AMD recently launched their new 12 core Threadripper 2920X CPU, but just how much of an upgrade
is it over the older 1920X, and which should you consider buying?
We’ll take a look both CPU and game benchmarks in this comparison to help you find out.
Let’s start off by comparing the specs between these two CPUs to give us an idea of what’s
actually different between the first and second generation chips.
Both are 12 core 24 thread parts, however the 2920X is based on AMD’s newer Zen+ architecture
and has slightly higher clock speeds.
The 2nd generation also has some extra features like XFR2 and Precision Boost Overdrive, which
we’ll get into later.
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 it’s what I’ve
got available to test with.
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 1920X and 2920X CPUs were tested in the same
system and conditions.
Both CPUs were tested at stock speeds and while manually overclocked.
It’s worth keeping 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 1920X at 4.0GHz with the same 1.35 volts, and overclocking was done using the Ryzen
master software.
I didn’t spend very much time tweaking the overclocks though, so they could probably
be dialled in a bit better.
Precision boost overdrive is a new feature present in Threadripper 2, so I’ve also
included results with this on the 2920X, but not the 1920X as it’s not supported.
Basically, it automatically increases frequency and power limits like overclocking, but also
still lets us use precision boost 2 and XFR2, so we might see better results in some tests
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.
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 with Cinebench at stock settings the 2920X is 6% ahead of the 1920X in the
multi core test and 4% ahead in the single core test.
With the 1920X overclocked it’s able to start scoring better than the 2920X at stock
in multi core performance, but as this results in the 1920X capping all cores at 4GHz it’s
getting slightly lower single core performance.
With both CPUs overclocked the difference lowers slightly, with the overclocked 2920X
4.6% ahead of the overclocked 1920X in the multicore result.
In Adobe Premiere I’ve tested using the latest 2019 version by exporting one of my
laptop reviews at 1080p.
At stock settings the 2920X is completing the task just 4% faster than the 1920X.
With both CPUs overclocked we’re seeing similar improvements in terms of time saved,
but this equates to the overclocked 2920X now completing the task around 7% faster than
the overclocked 1920X.
I’ve also tested the Warp Stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere, although this was only
done with a single instance running at once rather than multiple.
At stock speeds the 2920X is getting this done almost 6% faster than the 1920X at stock,
but once both CPUs are overclocked the 2920X’s lead drops to a 4% improvement compared to
the overclocked 1920X, as in this test I actually found the overclock making things worse for
the 2920X which was not the case on the 1920X in this specific test.
Handbrake was tested by converting a 4K file to 1080p, then a separate 1080p file to 720p.
Starting with the 4K export shown by the blue bar at stock the 2920X was performing the
task almost 7% faster than the stock 1920X, and then with both overclocks applied the
gap lowers a little, with the overclocked 2920X now just 4% faster than the overclocked
1920X.
In the 1080p export result shown by the purple bar, at stock the 2920X is again around 7%
faster than the stock 1920X, and then with both overclocked the 1920X actually sees a
fairly large improvement, putting the 2920X just 3% faster in this test, with the overclocked
1920X able to just get ahead of the stock 2920X.
Blender was used to test the BMW and Classroom benchmarks.
At stock speeds, the 2920X is completing the BMW benchmark 6.6% faster than the stock 1920X,
and 5.8% faster for the Classroom benchmark.
With both CPUs overclocked though, the 2920X is now just 5% faster than the overclocked
1920X in the BMW benchmark, and just under 3% faster in the Classroom benchmark.
The Corona benchmark renders out a scene using the CPU, and at stock the 2920X is completing
the task 6% faster than the 1920X.
With both CPUs overclocked the gap closes a fair bit, with the overclocked 2920X now
just 3% faster than the overclocked 1920X.
The V-Ray benchmark also uses the CPU to render a scene, and in this test at stock speeds
the 2920X was just 3.8% faster than the stock 1920X.
With both CPUs overclocked the 2920X is now just 4% faster than the overclocked 1920X.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and the 2920X came ahead in every
test, even after overclocking the 1920X it wasn’t quite able to pass the stock 2920X.
At stock speeds the 2920X is performing compression tasks 4% faster than the stock 1920X, and
the stock 2920X is 6% faster when it comes to decompression.
With the overclocks applied though the gap narrows, with the overclocked 2920X now just
2% ahead of the overclocked 1920X for compression, and 4% faster for decompression.
Veracrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and in this test the
overclocked 1920X was at least able to surpass the stock 2920X, but realistically all results
aren’t too far apart here anyway.
At stock speeds, the 2920X is just 2% faster in encryption and almost 3% better in decryption
when compared to the stock 1920X.
With both chips overclocked the 2920X moved further ahead of the overclocked 1920X in
encryption, going up to 2.7% faster, but then a slower 2% improvement for decryption.
As we’ve seen the performance can vary a bit depending on the specific test, though
in general we seem to be looking at anywhere from a 2% to 8% improvement with the 2920X
at stock speeds, with the average improvement being 5.4% when taking all applications tested
into consideration.
With the overclocks in place the average difference between the two CPUs lowers to the 2920X performing
3.9% better than the 1920X, though this will of course vary depending on the specific overclocks
that you’re able to get.
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 both the 1920X and 2920X chips, for the professional
or enthusiast that also wants to kick back at the end of the day with some games.
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.
At stock the 2920X is getting average frame rates 5% higher than the 1920X, and at the
other settings we can see the 2920X is only just a little in front.
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 are seen with distributed memory enabled, the default, with local memory
and half legacy mode lowering frame rates.
In this test at stock the 2920X is performing just 4% better than the 1920X in terms of
average frame rates.
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 were fairly similar, with the 2920X just a couple of degrees warmer.
With PBO enabled on the 2920X it gets a fair but hotter than any other result, but with
both CPUs manually overclocked the 1920X is getting hotter than the 2920X, despite it
being clocked slower with both being set to 1.35 volts.
Here’s what the total system power draw looked like with both CPUs again running the
same Blender classroom benchmark.
The results are in line with what we just saw in the previous temperature graph, where
at stock the 1920X is using less power than the stock 2920X, but once overclocked the
stock 1920X is using more power than the higher clocked 2920X at the same 1.35 volts, which
I think starts to show the better efficiencies of Threadripper 2.
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 1920X is going for $445 USD while the 2920X is going for
$650 USD, so 46% more money for the 2920X.
As we’ve seen in the results previously, we’re not getting anywhere near an equivalent
improvement in performance to fully justify that price increase, so it will depend on
whether you personally want to pay that much more for approximately 5% better on average,
at least based on the applications tested here.
The 1st generation Threadripper chips are available for some fairly low prices at the
moment, the prices went down quite a bit when the 2nd generation came out, so it will be
interesting to see how the third generation affects the price of the 2920X in the future,
it might end up being more worthwhile compared to the 1920X later.
So overall the 2920X is a nice little incremental improvement over the first generation 1920X.
If you’ve already got the 1920X I don’t think it’s worthwhile upgrading to the 2920X
at the current prices.
That’s not to say that it’s bad, it’s an excellent CPU for the price point, especially
when you compare it against Intel’s offerings with a similar core count, it seems like AMD
are competing with their own product line at the moment.
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.
Consider that just over a year ago when the 1920X launched it was going for $800 USD,
now just over a year later the better 2920X launched at $650 USD, exciting times.
So what did you guys think of the new Threadripper 2920X?
I hope the benchmarks and comparison against the older 1920X 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.