A couple of months ago AMD launched some of their new Threadripper 2 CPUs, the 2950X and
2990WX, 16 and 32 core parts respectively.
AMD have just now added the 2920X and 2970WX chips to the line up, which are 12 and 24
core parts respectively, so let’s take a look and find out just how well they perform.
Let’s start off by taking a look at the specs of these two CPUs.
I’ve included the 2950X and 2990WX CPU specs here just for reference to provide a full
picture of the now complete Threadripper 2 line up, however I didn’t have them available
for this testing.
Like the previous 2nd generation chips, these ones will work fine in existing X399 motherboards
too, although you’ll want to grab the latest version of the Ryzen Master software.
Before we dig into the results I’ll briefly cover off the specs of the system that I’m
testing with.
I’ve got the MSI MEG X399 Creation motherboard with the latest BIOS update available applied.
There’s 4 sticks of G.Skill Flare X DDR4-3200 CL14 memory running in quad channel, and I’m
also using my trusty EVGA 1080 FTW2 graphics card, not the best but realistically Threadripper
isn’t for pro gaming anyway so we should be alright.
For the CPU cooler I’m using the Enermax Liqtech 240 with its included thermal paste
as that’s what was available, so both the 2920X and 2970WX CPUs were tested in the same
system and conditions.
Everything was packed into my Thermaltake View 71 case, as this is the only EATX case
I’ve got.
You’ll have to excuse the mess, I got set up pretty hastily as I’m late to this party
and was keen to get the testing done after being away for PAX.
Both CPUs were tested at stock speeds, while manually overclocked, and with Precision Boost
Overdrive enabled, although keep in mind that the overclocks on your particular CPU will
vary anyway based on many other factors such as cooling and the silicon lottery.
With that in mind, I was able to get my 2920X to 4.2GHz at 1.35 volts on all 12 cores, and
the 2970WX to 4.1GHz on all 24 cores at 1.36 volts, and overclocking was just done using
the Ryzen Master software.
I didn’t spend too much time trying to improve and tweak the overclocks though, so they could
probably be dialled in a bit better, for instance I almost had the 2970WX stable at 4.2GHz but
after a long blender test it would fail so I dropped back down to 4.1.
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 overclocks, particularly in single threaded workloads where the cores
can still boost above what I’d be setting with my lower all core overclocks.
Unfortunately, like overclocking this does void your warranty, although it’s not exactly
clear if anyone can actually determine you’ve done this.
Just before we get into the results I’ll also note that with these two new Threadripper
chips AMD has released an update called Dynamic Local Mode, or DLM for short.
Essentially this is new software that’s included with version 1.5 of the Ryzen Master
software which automatically migrates the most demanding processes onto cores with local
memory access for the 2970WX and 2990WX processors.
This means that applications that prefer local memory should automatically get it, without
you having to manually swap between distributed and local modes which affect the entire system
and require a reboot to apply, so in most cases we should see worse performance with
DLM off as we’re relying purely on the Windows scheduler.
Alright that’s a lot of explanation, now for those results, we’ll start out with
the CPU benchmarks followed by some 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.
Kicking things off with Cinebench straight away it’s clear that the double core count
of the 2970WX is pushing it far in front.
The manual 4.1GHz overclock gives us the best multicore result, but as all cores have been
set below what the chip would otherwise be able to boost to we’re looking at slightly
lower single core performance compared to with precision boost overdrive, listed as
PBO.
Interestingly we can also see DLM taking effect here, DLM was enabled as it was the default
for all 2970WX tests except for the result specifically listing it off, and we’re getting
slightly lower performance, 2% worse in the multicore and almost 11% worse single core
performance.
Not much to say about the 2920X, performance scales up in the multicore results as we apply
PBO or our manual overclock.
In Adobe Premiere I’ve tested using the latest version, just exporting one of my laptop
reviews at 1080p.
Performance was generally the same for the most part, with the 2920X improving slightly
as we enable PBO or manual overclocking.
The 2970WX is more interesting though, while the manual overclock does give us an improvement
over stock, PBO was consistently giving me much slower performance than even stock, though
with DLM off the 24 core chip is giving us the worst performance out of all tests.
I’ve also tested the Warp Stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere, granted I only did a single
instance rather than multiple at once, this is only the second time I’ve included this
test and I don’t have a standard method for testing multiple instances which would
likely take better advantage of the additional cores.
In any case the 2920X performed a fair bit better in this test, even with DLM on and
the 2970WX overclocked.
Handbrake was tested by converting a 4K file to 1080p, then a separate 1080p file to 720p.
For the 4K exports the 2920X was performing the best, although the differences close in
together on the 2970WX with PBO or overclocking applied.
The 2920X was also performing better with the 1080p video file, at least until we apply
PBO or manual overclocking where the 24 core chip finally takes the lead, performing almost
8% ahead of the best 2920X result.
The Corona benchmark renders out a scene using the CPU, and straight away in this one we
can see a big performance boost with the 2970WX.
For some reason I actually had better performance with DLM disabled in this test, where it matched
the PBO and manual overclocking results.
The 2920X on the other hand was just seeing very slight improvements upon enabling the
PBO and manual overclocking.
Blender shows a similar result, and hopefully starts to give you an idea of the sort of
workloads where the 24 core chip really shines, which is rendering.
With the overclock applied on the 2970WX there’s an 11% improvement to the classroom benchmark
at stock, and a 12% improvement in the BMW benchmark.
To put things in perspective at stock the 2920X is around 42% slower than the 2970WX
at stock in the classroom benchmark, and around the same difference in the BMW benchmark.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and the 2920X was coming out ahead
in all encryption tests, where the overclocked result from the 2970WX matches the stock 2920X.
Decompression is another story though, with a noticeable performance uplift seen from
the 24 core chip in all tests, which at stock speeds was performing around 44% better than
the 2920X.
Overclocking the 2970WX improves the decompression speed by about 7%, while the improvement on
the 2920X was around 3%.
Veracrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and this is another
strange one where the 2970WX was seeing very similar results to running it at stock with
DLM disabled.
While manually overclocked though there was a noticeable improvement compared to stock
speeds.
The 2920X on the other hand saw more of a benefit with PBO and manual overclocking applied
however, otherwise the 2920X was beating the 2970WX in all of these tests, showing that
more cores are not really helping.
In PCMark 10 I’ve only bothered testing both chips at stock settings, as shown we’re
only seeing a small 1.7% performance improvement with the 2970WX in this particular test.
As we’ve seen the performance can vary quite wildly depending on the specific test.
The extra cores of the 2970WX seem better suited to rendering tasks, as it was giving
us large boosts over the 2920X in Cinebench, Corona, and Blender.
This was expected before going into the testing, as the same thing was seen a couple of months
ago with the 32 core 2990WX and 16 core 2950X, where these 24 and 32 core parts perform worse
in some tests based on the architecture of the CPU.
Now for some 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 my 1950X for gaming I definitely do play games on it, and this seems to be
how AMD is marketing the X series, so 2950X and 2920X chips, for the professional or enthusiast
that also wants to kick back at the end of the day with some games.
The 2970WX, like the 2990WX is aimed more towards serious creators and designers, those
who will actually benefit from huge core counts, so definitely not a gaming CPU.
Far Cry 5 was tested specifically because I know it performs better when making use
of local memory and legacy modes, as shown by the results.
This is an example which demonstrates some games will see a performance improvement on
Threadripper when memory is made local or CPU dies are disabled.
This is made clear particularly on the 2970WX, at stock it’s performing quite poorly but
then the results at least start to get closer to the 2920X with legacy half mode enabled,
which drops it down to the same 12 core count, then improved further with legacy quarter
mode, which lowers the core count further to 6.
This is not how all games perform though, so you can’t just drop into legacy mode
or change over to local memory from distributed when you plan on gaming to always get the
best performance, as shown here by our favourite Ashes of the Singularity test.
The highest frame rates of the 2920X are seen with distributed memory enabled, the default,
with local memory and half legacy mode lowering frame rates.
The 2970WX again also sees lower performance going to legacy half and quarter modes in
this title, as this game can actually make better use of the CPU than many other games.
At 1440p or 4K resolutions I’d expect much smaller differences even when compared to
using an Intel CPU with faster clock speeds.
If you’re after more gaming benchmarks on these two CPUs along with the other Threadripper
chips then I can highly suggest the Hardware Unboxed video linked in the description.
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 both to try and show you that results vary on the game anyway.
For the temperatures as mentioned I’m testing with the Enermax Liqtech 240 all in one liquid
cooler, as it’s designed for the TR4 socket.
Testing was completed with an ambient room temperature of 22 degrees Celsius with both
CPUs running the Blender classroom benchmark, so sort of a worst case but realistic load
for these chips.
At stock both the 2920X and 2970WX were performing similarly in terms of temperatures, which
I found interesting considering one has double the core count.
Once we start overclocking or using PBO things start getting warm, especially on the 2970WX
under overclock.
Here’s what the total system power draw looked like with both CPUs again running the
same Blender classroom benchmark.
Again, like the temperatures just shown the power draw of the 2970WX wasn’t actually
that much higher than the 2920X, although once we start adding PBO or overclocking into
the mix the power draw on the 24 core chip rises rapidly.
Finally let’s discuss pricing.
For updated pricing check the links in the description, as prices will change over time.
At the time of recording, the 2920X is going for $1019 AUD, while the 2970WX is about double
this at $2039 AUD.
In the US they have launch prices of $649 USD and $1299 USD, so pretty good value for
the core counts compared to the competition.
With that said though, the 2920X seems to be competing with its first generation counterpart,
the 1920X.
Although I haven’t personally had a 1920X to test and compare with, I suspect that the
differences in performance may not be too different, as they’re both 12 core parts.
When I previously compared the 1950X and 2950X there was about a 6% performance improvement
in single core workloads and a 4% improvement in multicore workloads with the tests that
I ran.
This boost wasn’t excellent when you consider that at the time of recording the 2950X costs
32% more than the older 1950X, making the first gen Threadripper chip much better value
for the money.
Assuming the performance boost of the 2920X is a similar improvement over the 1920X then
it may make more sense to pick up the cheaper 1920X if you’re after a 12 core CPU, which
at the time of recording is going for $490 USD, again making the launch price of the
2920X 32% more expensive for what will likely be a single digit percentage improvement.
The 2970WX on the other hand doesn’t really have anything in the Threadripper range to
compare to, as generation 2 gave us 32 and 24 core options that weren’t available with
the first generation, and I’ve never had any high core Intel CPUs to compare with so
I can’t talk too much about that, other than it’s clear that Threadripper is currently
dominating in terms of cores per dollar.
So what did you guys think about the performance of the Threadripper 2920X and 2970WX CPUs?
It’s great that we’ve now for the rest of the Threadripper 2 CPUs available, with
the 2920X becoming the entry point into the series, however I am wondering how many will
go for these new options when the discounted first generation options are looking so tempting
at current prices.
Let me know what you thought down in the comments, leave a like on the video if you found the
information useful, and don’t forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this
one.