Thank You for Your reply @Carbonshape.

It's uh, I made this test, in a "normal" environment. On 5-5.2 GHz, it'd most likely be around 2500, and maybe even 2700. I don't want to find that one out w/o delid. I have a good temped 4.5 GHz, sometimes it jumps up to 4.7 GHz. It's throttling, yes, I know about it. But...


Here, allow me to do some simple math. I shall put the price/performance ratio aside for now, for the obvious reasons, I'm gonna point out later. So my 780e chip [w/o VAT], is running undelidded 4.5 GHz stable, with some normal temps [up to 70-80°C after some longer burn]. I have 10 cores at my disposal. And I produce 2340 points in Cinebench 15.


1950X, which will cost 999 dollars, which will most likely be as I wrote 870 - 980 eur w/o VAT [specific market, Slovakia], runs 16 cores [that's 60% more cores than 7900X], and produces around 3000 points in Cinebench 15, running on stock clock, which are 3.4 GHz afaik.

My two points are about to be. I'm not sure where we can get 180W TDP monster [it's an update from the video of AMD boss and official specs from AMD], but I'm kind of positive it'll be hovering around 4-4.2 GHz TOPs on the highest of the highest-end AiOs, that means Predator like, future MLC like, Swiftech like, or some custom loops even.

There are two general questions. What will the Threadripper architecture be bottlenecked by? Will it be architecture? So the temps will be great, just like on all Ryzens, but no one will be able to get past 4.2 GHz? Or will it be heat?

I can tell You right now, that my 7900X is bottlenecked solely and only by temperature, and that I was able to achieve 5.2 GHz on single core, just like that [imagine me snapping with my fingers here :)]. No BSOD, no crash, no nothing. That means that the 7900X is most likely some kind of a prodigal architecture, that depends solely on the AMDs "if You can cool it, You can clock it."
 
So, let's go to the math. Theoretically, when I push Threadripper to let's say 4.2 GHz, Cinebench score should hover around 3690 points. I think I was being pretty generous for a random OC, and if the Threadripper won't be some prodigal chip, that can run 5 GHz out of the box, the 4.2 GHz for 16 cores looks like the theoretical "norm" or limit.

So we have my 7900X, where almost every single one on the market runs 4.5 GHz. It's like a standard, with 2340 points. So when I do some simple math and try to get the single core performance, it's around 234 points [2340 / 10 [in real benchmark, it's 180 points, but I'm counting multicore per thread performance, not singlecore]. I'm still operating with multi-core per thread performance, because as we know, Intel offers TB v. 3.0, which will leave single core alone clocked much higher.

SolThreadripper should provide us with 230 points per thread performance [again, I just used crude math].

This means, that when we strictly take it, we need to run Threadripper on 4.2 GHz, in order to achieve the same iPC [+-] as on Skylake-X running 4.5 GHz. This looks great, right?

Well, the question still remains, how will the Threadripper overclock, because on basic clock, it's mere  187 points per thread performance [crude math again], and what will be it's endgame.

I reckon there's a lot of gamers here, and we want iPC, rather than strong multi-core performance. I'm a designer and I do favor multicore performance by all means, but still, I'm really happy with the performance of my 7900X, mostly the part, where it overclocks into oblivion and won't BSOD, not even once.

//update 1: Okay, I give up. This guy, ran the very same Threadripper [1950X], on 3.5 GHz [not! 3.4 GHz], and achieved 2876 points. We're talking 3.5 GHz and a real life benchmark. The AMD lady showed off the very same computer, running 3.4 GHz, and scored above 3000 points. I know that Intel is well known for lying to us, but when it comes to benchmarks and performance, it's not their strongest virtue. Well, AMD most likely has no problems with it. It means that the AMD CEOs Threadripper had to be clocked at least to 3.7 GHz, in order to break 3000 points barrier. So AMD is playing Game of Thrones as well as Intel, right?

I use a lot of GPGPU power when post-rendering/processing scenes within Photoshop. I don't use V-ray, Pov-ray, mental-ray and other renderers in Maya/3D Studio Max anymore lately, but I do many tasks, that require multi-threading [mostly actions/vb-scripts in Photoshop/Illustrator]. So in general I work in a powerhungry environment.

I created this topic, because from what I can tell, people are being massively disinformed regarding true performance of an upcoming AMD products, namely AMD Threadripper, Epyc and RX Vega. [the gaming version of Vega Frontier].

I've had Ryzen 1700X with RX480 myself. As an AMD enthusiast. It was the biggest fail after almost a decade and something for me.

I gave my Ryzen the best. CM 1200 MasterWatt Maker, TOP end case, perfect cooling, and it repaid me with freezing, crashes and issues beyond explanation.

Moving to General Hardware

That's a very good insight @rjohnson11. I hope it'll balance the market, rather than create another "Intel" like monster.

Can't agree more @Enrier.

seth89

kind of a good video on the upcoming TR CPU.
 
its JAyz Two Cents from youtube.com

Practically the same thing as LTT, bitwit and Paul's hardware said. Although LTT had a hands on experience with the prototype, but ofc NDA...

Enrier
From a point of view of someone who's learning hardware development. I can honestly say, amd is falling behind purely because it's trying to win on two fronts, gpu and cpu. And I would like to point out that although they're around the same size as nvidia and intel, the thing is. They are the same size, so there's less people working on both fronts and as far as I know their teams didn't have much of a "fresh blood" intake as we would've liked.

With the appearance of Ryzen, Threadripper and Vega they should be getting back into the game. But who knows how long it will take catch up or even stay at the same level of popularity as those two.

I would also like to point out, that nvidia doesn't only dabble in gpu hardware, but also software. For example their "free" video recording/streaming software that you get by buying their video cards. I think their popularity grew quite fast after that. And even without that, because nvidia actually fished out game developers with their engine(which was a smart move, even if they made amd eat dirt because of it). The ammount of games that amd cards could run well was falling like crazy.

As for Intel, it's a bit easier to deal with them. Since they've lived on top of the marked for even longer time, they are pretty weak in regard of new breakthroughs. And as such, If and I mean 'IF' Threadripper is as good as amd promisses it to be. Then Intel is in for a shock. Maybe they'll even wake up and give us good enough cpu's for content creation. Because I found that even extreme edition cpu's didn't give me the performance I would've liked for some things.

Good speach... I think I read that before: https://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2700999
 
Edit:...

Enrier

seth89

kind of a good video on the upcoming TR CPU.
 
its JAyz Two Cents from youtube.com

Practically the same thing as LTT, bitwit and Paul's hardware said. Although LTT had a hands on experience with the prototype, but ofc NDA...

That Linus is a funny guy, I really enjoy his stuff.

That is good to hear...