AMD's flagship Threadripper CPU has appeared on Geekbench

[WYP]

AMD's flagship Threadripper 1950X CPU has appeared on Geekbench, offering similar single-core performance as desktop Ryzen systems.



Read more on AMD's 1950X Threadripper CPU.

[Chopper3]

So the single-core score is closest to the four-year old Intel Core i7-4770R and the multicore is a little lower than an Intel Core i7-6900K (which cost about £835) today.

Not impressed yet not surprised.

[Bagpuss]

I live in hope that one day AMD will sort out their disappointing single core IPC.

[AlienALX]

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

I live in hope that one day AMD will sort out their disappointing single core IPC.

There is nothing wrong with their IPC. It is fantastic. They need to make it clock better is all.

Originally Posted by Chopper3

So the single-core score is closest to the four-year old Intel Core i7-4770R and the multicore is a little lower than an Intel Core i7-6900K (which cost about £835) today.

Not impressed yet not surprised.

That's not right. We all know that Ryzen is around Broadwell E or better. Something is seriously not right with that benchmark.

[Bagpuss]

Originally Posted by AlienALX

There is nothing wrong with their IPC. It is fantastic.

It's still two generations behind Intel's best.

[AlienALX]

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

It's still two generations behind Intel's best.

So what? are they charging Intel money for it?

Last time I looked the 1700 was around £280 for the same performance as a £1000 Intel CPU.

It's not about who can wee the highest.

[Bagpuss]

The cost is a completely different metric.

There are people like me who are willing to pay more money for the superior IPC performance of Intel.

...But if AMD could offer a CPU with similar IPC, would have no problem in switching to AMD from Intel.

AMD are missing out on sales with inferior IPC architecture.

[Dawelio]

Originally Posted by AlienALX

Last time I looked the 1700 was around £280 for the same performance as a £1000 Intel CPU.

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

The cost is a completely different metric.

There are people like me who are willing to pay more money for the superior IPC performance of Intel.

...But if AMD could offer a CPU with similar IPC, would have no problem in switching to AMD from Intel.

AMD are missing out on sales with inferior IPC architecture.

So you'd be willing to pay more than £700 for just "some" superior performance?

[AlienALX]

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

The cost is a completely different metric.

No it really isn't. Not unless you have far too much money and no sense. The cost is everything on everything. Everything has a price, it just depends if you have enough money to ignore that and not care about it.

For example I have not upgraded from my Titan XM because I don't think the prices are right. Nothing to do with whether I can afford it or not but much more to do with me simply refusing to pay the price Nvidia are asking. If they were not being so ridiculous then I would have gone 1080/Titan XP or 1080Ti for sure.

As an example on launch you could pick up a basic 1070 for £360 or so. Now? they are over £400. Yet a year has passed, so how does that work out?

^ just a basic example for you. If my Titan XM packed in I would have to pay more than I paid for it for the same performance. Something doesn't add up there.

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

There are people like me who are willing to pay more money for the superior IPC performance of Intel.

Then good for you. But what part of that means you have to go around belittling every one else? Oh wait, that's a part of it for you, right?

[Type-8]

Something iffy with that multi core score, looks similar to some 1800x results. With that single core result and how Ryzen scales the multi core score should be a lot higher.

Going to put that anomaly to either software or ram speed (at 1065mhz any Zen chip is going to be severely nerfed in multi core tests, given how they interact) assuming the leak is accurate.

In relation to your complaints about single core performance Bagpuss, really not sure what that is all about. From what i've seen current AMD cpu's are barely 5% behind Intel offerings in terms of IPC. Not bad considering that they've made up for it with cost and core count. Kaby Lake's only significant advantage is clock speed, and to be honest that's only the case because of how much they've refined the architecture. Ryzen was never going to hit 5ghz in its first iteration, just like kaby lake didn't when it was skylake.