Ryzen threadripper 1900x

Тест процессора AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X | CHIP

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X младший представитель процессоров AMD для энтузиастов. Всего 8 ядер, но с большим потенциалом в будущем благодаря поддержке 4-канальной памяти и большому объему кеш-памяти.

По итогам тестовых испытаний процессор AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X получает лишь посредственную итоговую оценку в 68,6 процентных пунктов из 100 возможных. Превосходных результатов у протестированной нами модели отмечено не было. В сравнении с конкурнетами она не является ни особенно хорошей, ни особенно плохой. Оценки в отдельных зачетных дисциплинах без единого исключения можно отнести к среднему уровню. С точки зрения соотношения цены и качества на момент проведения тестов AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X является очень хорошим процессором.

высокая производительность 8-ядерный процессор для потребительского сегмента интегрированная многопоточность 4-канальная организация памяти поддержка двух PCIe SSD Nvme большое количество линий PCIe умеренное тепловыделение

нет интегрированной графической подсистемы трудности в организации RAID Nvme SSD тщательный подбор производителя оперативной памяти ограниченный выбор систем охлаждения

Результаты тестирования AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

  • Соотношение цена/качество Хорошо
  • Место в общем рейтинге 12 из 28
  • Соотношение цена/качество: 72
  • Производительность CPU (100%): 67.4

Результаты тестирования AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Характеристики и результаты тестирования AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Соотношение цена/качество 72
Производительность CPU (100%) 67
Архитектура Threadripper
Исполнение (форм-фактор) TR4
Кол-во ядер 8
Кол-во потоков 16
Номинальная частота 3,8 ГГц
Максимальная частота 4,0 ГГц
Техпроцесс 14 нм
Объем L2-кеш 8x 512 Кбайт
Объем L3-кеш 16 Мбайт
Термопакет (TDP) 180 Вт
Тест CPU: PCMark 8 3.825 бал.
Тест CPU: Excel 2010 SP1 - моделир. Монте-Карло 2,7 с
Тест CPU: Cinebench R15 (макс. ядер CPU) 1.706 бал.
Тест: TrueCrypt 7.1 AES-Twofish-Serpent 572,0 Мбайт/с
Тест CPU: HandBrake 0.9.5 106,6 fps
Тест CPU: PovRay 3.7 RC3 (1280x1024 без AA) 3.540 Пикселей/с
Видеоядро -
Тест GPU: 3DMark Cloud Gate -
Тест GPU: 3DMark Firestrike -
Тест GPU: Metro Last Light -
Тест GPU: Bioshock Infinite -

Во время тестовых испытаний CPU топового уровня AMD Ryzen 7 1800X шел с Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, как говорится, ноздря в ноздрю. Несмотря на небольшие уступки «Threadripper» в плане производительности, для профессиональных пользователей на самом деле есть только один выбор — Ryzen 7 1800X, который стоит приблизительно на 10 000 рублей дешевле.

Фото: компании-производители

Читайте также:

Intel работает над процессором с графикой от AMD Тест процессора AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

Дмитрий Никишенков

  • ТЕГИ
  • 1900X
  • amd
  • Ryzen
  • Threadripper
  • тест



AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X: Rendering, Encoding, Compression & AVX

As expected, the tuned Threadripper 1900X provides similar performance as an overclocked 1800X in our multi-core Cinebench test, though it ekes out a win at stock settings thanks to its higher frequency. Threadripper 1920X's extra cores/threads allow it to take a commanding lead over the rest of the group.

Cinebench's single-core benchmark places Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in the middle of the group. And again, we see the 1900X's stock configuration use its higher XFR boost to beat out the overclocked version. Intel's processors continue to offer higher clock rates and IPC throughput though, so they take the top spots in our chart.

Corona utilizes all available cores and threads, so we see similar performance from the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, though the latter takes a slight lead after tuning.

The single-core POV-Ray testing repeats what we saw under Cinebench: the stock 1900X edges our our overclocked configuration again. Meanwhile, the multi-core POV-Ray and Blender tests benefit from the 1900X's higher frequencies in stock trim. Threadripper 1900X doesn't benefit much from its quad-channel memory during those tests, as evidenced by its similar performance to the Ryzen 7 1800X when they are both locked to the same frequency. PCMark 10's rendering and visualization test tells much the same story.

The 1900X offers solid performance in our OpenCL-accelerated LuxMark test, though. We don't have OpenCL-based results from the Core i7-7820X, but that's not a mistake. We spent considerable time trying to get this test to run correctly on any Skylake-X processor, to no avail. Intel later confirmed our suspicions that OpenCL isn't correctly taking advantage of AVX-512 instructions, so we'll have to wait for a fix before we can generate results. The company has plans to support AVX-512 in a future release of the Intel OpenCL SDK.

Encoding & Compression

LAME finds the 1900X offering similar performance as Ryzen 7 1800X once again, though the eight-core Threadripper is a bit faster in our x264 HandBrake test.

We re-ran that benchmark on the 1900X using dual- and quad-channel memory configurations and recorded a 20% performance advantage with quad-channel. The tuned 1900X only offers a 3% performance lead over our overclocked 1800X, suggesting that some of its advantage may be lost to poor application scaling or code that isn't optimized for the unique Threadripper architecture.

We see a larger delta between the Intel and AMD processors during the HandBrake x265 test than the x264 test, but that is likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. Again, the tuned 1900X's 10% performance improvement with x265 and quad-channel memory doesn't equate to a large win over a tuned Ryzen 7 1800X. We also provide results from Y-Cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version, which includes Ryzen optimizations.

Compression workloads benefit greatly from multi-core architectures, provided the storage subsystem can feed the processor fast enough to utilize its full capabilities. The stock 1900X offers similar performance as an overclocked 1800X during the multi-core compression workload, which is a byproduct of its quad-channel memory advantage. A tuned Core i7-7820X takes the overall lead, but the overclocked 1920X challenges.

The decompression benchmark benefits from integer performance, and the 1920X's ability to work on 24 threads concurrently provides a tremendous advantage over the rest of the pack. AMD's 1920X available resources allow it to post an almost-50% lead in overclocked trim.


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X: Overclocking, Infinity Fabric & Test Setup

The Ryzen 7 series features a single-die design, whereas AMD's Threadripper models employ a quad-die package with just two of its dies active. That means the 8C/16T 1900X effectively wields a dual-die arrangement with four active cores in each die.

Our first slide below shows the alignment of AMD's 16C/32T Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Each die contains a pair of four-core CPU complexes (CCXes) that incur increased latency when they communicate with the neighboring CCX (denoted as CCX0 and CCX1). Another layer of latency comes into play when they communicate with the CCXes resident on the second die (marked as Die1). Simplified, the greater distance between dies means that die-to-die latency is much higher than the latency between two CCXes resident on the same piece of silicon.

The larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across both CCXes inside each die. The second slide shows how AMD disables one core per CCX (blocked out in blue) to create the smaller 12C/24T 1920X model.

AMD takes an entirely different tack with its 1900X, as seen on the third slide. In a bid to eliminate one layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die. The adjustment makes sense; spreading the cores evenly across all four CCXes increases the chance of incurring latent communication with neighboring CCXes. 

Disabling two entire CCXes also has other implications, though. Inactive cores, provided they are near active cores, can absorb excess heat, potentially improving overclockability. Case in point: it's common to achieve lower overclocks on the 16C 1950X than the 12C 1920X. Consequently, the 1900X's clustered cores should reduce latency, eliminating the CCX-to-CCX delay entirely and only leaving us with die-to-die latency. But they could also potentially hamper overclocking.

The Infinity Fabric Breakdown

A few quick tests with SiSoftware's Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency test illustrate the consequence of AMD's design decisions. Flipping the 1900X into Creator Mode, with all eight cores active, results in three distinct layers of latency. In contrast, the 1950X in Creator Mode has four layers.

Switching the 1900X into Game Mode disables one entire die, leaving us with a 4C/8T processor that has only two layers of latency. Again, the 1950X in Game Mode has a third layer that affects performance. But the 1900X in Game Mode also achieves the lowest fabric bandwidth in our line-up of AMD models.

Finally, the two disabled dies remove a total of 16MB of L3 cache from the 1900X. That means it offers half of the multi-threaded cache bandwidth of the 1950X in Game and Creator Mode. Incidentally, the 1900X demonstrates less multi-threaded throughput than Ryzen 7 1800X in Game Mode. But the 1800X also proffers eight cores with simultaneous multi-threading, while the 1900X in Game Mode drops to a 4C/8T processor with only 8MB of L3 cache. Many games are sensitive to memory and cache performance, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out in our game testing.


Overclocking the 1900X was an exercise in simplicity. We merely adjusted the data rate to DDR4-3200 and set timings at 14-14-14-34. We increased Vcore to 1.39V, well below AMD's recommended maximum of 1.45V, and adjusted the SoC voltage to 1.1V. This proved stable up to 4 GHz during extended stress tests. However, even in the face of unsafe voltages, we were unable to attain a stable 4.1 GHz overclock to match our efforts with the 12-core Threadripper 1920X. Dialing back the memory frequency didn't help, either. Considering that AMD supposedly selects the top 5% of its dies for Threadripper CPUs, you might assume that the clustered active core arrangement comes into play. We only see a 100 MHz reduction, so it's more likely that our retail sample is simply on the lower end of the bell curve.

It's notable that a 4 GHz overclock might actually hamper the 1900X's performance in lightly threaded workloads, since we lose the benefit of a quad-core 4.2 GHz XFR boost. 

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
HardwareAMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920X, 1900XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/s

Intel LGA 2066

Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/s

AMD Socket AM4

AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/s

Intel LGA 1151

Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M7

2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/s


EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair h215i


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Rating

Remember a few short months ago when Intel introduced its Kaby Lake-X Core i7-7740X, which sold for an affordable $350, giving the impression of high-end value, but then required a super-expensive X299-based motherboard? Ryzen Threadripper 1900X sort of feels like that to us. But whereas the -7740X totally neutered Intel's platform with just 16 PCIe lanes and a pair of disabled memory channels, at least Threadripper 1900X comes armed with all of its architecture's functionality intact. Sixty-four lanes of PCIe 3.0 and four channels of DDR4 memory with ECC support may make the difference to power users with lots of add-in devices or bandwidth-sensitive workloads. But 1900X just isn't much more compelling than Ryzen 7 1800X, which also supports ECC memory on some motherboards and comes with a more affordable platform.

We plotted the 1900X's gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. When we reviewed the higher-end Threadripper models, we hypothesized their extra cores could enable more performance in the future, so we included a chart with newer games. But that's not as big a selling point for 1900X, since its core count matches the 1800X.

If you're a gamer above all else, and semi-professional workloads aren't on your radar, AMD's Socket AM4-based Ryzen 5 and 7 CPUs are a better fit for you than Ryzen Threadripper. You'll see similar frame rates from a $220 Ryzen 5 1600 overclocked moderately. Of course, Intel would counter back that its Coffee Lake-based Core i5s between $200 and $300 are better still. The point is you have multiple options that are great for gaming before ever needing to consider a $500 Threadripper 1900X and a way-expensive motherboard.

The real competition happens in our application workloads. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X can't quite match the $600 Core i7-7820X in most workloads, so professionals on the hunt for overall performance may favor Intel's Skylake-X chip. The Ryzen 7 1800X often serves up similar performance as Threadripper 1900X, and it costs $100 less. Then there's the Core i7-8700K, which also sells for $400, trades blows with AMD's top Ryzen 7 chip, but currently suffers from a bad case of paperlaunchitis.

Consider also that exploiting the 1900X's four memory channels means buying a quad-channel kit of DDR4. And then there are the platforms: right now, the absolute cheapest TR4-equipped motherboard sells for $340. Most models come close to $400.

Of course, AMD says its Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is the lowest-cost way to get into its X399 platform...and it is. However, we can’t ascribe much enthusiast value to this niche option. There are faster choices if you prioritize performance and cheaper alternatives if you're trying to save money. Thus, we aren't particularly attracted to Threadripper 1900X. Please, AMD, don't be upset if we send flowers to this chip's better-looking sibling, Ryzen 7 1800X.

  • 64 PCIe lanes
  • Quad-Channel memory
  • Highest frequencies of the threadripper family
  • Supports ECC memory
  • Expensive X399 platform
  • Equivalent or lower performance to less expensive alternatives

AMD's Threadripper 1900X is designed to satisfy the needs of a small group of users that require up to 64 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory with ECC support, but most enthusiasts are better served with cheaper mainstream processors.


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X: Office & Productivity

We toggled Ryzen Threadripper 1900X into Creator Mode for our application testing. This setting exposes the full might of AMD's 8C/16T design, even if some lightly threaded applications fare better under various combinations of the NUMA/UMA and Legacy mode toggles.

Adobe Creative Cloud

Most of the Adobe Creative Cloud test suite favors Intel's processors.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves up competitive performance and benefits from tuning, but the 1920X's overclocked frequency advantage facilitates a slight win in most tests.

After Affects responds well to increased core counts, so the 1900X competes readily. Ryzen 7 1800X isn't as fast in this test, languishing far below the eight-core 1900X. It seems as if the difference comes from Threadripper's quad-channel memory configuration, as repeating the test in dual-channel mode incurs a ~6-second penalty, putting 1900X at the same level as Ryzen 7 1800X. We also observed similar trends with the Photoshop Heavy and InDesign tests.

Web Browser

The web browsing tests align largely based on per-core performance, so frequency and IPC throughput reign supreme. These lightly-threaded metrics highlight the only drawback to overclocking the 1900X.

That is to say our 1900X's 4 GHz ceiling is the same as its maximum quad-core Precision Boost frequency, so overclocking will speed up workloads that use more than four cores. However, if your cooler is beefy enough, a stock Threadripper 1900X hits a 4.2 GHz Extended Frequency Range peak across four cores. So, in some lightly-threaded tasks, you'll see a stock 1900X outperform the overclocked configuration.

Case in point: a stock 1900X outperforms the tuned configuration in our Kraken JavaScript and MotionMark benchmarks, though the deltas are small. A tuned Ryzen 7 1800X also offers better performance than the 1900X. The Intel processors use their frequency and IPC throughput advantage to top the charts.

Cryptography is important for securing online transactions and many other applications. The Threadripper processors enjoy a big lead over competing Intel models in single-core SHA2-256 hashing performance. They are also competitive in the single-core AES-256 tests. But we can clearly see the benefits of the -7820X's AVX2 performance compared to the Core i7-8700K.

Multi-core AES-256 tests align based largely on core count and frequency, but we can spot the advantages of quad-channel memory. The overclocked 1900X doesn't gain much improvement in the SHA2-256 test.  


We're incorporating portions of the PCMark 10 suite into our test regimen. The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness for several types of applications, such as word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, in both warm- and cold-start conditions.

Intel's Core i7-7820X beats the overclocked Threadripper models by a slight margin, but tuning widens the gap considerably. Interestingly, a stock Core i7-8700K almost matches the best effort of our overclocked -7820K. Coffee Lake truly is an impressive performer here.

Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world performance. The test consists of both native and OpenCL acceleration, so we see small performance improvements with OpenCL. The Threadripper 1900X and 1920X fall into the middle of the test results, while the tuned Ryzen 7 1800X provides more performance with native processing.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. We can see the big gains with OpenCL acceleration, and the processors with the highest clock rates generally offer the best results. That means Intel's tuned -7820X and AMD's overclocked 1920X provide similar performance. The 1900X benefits from tuning, but Ryzen 7 1800X at 4 GHz is even faster. Native processing leverages Theadripper 1920X's extra threads to great effect.

We tested the 1900X with both dual- and quad-channel memory to ferret out improvements borne of extra bandwidth. The 1900X with quad-channel memory provided ~6% more performance than the dual-channel setup during the writing test (LibreOffice Writer), helping propel the overclocked 1900X to a lead over the tuned 1800X.


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X: Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

The Civilization VI AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game. Intel's Core i7-7820X takes the lead after tuning, while the overclocked Threadripper 1920X leads AMD's line-up. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X provides better performance in Game Mode, but we only get a slight speed-up after overclocking.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

As we found during our Game Mode testing, the Threadripper models perform best in this benchmark with Game Mode activated. A tuned Threadripper 1900X takes the lead during our test, even besting Intel's Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K.

The Ryzen 7 1800X also proves to be adept, equating to good value for mainstream gamers thanks to a less expensive buy-in. Ryzen 7 1700 offers similar performance after overclocking, but includes a nice discount. 

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

As usual, we bump up against a graphics bottleneck at the top end of our Battlefield 1 results. An overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X offers the best performance from AMD's portfolio, although the Threadripper 1900X is right behind in Creator Mode. The 1900X loses quite a bit of steam when we toggle Game Mode on; even our overclocking efforts aren't enough to overtake the Ryzen 7 1800X.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

At stock settings with Game Mode enabled, Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms AMD's stock Ryzen 7 1800X. The overclocked 1800X nudges past 1900X at the same 4 GHz, while Threadripper 1920X offers the best performance from the Ryzen portfolio.

While Threadripper 1900X beats Core i7-7820X at its stock settings, tuning improves the Intel model's performance significantly, and it ends up ahead.


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content


Смотрите также