SYSmark, WebXPRT, 7-zip
Testing Configuration
For this review, every single benchmark and test scenario we use has been updated or removed, including a couple of new entries. We are using the most up to date versions of each software as of last week, to make sure we account for any changes or architectural changes that have occurred. Here is the new suite, in alphabetical order.
- 7-zip Compression
- Audacity MP3 Encode
- Blender
- Cinebench R15
- Euler 3D
- Geekbench
- Handbrake
- POV-Ray
- SiSoft Sandra
- SYSmark 2014 SE
- WebXPRT
- X264 Encode
The full testbed configuration is listed below.
| Test System Setup | |
| CPU | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Intel Core i9-7900X AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-7700K Intel Core i5-7600K Intel Core i7-6700K Intel Core i7-6950X Intel Core i7-6900K Intel Core i7-6800K |
| Motherboard | ASUS X399 Zenith Extreme (Threadripper) ASUS Prime X299-Deluxe (Skylake-X) ASUS Crosshair VI Hero (Ryzen) ASUS Prime Z270-A (Kaby Lake, Skylake) ASUS X99-Deluxe II (Broadwell-E) |
| Memory | 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 |
| Storage | Corsair Neutron XTi 480 SSD |
| Sound Card | On-board |
| Graphics Card | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB |
| Graphics Drivers | NVIDIA 378.49 |
| Power Supply | Corsair RM1000x |
| Operating System | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
A big thanks to our friends at Corsair for hooking us with a collection of new RM1000x power supplies, Vengeance LPX 32GB 3200 MHz memory kits, and Neutron XTi 480 GB SSDs to upgrade all of our CPU testing platforms! They have helped streamline our testing process great.
SYSmark 2014 SE
SYSmark® 2014 SE (Second Edition) is an application-based benchmark that reflects usage patterns of business users in the areas of Office Productivity, Data/Financial Analysis and Media Creation. Joining these in SYSmark 2014 SE is a new Responsiveness scenario which models ‘pain points’ in the user experience when performing common activities. SYSmark 2014 SE features the most popular applications from each of their respective fields.
SYSmark results for the Threadripper 1950X aren’t stunning, though I don’t imagine many people are surprised by that. The overall score for it is in line with the Ryzen 7 1800X, though the sub-test scores do vary somewhat. The data/financial workload puts the 1950X as the fastest CPU tested by a wide margin, but in office productivity and responsiveness, it comes in dead last. Likely the memory architecture at work has something to do with this, giving a nod to the most consistent latency results of the Intel and single-die Ryzen products.
WebXPRT
WebXPRT 2015 uses scenarios created to mirror the tasks you do every day to compare the performance of almost any Web-enabled device. It contains six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workloads: Photo Enhancement, Organize Album, Stock Option Pricing, Local Notes, Sales Graphs, and Explore DNA Sequencing.
It runs these four tests seven times each:
- Photo Enhancement: Measures the time to apply three effects (Sharpen, Emboss, and Glow) to two photos each, a set of six photos total.
- Organize Album: Measures the time it takes to check for human faces in a set of five photos.
- Stocks Option Pricing: Measures the time to calculate financial indicators of a stock based on historical data and display the result in a dashboard.
- Local Notes: Measures the time to store notes securely in the browser's local storage and display recent entries.
- Sales Graphs: Measures the time to calculate and display multiple views of sales data.
- Explore DNA Sequencing: Measures the time it takes to filter eight DNA sequences for specific characteristics.
Each test uses different combinations of HTML5 Canvas 2D and Javascript, common elements in many Web pages, to gauge how well your device and browser work together in everyday Web browsing situations.
Overall WebXPRT results are actually pretty good for the Threadripper CPUs! The 1950X is faster than the Core i9-7900X but falls behind the highly-clocked Core i7-7700K and like parts.
7-Zip Compression
Our 7-zip compression testing shows the advantages of higher thread count, though the 7900X from Intel does maintain the performance leadership position at 8 threads, falling behind the 1950X with 16 threads just 1.7%.
I’m very curious on how will
I’m very curious on how will the two dies and memory modes affect virtualization? I’ve only experimented with VM in the past but is it possible to run two Hexa-cores windows VM and with each individual memory nodes assigned to each VM?
Are you setting the Blender
Are you setting the Blender tile sizes to 256 or 16/32?
Just wondering since an overclocked 5960x gets 1 minute 30 seconds on the BMW at 16×16 tile size. Significant difference that shouldn’t just be a result of the OC.
For reference: 256 or 512 are for GPU and 16 or 32 are for CPU – at least for getting the best and generally more comparable results to what we get over at BlenderArtists.
When reading is not enough,
When reading is not enough, the mistakes are OVER 9000!
“If you content creation is your livelihood or your passion, ”
” as consumers in this space are often will to pay more”
” Anyone itching to speed some coin”
” flagship status will be impressed by what the purchase.”
” but allows for the same connectivity support that the higher priced CPUs.”
“”””Editor””””
Now just point me to the
Now just point me to the pages… 😉
Nice to see a review with
Nice to see a review with more than a bunch of games tested. Keep up the good work!
Should not a test like 7-zip
Should not a test like 7-zip use 32 threads as max since that is what is presented to the OS??
now it only uses 50% of the threads on TR but 80% on i9-7900x.
Silly performance, looking
Silly performance, looking forward to the 1900X and maybe 1900.
I sometimes wonder why nobody
I sometimes wonder why nobody ever points out that within CCX (4 cores that can allow a lot of games to run comfortably) ZEN has latencies of half those of Intel CPUs. Binding a game to those 4 cores (8 threads like any i7) has significant impact on performance. It does not change memory latencies of course but core to core is much better.
I’m glad someone else noticed
I’m glad someone else noticed this besides myself. I noted this during the Ryzen launch & quickly noted that by using CPU affinity along w CPU priority to force my games to run exclusively within 1 CCX & take advantage of using high CPU processing time on these same CPU cores I could take advantage of this up to a point.
What all this shows to me is that the OS & game developers software need to be revised to better handle this architecture at the core logic level instead of usersAMD having to provideuse methods to try to do this that cannot be used in a more dynamic fashion. I’ve ran some testing on Win 10’s Game Mode & discovered that MS is actually trying to use CPU affinity to dynamically set running game threads to be run on the fastestlowest latency CPU cores to “optimize” game output thru the CPU but it still tends to cross the CPU CCX’s at times if left on it’s own.
What I’ve found is by doing this my games run much smoother w a lot less variance which gives the “feel” of games running faster (actual FPS is the same) due to lower input lag & much better GPU frametime variance graph lines w very few spikes….essentially a fairly flat GPU frametime variance line which is what you want to achieve performance-wise.
Just to note….my box is running an AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPUSapphire R9 Fury X graphics card w no OC’s applied to either the CPU or GPU.
It’s a step in the right direction but needs more refinement at the OS level……
As expected, performance per
As expected, performance per dollar is crap in single threaded tasks, which most workloads are. Games don’t even use more than 1 or 2 cores.
Yea games only use 2 cores
Yea games only use 2 cores lol
http://i.imgur.com/Hg3Ev5p.png
And “as expected”, we have
And “as expected”, we have yet another Intel shill complaining about gaming performance on a production CPU, which isn’t made for gaming (although it’s not bad in the least and has a longer future as devs code for more than Intel’s tiny core count (under $1000))..
-“performance per dollar is crap in single threaded workloads”…
Well, since these aren’t sold as a single or dual core CPU, performance per dollar as a unit is beyond everything on Intel’s menu.
– “Games don’t even use more than 1 or 2 cores”
Well, I’ve been using a FX-8350 for 2 years now, and I always see all 8 cores loaded up on every single game I play (and I have many). Windows 10 makes use of these cores even when it’s not coded in programs. It would work even better if devs started coding for at least 8 cores, and I believe they will start doing this in earnest now that 8-core CPUs are now considered average core counts (unless you’re with Intel).
You would have been better off stating that core vs core is in Intel’s favor on the 4-core chips and some others, but ironically the “performance per dollar”, as you mention is superior with AMD.. in every way.
What memory are you using,
What memory are you using, and could you name a 64GB kit that works in XMP? And why 3200Mhz over 3600?
Intel is still superior both
Intel is still superior both in raw performance and in perf/$. If you were being objective you wouldn’t have given slapped an editor’s choice on this inferior product.
In Handbrake the 1800x is 40%
In Handbrake the 1800x is 40% slower than the 1950x and in reverse the 1950x is 67% faster than 1800x.
Open cinebench with a TR or
Open cinebench with a TR or even an 1800x. Show me any Intel chip that can come within 20% of the 1950x. The entire Ryzen 7 lineup is king of the “perf/$” category. 1800x = $365 on eBay right now. Look how close it matches with Intel products that are double the price or worse.
If you want to compare single core perf vs Intel, you can win an argument.. at the cost of very high power draw and even worse cash draw. Perf/$ is a dead argument for any Intel fanboy. Find something else. BTW, are you also commenting under “Thatman007” or something? Sound like the same Intel mouthpiece.
Sorry for necroposting, but
Sorry for necroposting, but it really belongs here:
The recent Meltdown vulnerability and its performance implications on Intel CPUs pretty much leveled the playground now. After reading the article and all the comments above I opted for a very good B350 motherboard and a Ryzen 1800X to replace my Core i7 5930K (Haswell). Reason is that my CPU will likely be hit very badly performance wise by the upcoming Windows 10 security update. Intel should pay back 30% to all affected CPU owners, actually…
Reason is that likely I would not gain anything from NUMA, except of the additional complications. So I opt for the easier to manager (lower) power consumption and less noise from cooling as a result.
Thank you for collecting all the great info.