King of content creation, Threadripper takes the crown

Subject: Processors | August 10, 2017 - 03:55 PM |
Tagged: Zen, X399, Threadripper, ryzen, amd, 1950x, 1920x

When you look at the results Ryan posted, it was clear that when it comes to video rendering and other content creation it is AMD's chip which comes out ahead in performance, and at a better price point that Intel's Core i9.  Don't just take our word for it, many others reviewed the new chips, including [H]ard|OCP.  Their results agree, showing that the only advantage Intel has is in single threaded applications, in which case the frequency of the 4.6GHz Intel part can outpace the 4GHz Threadripper.  Those picking up Threadripper have no interest in single threaded applications, they prefer their programs to be spread across multiple cores and not only does Threadripper have the most cores, it allows you to flip between NUMA and UMA depending on your preference.  Check out [H]'s review here before continuing below the fold.

View Full Size

"The day is finally upon us that many CPU enthusiasts have been waiting for. We get to see what AMD's new Threadripper CPU is all about in terms of performance, and in attempts to cool the beast. There has been no lack of hype for months now, so let's see if it is all justified."

Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:

Processors

Source: [H]ard|OCP

August 10, 2017 | 08:27 PM - Posted by YourOrdealsAreOVER (not verified)

I think that there are a few Epyc SKUs that would very much put any ThreadRipper/TR motherboard SKU platforms in the rear-view mirror for content creation workloads. Neither Threadripper nor any core i9 SKU would do much against any Epyc 16/32 core/thread or 24/48 core/thread and above single socket Epyc CPU SKU/Epyc motherboard platform SKUs for overall total effective memory bandwidth availability from the 8 memory channels and 128 PCIe lanes that AMD’s single socket Epyc SKUs offer.

I think that the entire enthusiast reporting sphere is so preconditioned to think that any consumer SKUs can offer the same value as any professional True Workstation grade CPU/MB SKUs can offer if the pro SKUs are priced affordably enough. This myopic tunnel vision with respect to consumer SKUs offering any value for workstation/productivity workloads has come about because of Intel’s monopolistic overall market domination that has resulted in some users in the workstation market being forced to attempt to try and make use of Intel’s consumer SKUs because Intel’s Xeon SKUs and motherboard/parts ecosystem was so expensive as to be beyond affordable for the individual workstation owner market. This pseudo workstation market mentality began, as a direct result of users having to resort to using consumer grade CPUs/MBs in and attempt to just to be able to afford any computing platform to meet their “workstation” needs.

AMD’s single socket Epyc 7401P for example offers 24 cores and 48 threads at a comparable price point to the Threadripper(16 core/32 thread) 1950X SKU, with the Epyc 7401P CPU SKU only priced 76 dollars more at $1075 compared to Threadripper’s price of $999. The Epyc 7401P single socket 24 core 48 thread CPU SKU is the hands down better deal. So why is the entire enthusiast reporting sphere so fixated on Touting Threadripper as an affordable alternative when Epyc is the better more affordable option with a better price/core metric than any Threadripper SKU, and with better 8 channel memory support and twice the PCIe lane(128 PCIe lanes for Epyc) support.

And the Epyc branded SKUs are actually True workstation Grade tested/certified and guaranteed to work with ECC memory, ditto for Epyc’s motherboards and their twice as many memory channels and twice as many PCIe lanes as any Threadripper consumer CPU/MB SKUs offer.

It’s almost as if the entire enthusiast reporting sphere is suffering from some form of computing Stockholm Syndrome with respect to being under the influence of Intel’s market dominating crazy overpricing structure for so many years. Your Intel captivity is over now, enthusiast reporting sphere, you no longer have to cower in fear at not having the funds to afford a Real Epyc Professional workstation deal with pricing that on a feature for feature basis beats the hell out of any consumer SKUs and their pseudo workstation offerings. It must boggle your minds that AMD’s single socket Epyc SKUs are a better deal, but it’s True that you have been freed from your long capitivity and now and can afford a real workstation SKU!

August 11, 2017 | 11:49 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

If all someone wants to do is content creation workloads then i fully agree that Epyc is better than TR, however TR isn't just intended for content creation, it's meant for content creation primarily with gaming as a secondary.

August 11, 2017 | 12:31 PM - Posted by YouAreInDenialMode (not verified)

"TR isn't just intended for content creation, it's meant for content creation primarily with gaming as a secondary."

No content creation is what the Epyc single socket SKUs are for, and they are priced more affordable on a CPU SKU to CPU SKU basis with the Epyc 7351P costing only $750 for 16 cores/32 threads and the 7401P costing only 1075 for 24 cores/48 threads. Threadripper does not have Official Tested/Certified support for ECC memory and the same for the Threadripper motherboard SKU in that the MB's firmware and hardware is Not Tested/Certified for ECC memory usage.
Any serious and deadline affected content creation in a professional production environment needs ECC ability to keep any last minute errors in the content creation process from costing real money and losing a contract.

The Threadripper motherboards only support 4 channels of memory and only 64 PCIe lanes while the Epyc motherboards across all Epyc SKUs support 8 channels of memory and 128 PCIe lanes. So if you are running any CPU rendering workloads on a Epyc 7401P on its 24 cores/48 threads with 8 memory channels providing twice the effective memory bandwidth to feed those 24 cores/48 threads then there is no Threadripper platform SKU with the overall features to match the Epyc 7401P's price/performance and price/features metrics.

Threadripper is not a Workstation SKU by any stretch of the imagination compared to the Epyc single socket CPU SKUs and Epyc motherboard platform SKUs.

Threadripper is a HEDT/gaming platform but it is NOT a workstation Platform. Workstation Platforms have OFFICIAL Tested/Certified support for ECC memory from the Workstation CPU/chip-set maker/s and the Workstation Motherboard makers. Just saying the word Workstation does not make the part a workstation grade part.

It's OK you are no longer captive to Intel's pricing structure you can get up from that fetal position and you no longer have to use a feature gimped consumer CPU SKU in order to perform content creation like a pro. Epyc is here now and has freed millions from the hands of the bad old monopoly CPU SKU Tyrant.

August 12, 2017 | 02:04 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

Someone can't read, what part of content creation primarily with gaming as a secondary was it that you didn't understand, not everyone doing content creation needs or requires official tested/certified support for ECC memory, firmware, and everything else that comes with a full blown "workstation" SKU.

And those who do need all of that probably aren't going to want to do a bit a gaming in their lunch break or after work.

Maybe if you got of your high horse and stopped insulting everyone who doesn't fit your narrow world view of computer usage you'd see that.

August 12, 2017 | 04:01 PM - Posted by DenialandStillInShock (not verified)

What about the fact that the Epyc 24 core 48 thread part is only $76 more than the TR(16/32) part and I'll bet that you can game on the Epyc SKUs also, and who knows what having 8 memory channels available over the 4 that TR offers may do for gaming as secondary usage on Epyc. Hell any one looking to do content creation as a primary need would be better off getting the Epyc based SKUs. The Epyc 7401P costs less on the per-core metric and that is better than TR's per core cost for sure, even without taking into consideration Epyc's 8 channels to memory or 128 PCIe lanes.

If you are a content creator I say get the 7401P 24 core/48 thread SKU for content creation and the 7401P may just supprise with what it may be able to do for secondary gaming usage with its 8 memory channels available even if the CPU cores are clocked lower. Hell there is little difference relatively at higher gaming resolutions with lower clocked CPUs and a CPU system having twice the effective memory bandwidth over 8 memory channels like Epyc has with its 8 channels may just have some positive affects for secondary gaming usage. Having 128 PCIe lanes available with some x8/x16 based NVM/SSD is a plus also, ditto for Epyc's 16 DIMM slots and any of that New NVMe DIMM based NVM standard NVM/DIMM storage.

I'd love for some Epyc 7401P system's owners try and game on their workstations just to see how they perform for gaming(as a secondary usage) with 8 memory channels populated with one channel each of single rank DIMMS running at the system's maximum rated memory clock speeds.

That's 24 core 48 threads with no reductions in L3 cache on that Epyc 7401P 24/48 part compared to the Epyc 32/64 part. So that's 6 cores per Zepplin die(3 per CCX) on the 7401P part each having more L3 cache to share and the 8 channel memory. Also the effective IF bandwith over The Epyc 7401P's 4 active Zeppelin dies is greater that the effective IF bandwidth over TR's 2 active Zeppelin dies!

SO Test them Epyc puppys for secondary gaming uage as Epyc is as affordable realtively as Threadripper when the costs are looked at for primarly Content Creation usage/secondary gaming usage.

August 13, 2017 | 02:36 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

Yes you could game on a Epyc system but it will probably suck, for starters Epyc boosts to around 3Ghz vs TR 4Ghz, then there's the fact that you can't switch it from UMA to NUMA, having said that it would be interesting to benchmark some games on Epyc and TR with equivalent core counts, if only to demonstrate the reason for TR existence.

August 13, 2017 | 11:23 AM - Posted by HypervisorOne (not verified)

Not expecting 1080P gaming to play as well on any makers high core count SKUs, and besides Intel's New Mesh interconnect has gaming latency drawbacks compared to Intel's rung bus CPU designs also. And Threadriper is not even the best value for content creation compared to the Epyc 7401P 24 cores/48 threads SKU at only $76 dollars more than TR 1950X's $999.

Yes I'm waiting for some workstation owner with that Epyc 7401P CPU SKU to try out some gaming with 8 channels of memory available just to see how that may work out on some games that may like the extra memory bandwidth. And the Epyc 7401P's 24 cores will still have the same 64MB of L3 cache available to its 24 cores as the 32/64 Epyc variants, with each of the Epyc 7401P's 4 CCX units having more cache for the 3 enabled cores per CCX on that $1075 SKU.

What most enthusiasts websites are not testing, except for the Level1tech folks(tested on Ryzen SKUs currently), is PCIe passthrough and maybe Threadripper running virtual machines like KVM with multiple OS instances and PCI passthrogh and each OS instance maybe assigned its own GPU, or logical GPU virtual slice. So a Home gaming/streaming server with mutiple GPUs in the slots and each OS instance getting it own GPU hardware and the gaming server running two, or more, games at once over two, or more, OS instances using two, or more, seperate GPU plugged into the same PC, or even one or 2 GPU/s that is split into 2/more logical GPU virtual partitions(AMD's GPUs allow this).

And I just wonder what Threadripper can do in NUMA mode and the Hypervisor assigning each OS it's own Zeppelin die(NUMA node) and Threadripper gaming benchmarks run. It sounds like somthing that Wendell over at level1techs would want to try if enough folks where interested.

And Nvidia does not like like to provide GPU virtualization/PCI passthrough whitelisting on its consumer GPU SKUs but this type of virtualized GPU usage is enabled on AMD's consumer variants. There is going to be a lot of interesting expermentation done with Threadripper and Virtual machine workloads under some Hypervisor managed OS instances with one PC platform serving up more than one game to more than one user.

And I even want to see this tried with some single socket Epyc SKUs under some KVM managed windows OS instances that are running under KVM for multiple game streaming workloads, in addition to any Linux OS instances running games. With a Hypervisor managed computer any sorts of OSs that can be run at the same time under that specific hypervisor, KVM/Others and there can be game streaming services provided to more than one user.

I want to see that Epyc 7401P platfotm with its 8 memory channels and 128 PCIe lanes tested thoroughly as a home gaming server with multiple OSs running under KVM/other hypervisor facility and the system loaded with at least 4 Vega 64 SKUs under a PCIe passthrough Hypervisor managed VM envirinment and servimg games to the entire household via Ethernet/other networking arrangemnt and tested in both NUMA and UMA modes. And most KVM/Xen/other Hypervisor Facilities are better at handeling NUMA/UMA mode switching with the OSs running in their own hypervisor managed environments unaware that there are other OSs running on the same computing platform.

PCs managed by a Hyervisor with the Hypervisor managing the CPU's metal not the OS and the GPU's are made available by the Hypervisor to the any of the OS instances provided there is that support allowed by the GPU's maker for GPU logical virtualization and PCIe passthrough(AMD allows for both on its consumer SKUs).

August 14, 2017 | 02:55 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

You sure use a lot of words to say very little, the extra bandwidth from 8 channels of memory, the extra PCIe lane, and all the other difference between Epyc and TR would be negligible as most games are highly serial in nature and respond better to higher clock speeds.

Everything else you've said about Hypervisor, running a game server, Linux vs Windows, and whatever else you've blathered on about is just fluff and gish gallop intended to distract people.

August 14, 2017 | 08:06 PM - Posted by DemDualzIFconnected56s (not verified)

Ha ha not really because that's Hyperisor stuff is done all the time and Nvidia's consumer GPU SKUs are fixed not to work with that! So go look at the level1techs video where they are testing PCIe passthrough on a Ryzen 7 SKU using some Polaris GPU SKUs. That's not blathered, that usage model is possible and will be tested. Nvidia wants you to spend to get any PCIe passthroug capabilities, and spend big on quadro SKUs to get it!

WhyDaftMe should be your user name!

August 16, 2017 | 03:10 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

Are you off your trolly?

People aren't going to buy an Eypc system along with multiple GPUs just so they can run multiple VMs with direct access to the GPUs so they can have multiple games running on the same system with a CPU that's 1Ghz slower.

The reason "consumer" GPUs & CPUs don't support Hypervisor is because it's not a "consumer" technology, it's intended for data centers where multiple customers run virtual system on the same physical hardware.

August 11, 2017 | 01:19 PM - Posted by Bob Funn (not verified)

There are some cases where clock speed is more important then lanes, for example postproduction film and 8k editing. ThreadRipper gives us the best of both worlds.

August 11, 2017 | 06:51 PM - Posted by DAFTareWeBOB (not verified)

What abot 4 more memory channels Bob, on the Epyc SKUs and 8/16 more cores/threads for the Epyc 7401P(24 core/48 threads for $76 more. You are being very DAFT, Bob, if you are saying that any 8K editing workloads could not benifit more from the 8 memory channels and 24 cores/48 threads that the Epyc 7401P/Platform would provide. what about multiple 8k workloads, Bob, What about the fully certified ECC support on the Epyc branded CPU/Motherboard parts.

And I do not give a damn about what anandtech says about Threadripper's "ECC" support, and that support lacks the testing and certification to back that up in a warrenty guarantee. The Threadripper motherboard maker's may even be providing a UEFI/BIOS setting for ECC, BUT I'll bet that they are not going through the extra expense of getting the testing/certification done on a gaming motherboard part, because that testing/certification process is why ECC certified workstation motherboards cost 400-600+ dollars among other reasons.

Let's be realistic Bob you not a post production 8K editor and those folks are not going to risk their jobs on any non tested/certified consumer crap to do their professional workloads. CPU speeds are not a factor where more there are workloads that benifit from more cores/threads that are clocked at resonable average power saving speeds.

There are no cases where Threadripper is a better value than Epyc for the Epyc platform's extra provided memory channels(8 channels, over TR's 4) and 128 PCIe lanes(Over TR's 64) fully tested/certified ECC support(Over any untested/uncertified ECC support on TR/TR motherboard) and that testing/certification cost extra to perform. And Bob do you even know what a Red Rocket card is!

Those Epyc CPU/Motherboard SKUs are also going to come with 3 year warrenties, not so for consumer Threadripper/TR Motherboard SKUs!

Does the average gamer even know what a cost/benefit analysis is or how that figures in with any price/core calculations and Price/Features calcualtions and warrenty years provided calcualations or TCO(total cost of ownership) metrics. True Workstation SKUs provide the better value if the Pro branded SKUs are priced affordably. And that Epyc 7401P is priced at $1075 for 24 core/48 threads at only $76 dollars more than the TR 1950X at its only 16 core/32 threads, and then there is Epyc's 8 channel memory support and 128 PCIe lane support. Really Bob even a single brain-cell can figure that out.

August 11, 2017 | 06:58 PM - Posted by DAFTareWeBOB (not verified)

edit: There are no cases where Threadripper is a better value than Epyc

To: There are no workstation workload cases where Threadripper is a better value than Epyc

August 11, 2017 | 01:33 AM - Posted by Cyric (not verified)

I wonder if we will see a performance cap as the higher core Intel parts show up. Getting more cores but at lower clocks. An i9-7960X VS 1950X would be interesting. 16 vs 16 cores

August 11, 2017 | 12:22 PM - Posted by Thatman007

Let me guess, this article was sponsored by AMD right? Intel destroys AMD in single threaded performance.

August 11, 2017 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Duop (not verified)

Ok, Intel is better at badly coded single threaded apps, happy?

August 11, 2017 | 12:31 PM - Posted by Power (not verified)

Threadripper: it only does everything ... at once.

August 11, 2017 | 12:42 PM - Posted by YouAreInDenialMode (not verified)

Not for content creation with ECC protection, and not for the same price/performance and price/feature metrics compared to the Epyc single socket Worstation SKUs.

Epyc's 8 channel support offers twice the effective memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe lane suppout for plenty of GPUs and Red Rocket cards etc. Threadripper can't touch that!

Stay back there in your HTPC class, Threadripper and leave the Workstation work to the pros, and they are Epyc!

August 13, 2017 | 12:41 AM - Posted by James

How many different usernames are you using here?

August 13, 2017 | 01:55 PM - Posted by UserNamesThemedTheSame (not verified)

Tons of usernames but some of the different usernames are are themed the same also. It's so fun to think up themed usernames/sock puppets for one time use only!

Now it's on to seeing some Threadripper KVM/Xen/Other virtural machine/hypervisor testing and benchmarking done! Let's assign each KVM managed hypervisor TR Zeppelin die in NUMA mode to a different KVM/VM hosted OS instance and have that OS instance given its own GPU via PCIe passthrough to game on. So that's Threadripper running KVM in NUMA mode with 2 RX Vega 64's plugged into the PC/TR MB's X16 PCI slots and KVM assigning via PCIe passthrough a single Vega 64 to each KVM hosted OS instance with each OS getting its own Zeppelin DIE NUMA logical consturct of 8 Zen cores/2 CCX units and one Vega 64 GPU.

Now lets run 2 games at the same time and see how TR under KVM/2 OS instances can stream 2 different games to two different gamers at the same time using TR's 2 Zeppenlin Dies in NUMA mode and with KVM/PCIe passthrough for each OS instance to that OS's own Vega 64 GPU!

P.S. I talking about AMD based consumer GPUs only because Nvidia does not like to allow any Hypervisor based PCIe passthrough on its consumer SKUs but AMD does. And you can go and watch the video over at Level1techs where they are testing some AMD GPUs via KVM's PCIe GPU passthrough on some Ryzen 7 SKUs, with KVM/PCIe passthrough to AMD's Polaris GPUs working just fine after the AMD AGESA 1.0.0.6 update!

And let's see the very same testing done on the Epyc 7401P SKU that only costs $76 more at 24 core/48 threads that TR with is 16 cores/32 threads. And don't forget that the Epyc platform supports 8 channels to 2 DIMM slots each channel, and 128 PCI lanes for a whole lot of plugged in GPUs for that KVM/hypervisor to assign to individual OS instances their OWN GPU for so damn good home game streaming server that serves games to all the brats to game on. Hey you brats use whatever OS you want there is 4 Vega 64 GPU's plugged into that Epyc 7401P system and you can each have your own Zeppelin die with 6(one disbaled core per CCX on the 7401P SKU) Zen cores in NUMA mode per OS instance assigned to one Vega 64 GPU via PCIe passthrough. I'd like to see this configuration tested as a headless gaming server streaming to some laptops over 10GB to 1GB ethernet switch/router. For sure any Epyc Motherboard will probably come with at least one 10 GB ethernet port/maybe 2!

August 13, 2017 | 11:34 PM - Posted by James

Okay, so you know that you are essentially spamming the forums here, and you are proud of that? You have way too much time on your hands. Most of your post will get little to no response because you post a massive amount of crap, mostly probably of questionable relevance to any discussion it is in

TLDR means too long didn't read, if you didn't know that. Most of your post fall into that classification. It would almost be nice if we had a voting system so long, mostly irrelevant post could be down voted and hidden. Or perhaps at least some ability to collapse such post/threads.

August 14, 2017 | 08:09 PM - Posted by DemDualzIFconnected56s (not verified)

That pisses you off then my work is done, Daft-y duck form winamuck! TR is not the best deal for workststion usage, game on the thing and stream at the same time but for workstation usage Epyc rules!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.