AMD are launching their second generation of Threadripper CPUs today, so I’m finally
able to share detailed testing results with you, so let’s get into it.
As I’ve personally run the 1950X CPU in my own system for almost a year now I was
really interested in seeing how the newer 2950X performed in comparison, so that’s
what we’re going to check out here.
Let’s start by comparing the specs between these two CPUs to give us an idea of what’s
actually changed in the 2nd generation.
Both are 16 core 32 thread parts, however the 2950X has higher clock speeds all round
compared to the 1950X.
Not only that but the second generation Threadripper CPUs are using the 12nm Zen+ architecture,
which in theory is also more power efficient.
Before we dig into the results we need to discuss the test system I’m using.
I’ve got the ASUS Zenith Extreme motherboard with the 1402 BIOS update for Threadripper
2 support.
I’ve got 4 sticks of G.Skill Flare X DDR4-3200 CL14 memory running in quad channel at DDR4-3333
speeds, the highest I was able to run them with both CPUs, and I’m using the EVGA 1080
FTW2 graphics card.
For CPU testing in graphical applications it’s best to use the best available graphics
card in order to reduce the GPU bottleneck, unfortunately I’m not quite rich enough
for a 1080Ti so this is what we’ve got.
For the CPU cooler I’m using Coolermaster’s new Wraith Ripper along with Noctua NT-H1
thermal paste as that’s just what I had available, so both the 1950X an 2950X were
tested in this same system, the only hardware change was the CPU, everything else was otherwise
the same.
All of this hardware is packed into my Thermaltake View 71 case, with two intake fans on the
front and one exhaust at the back, as this was the only EATX case I’ve got.
As you may know the ASUS Zenith extreme board launched last year with the first generation
of Threadripper CPUs.
Generation 2 is simply a drop in replacement to existing motherboards with a BIOS update,
and AMD mentioned that all current X399 boards should support the 2nd generation CPUs, assuming
the vendor provides the appropriate BIOS update, although overclocking in some models may be
limited depending on things such as power delivery.
ASUS are actually offering this cooling kit for the Zenith Extreme for Threadripper 2,
which essentially adds this little heatsink and a VRM cooling fan up the top, and I’ve
tested both the 1950X and 2950X with this optimal configuration.
I’ve tested both CPUs at stock speeds, while manually overclocked, and with precision boost
overdrive enabled on the 2950X, although keep in mind that the overclocks of your particular
CPU will vary anyway based on many factors such as cooling solution and even the silicon
lottery, however I was able to get the 1950X running at 4GHz on all cores and the 2950X
to 4.15GHz on all cores with my manual overclocks, both with 1.35 volts, and overclocking was
done through the Ryzen Master software.
Precision boost overdrive on the other hand is a new feature present in Threadripper 2,
basically it automatically increases frequency and power limits like overclocking, but also
still lets us use precision boost 2 and XFR2 so we might actually get better results compared
to the manual all core overclock on the 2950X, especially in single threaded workloads.
Unfortunately, like overclocking this does void your warranty, although it’s not exactly
clear if anyone can actually determine you’ve done this.
Alright that’s a lot of explanation, now for those results, we’ll start out with
the CPU benchmarks followed by the games afterwards.
These tests were all completed with the distributed memory access mode enabled through the Ryzen
Master software, which is enabled by default and recommended for multicore workloads.
Starting out with Cinebench the 1950X is seeing a significant 13% improvement to the multicore
results with the overclock applied and just a small single core boost.
The 2950X at stock is performing 7% better than the 1950X at stock in the multicore test
and over 10% better in single core, and once the 2950X is overclocked we’re seeing just
under a 10% multicore increase.
The overclock and even precision boost overdrive on the 2950X is actually reducing our single
core speeds slightly here.
Adobe Premiere was used to export my recent Threadripper 2 preview video using the built
in high quality 2160p 4k preset, and as expected the 2950X is coming out slightly ahead.
At stock speeds the 2950X is only just behind the overclocked 1950X, but once we overclock
the 2950X or enable precision boost overdrive it takes the lead, although not by much.
Handbrake was used to export one of my 4K video files to 1080p, and then a separate
1080p file to 720p using the built in HQ 1080p and 720p presets respectively.
Once more the overclocked 1950X is just ahead of the 2950X at stock speeds, but once the
2950X is overclocked it pulls out further, although in this particular test precision
boost overdrive was giving us just slightly better results than the manual overclock.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and interestingly in this workload
the 2950X at stock is quite close to the overclocked 1950X.
Once again with precision boost overdrive enabled the 2950X is getting its best results,
just 2% better at compression and 4% better at decompression over stock speed.
Veracrypt was used to test encryption and decryption speeds, and the results here were
very close together, and even after taking the average of 10 runs they don’t really
make much sense, for instance the 1950X at stock is getting the best encryption speed.
Testing the V-Ray benchmark gives us best performance with the manual overclock in place,
with precision boost overdrive on the 2950X matching the overclocked 1950X, otherwise
we’re looking at a 4% quicker time by the 2950X at stock compared to 1950X at stock.
The Corona benchmark renders a scene and the 2950X is again only just a little ahead of
the 1950X, with no real notable difference between precision boost overdrive and the
manual overclock.
In Geekbench 4 the 2950X at stock is 4.8% better than the 1950X at stock in single core,
and a 5.5% boost in multicore performance at stock speeds, with slightly lower increases
when comparing the overclocked results.
The Passmark9 results are fairly similar, but for some reason in this test with the
manual overclock applied to the 2950X we’re seeing significant drops to performance, and
this was consistently the case.
Precision boost overdrive on the other hand was giving us the best performance, giving
us an 8% boost in single core performance over the 1950X overclock, and 4% in multicore.
On average throughout all of these tests the 2950X at stock speeds is approximately 6%
ahead of the stock 1950X in single core workloads and around 4% better in multicore workloads,
but that’s just based on these specific benchmarks, and as we’ve seen it varies
based on the workload.
For the most part it also seems like precision boost overdrive may be a little better overall
compared to manually overclocking for the reasons already discussed.
Now onto the games, while I wouldn’t recommend buying a Threadripper CPU purely for gaming,
for many of us such as myself the reality is that we have one main system that we use,
and while I don’t primarily use the 1950X for gaming I definitely do play games on it,
and this seems to be how AMD is marketing it too, for the professional that also wants
to kick back at the end of the day with some games.
I’ve only tested at 1080p here and have not gone to any higher resolutions like 1440p
or 4K, as in most games higher resolutions are more GPU demanding and don’t actually
show us the difference in CPU performance, and as you’ll see there was minimal difference
at 1080p anyway.
With that said I tried to test a range of games, some more CPU demanding than others,
to try and give you an idea of what to expect in a number of titles at all setting levels.
All games were also tested with local memory access mode enabled through the Ryzen Master
software, as this is generally recommended for best gaming performance, but this will
of course depend on the game as we’ll soon see.
Starting with ashes of the singularity we’re just seeing slight improvements with the 2950X,
with the difference between the two rising as we drop down in settings.
At max settings the 2950X is jut 0.5% ahead of the 1950X in average frame rates, so definitely
margin of error territory, but this rises to around 8% of an improvement at low settings.
Rise of the Tomb Raider again consistently showed small increases on the 2950X, with
a 4.7% boost to average frame rates on the 2950X at max settings, and just a 3% improvement
at the lowest settings.
Assassin’s Creed Origins again showed a little improvement to the average frame rates,
but the results are still very close together with more of a difference noted in the 1%
lows.
In general Far Cry 5 showed better performance on the 2950X in terms of averages, but for
the most part the 1% lows were ahead on the 1950X, not really sure why that was the case.
Ghost Recon showed basically no difference between the two CPUs, both average frame rates
and 1% lows were too close together to really call it.
The 2950X came out ahead in Watchdogs 2 in all tests in both 1% lows and average frame
rates with the exception of average frame rates at ultra settings.
I’ve also run some gaming benchmarks with the distributed memory access mode enabled
to demonstrate the differences between it and local mode, in Far Cry 5 it wasn’t performing
as well as expected, losing just a few frames per second on average at each setting level,
which is the typical behavior in most games, although not always the case as it really
depends on the game.
For example in ashes of the singularity we were actually seeing improved performance
in distributed mode, probably because that game actually utilizes the CPU.
Realistically I think most people, myself included, won’t bother swapping between
distributed and local modes as it requires a reboot, I know I’m personally happy playing
games in distributed mode, the small frame rate boost isn’t worth the reboot, but I’ve
tested these games in local mode on both CPUs to try and show best case gaming performance.
I haven’t retested all games with the overclocks applied, as I only saw minimal differences,
and in many cases worse performance with the overclocks in place.
This makes sense when you think about it, for instance the 2950X is listed with a 4.4GHz
boost under ideal conditions, so when I manually overclock all cores to 4.1GHz it won’t really
benefit us in games unless they scale over multiple cores, and in most games today a
higher clock speed is more beneficial compared to more cores.
This is also why precision boost overdrive was outperforming the manual overclock at
times, as it still allows us to make use of precision boost 2 and XFR2.
With that in mind I’ve just tested Ashes of the Singularity at high settings with the
overclocks and precision boost overdrive enabled, and we’re not really seeing that much of
a difference here in a game that tends to be more sensitive to the CPU.
So those are the performance differences between the two CPUs, now let’s take a look at temperatures,
system noise and power levels.
Starting with temperatures as mentioned all testing was done with the Wraith ripper cooler,
which is designed to handle the 250 watt TDP load of the 32 core 2990WX CPU, so we should
be just fine with our “puny” 180 watt TDP chips.
At idle and under stress test at stock speeds the temperatures were very close together
in my testing, these tests were each run for an hour to allow the temperature to stabilize.
The red bar shows both CPUs overclocked to the same 4GHz speed at 1.35 volts, while the
purple bar shows how the heat increases with the highest overclock I was able to achieve
with the 2950X, and even under stress test I think the cooler is doing a pretty good
job.
Here is the total system power draw while running these tests, keep in mind that this
will be specific to all of the hardware I’m running in the system and not just the CPU,
as it includes the entire power drawn from the wall.
To be honest the numbers seem a bit high based on my hardware, so I’m not sure how reliable
the results from my measuring tool are, I’m going to look at replacing that in the future.
The 2950X overclock listed here is with it maxed out at 4.15GHz though while the 1950X
overclock is at 4GHz, so that is why the overclocked power differences in red are further apart.
Likewise the total system noise levels are for the entire system and include the case
fans too.
I guess I could have unplugged the case fans to record the CPU fan only, but that just
seems unrealistic and would also negatively affect the temperatures, plus dat grb.
Rather than a graph I’ll let you listen for yourself.
So in general the overall system volume levels were about the same regardless of CPU, at
least with this cooler, just extremely minor differences if any at all.
Finally let’s talk about pricing.
The 1950X launched at $999 USD and at the time of recording, so just before the 2nd
generation has officially launched, it’s selling new for $770 USD, which is honestly
a pretty good deal and may drop further after 2nd gen officially releases, we’ll have
to wait and see as that will be after this video is posted.
The 2950X on the other hand is launching at $899 USD, $100 less than the 1950X last year
for more performance.
Not too much more performance based on my testing, but an increase with extra features
nonetheless.
I already thought Threadripper was giving us a great price to performance ratio, but
this steps things up a bit.
So overall the 2950X is a nice little incremental improvement over the first generation 1950X.
If you’ve already got the 1950X is it worth upgrading to the new 2950X?
Maybe if you’re made of money or really need the performance improvement shown, but
for most of us no probably not.
That’s not to say that it’s bad, it’s an excellent CPU for the price point, but
as someone that spent $1400 AUD on release last year I’m not ready to go out and do
that again any time soon.
It’s great to see the Threadripper product mature over time though, with new features
and improved memory support at cheaper prices I can see this potentially leading to a higher
uptake in the platform.
Based on the performance differences between the two CPUs it may actually make more sense
to go for the 1950X as it’s around $130 cheaper and only a little slower as we’ve
seen, but compared to Intel the 2950X seems like a great pick at the moment.
I would have liked to also compare these Threadripper chips against their more expensive Intel counterparts,
but unfortunately I didn’t have those available for testing.
In any case I think we’ve been successful in comparing the differences between the 1950X
and 2950X with these tests, and for the most part showing you what to expect from the 2950X
CPU.
So what did you guys think of the Threadripper 2950X?
I hope the benchmarks and comparison against the older 1950X have been useful, especially
if you’re picking between the two, let me know down in the comments which you’d pick.
Thanks for watching, and don’t forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this
one.