 140W TDP. The 1950X in Game Mode seems to draw a little less power, which might be due to how the DRAM is being run in a NUMA environment.
One of the other graphs we have for some of the chips is the ‘cores-only’ power draw. At full load, we get an interesting plot:
The key element to this graph is the 1950X running at DDR4-3200. Because the faster DRAM requires the memory controller to draw more power, it leaves less power for the CPU cores, potentially resulting in a lower turbo core frequency. So while the faster memory might guarantee faster performance in memory limited scenarios, the core frequency might end up lower given worse performance overall. It’s an interesting thought, so we plotted the per-core power for the 1950X at DDR4-2400 and DDR4-3200.
In this graph, the core number on the vertical axis is where the power measurement is taken, while from left to right is where we are loading up the cores, two threads at a time.
Initially we see that with two threads being loaded onto one core, that single core is drawing 20.77W. This quickly moves down to 19W, 17W, 16W to 11W by the time that half of the chip is loaded. At this point, with 8 cores loaded, the cores on their own are drawing 89W – if we add in the DRAM controllers, this would certainly be more than a Ryzen CPU. However, as we move past 10 cores loaded, something odd happens – the total power consumption of the cores drops from 120W to 116W to 102W when 24 threads are in play. This is indicated by the second silicon die drawing less power per core. It then ramps up again, with the full chip giving each core about 8.2W.
Moving onto the DDR4-3200 graph shows a similar scenario:
At first, the single core gets a big 21W, although as we load up the cores by the time it hits 4 cores/8 threads, the sub-15W per core at DDR4-3200 is being eclipsed by the 16W per core at DDR4-2400. Moving through we see a small wobble at 24-26 threads again, with the final tally putting only 114W onto the cores, 20W less than at DDR4-2400.
Some of the data for Game Mode did not come through properly, so we can’t draw many conclusions from what we have, although an interesting point should be made. In Game Mode, when a system requires a low number of threads, say anywhere from 2-8, because SMT is disabled these threads need to run on different CCXes. In Creator Mode, these threads would group into 1-4 cores over one CCX, and consume less power. At DDR4-2400, this means 65W in Creator mode for 8 threads (4 cores) compared to 89W in Game mode for 8 cores active.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
347 Comments
View All Comments
nitin213 - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
Thanks for your reply. Hopefully the test suite can be expanded as Intel's CPUs probably also move to higher core count and IO ranges in future.and i completely understand the frustration trying to get a 3rd party to change their defaults. Cheers
deathBOB - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
It's clear to me . . . Ian is playing both sides and making out like a bandit! /sFreckledTrout - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
Ian can we get an updated comments section so we can +/- people and after x number of minuses they wont show by default. I'm saying this because some of these comments(the one in this chain included) are not meaningful responces. The comments section is by far the weakest link on Anantech.Nice review btw.
mapesdhs - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
toms has that, indeed it's kinda handy for blanking out the trolls. Whether it's any useful indicator of "valid" opinion though, well, that kinda varies. :D (there's nowt to stop the trolls from voting everything under the sun, though one option would be to auto-suspend someone's ability to vote if their own posts get hidden from down voting too often, a hands-off way of slapping the trolls)Given the choice, I'd much rather just be able to *edit* what I've posted than up/down-vote what others have written. I still smile recalling a guy who posted a followup to apologise for the typos in his o.p., but the followup had typos aswell, after which he posted aaaaagh. :D
Ian.
Johan Steyn - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
Ian thanks for at least responding, I appreciate it. Please compare your review to sites like PCPer and many others. They have no problem to also point out the weak points of TR, yet clearly understand for what TR was mostly designed and focus properly on it and even though they did not test the 64 PCI lanes as an example, mention that they are planning a follow-up to do it, since it is an important point. You do mention these as well, but could have said more than just mention it by the way.Look at your review, most of it is about games. Are you serious?
I have to give you credit to at least mention the problems with Sysmark.
Let me give you an example of slanted journalism, When you do the rendering benchmarks, where AMD is known to shine, you only mention at each benchmark what they do etc, and fail to mention that AMD clearly beats Intel, even though other sites focus more ons these benchmarks. In the one benchmark where Intel get a descent score, you take time to mention that:
"Though it's interesting just how close the 10-core Core i9-7900X gets in the CPU (C++) test despite a significant core count disadvantage, likely due to a combination of higher IPC and clockspeeds."
Not in one of the rendering benchmarks do you give credit to AMD, yet you found it fitting to end the section of with:
"Intel recently announced that its new 18-core chip scores 3200 on Cinebench R15. That would be an extra 6.7% performance over the Threadripper 1950X for 2x the cost."
Not slanted journalism? At least you mention "2x the cost," but for most this will not defer them in buying the monopoly.
After focussing so much time on game performance, I am not sure you understand TR at all. AMD still has a long way to go in many areas. Why? Because corrupt Intel basically drove them to bankruptcy, but that is a discussion for another day. I lived through those days and experienced it myself.
Maybe I missed it, but where did you discuss the issue of memory speed? You mention in the beginning of memory overclock. Did you test the system running at 3200 or 2666? It is important to note. If you ran at 2666, then you are missing a very important point. Ryzen is known to gain a huge amount with memory speed. You should not regard 3200 as an overclock, since that is what that memory is made for, even if 2666 is standard spec. Most other sites I checked, used it like that. If you did use 3200, don't you think you should mention it?
Why is it that your review ends up meh about TR and leave you rather wanting an i9 an almost all respects, yet most of the other site gives admiration where deserved, even though they have criticism as well. Ian I see that you clearly are disappointed with TR, which is OK, maybe you just like playing games and that is why you are so.
It was clear how much you admire Intel in your previous article. You say that I gave no examples of slanted journalism, maybe you should read my post again. "Most Powerful, Most scalable." It is well known that people don't read the fine print. This was intentional. If not, you are a very unlucky guys for having so many unintended mishaps. Then I truly need to say I am sorry.
For once, please be a bit excited that there is some competition against the monopoly of Intel, or maybe you are also deluded that they became so without any underhanded ways.
By the way, sorry that I called you Anand. I actually wanted to type Anandtech, but left it like it. This site still carries his name and he should still take responsibility. After I posted, I realised I should have just checked the author, so sorry about that.
vanilla_gorilla - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
"Intel recently announced that its new 18-core chip scores 3200 on Cinebench R15. That would be an extra 6.7% performance over the Threadripper 1950X for 2x the cost."How do you not understand that is a dig at Intel? He's saying you have to pay twice as much for only a 6.7% improvement.
smilingcrow - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
The memory speed approach taken was clearly explained in the test and was stated as being consistent with how they always test.I don't take issue with testing at stock speeds at launch day as running memory out of spec for the system can be evaluated in depth later on.
Johan Steyn - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link
That is just rubbish. Threadripper has no problem with 3200 memory and other sites has no problem running it at that speed. 3200 memory is designed to run 3200, why run it at 2666? There is just no excuse except being paid by Intel.Maybe then you can accuse other sites of being unscientific?
fanofanand - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link
Anandtech always tests at JDEC, regardless of the brand.Manch - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link
""Intel recently announced that its new 18-core chip scores 3200 on Cinebench R15. That would be an extra 6.7% performance over the Threadripper 1950X for 2x the cost."Not slanted journalism? At least you mention "2x the cost," but for most this will not defer them in buying the monopoly."
You call Intel the monopoly and call him out for not wording the sentence to dissuade people from buying Intel. Who has the bias here? If he was actively promoting Intel over AMD or vice versa, you'd be OK with the latter, but to do neither. He's an Intel shill? Come on. That's unfair. HOW should he have wrote it so it would satisfy you?
FYI Anand is gone. He's NOT responsible for anything at Anandtech. Are you going to hold Wozniak's feet to the fire for the lack of ports on a Mac too?