Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
Krogoth wrote:Have you check and see if the CPU is throttling or turbo boost is falling back under the stress test?
Waco wrote:Stock speeds? Doesn't seem particularly out of the ballpark given the clock deficit and core deficit to a 1950x. A 7940X at 4.5 GHz all-core can crank out about 8k points, so if you derate linearly to the base clocks, you're pretty spot-on.
Chrispy_ wrote:Yeah, delid if you're willing to take that risk.
The Skylake X chips are stupidly power-hungry and barely manage their base clock if you provide only the "official" 165W of cooling.
They 7960X at stock speeds is 75W hungrier than the Threadripper 1950X when measured using power draw at the wall, and the threadripper is rated at 180W to the Intel 165W. Now you can see what a joke that 165W TDP is, but that's only half the problem. Intel took such a ridiculously expensive and power-hungry chip and then used TIM instead of solder.
You'll get 3.1GHz all-core speeds if you use a 240mm radiator, and now a whole lot more. You need to delid, overclock, and get a 360 ro 280mm radiator on that thing, otherwise it's a huge waste of potential.
Meanwhile, Ryzen 1950X will run using a 92mm air cooler in an mATX case at 3.7GHz+ all-core without any problems. I know because I have 16 of them in a farm used for VRay ray tracing purposes.
Chrispy_ wrote:Yeah, delid if you're willing to take that risk.
The Skylake X chips are stupidly power-hungry and barely manage their base clock if you provide only the "official" 165W of cooling.
The 7960X at stock speeds is 75W hungrier than the Threadripper 1950X when measured using power draw at the wall, and the threadripper is rated at 180W to the Intel 165W. Now you can see what a joke that 165W TDP is, but that's only half the problem. Intel took such a ridiculously expensive and power-hungry chip and then used TIM instead of solder. Note that the 7940X is lower-binned silicon, it's likely to be leakier and more defective than the 7960X that is commonly reviewed. The complete lack of any reputable 7940X reviews makes me suspicious that Intel know that it's a power-draw and cooling nightmare, and therefore never sent any samples out to reviewers. I'm simply extrapolating based on the fact that lower-end models end up with the lower-binned dies.
You'll get 3.1GHz all-core speeds if you use a 240mm radiator, and it's unlikely you'll get a whole lot more, silicon lottery permitting.
You need to delid, overclock, and get a good quality triple radiator on that thing, otherwise it's a huge waste of potential.
Meanwhile, Ryzen 1950X will run using a 92mm air cooler in an mATX case at 3.7GHz+ all-core without any problems. I know because I have 16 of them in a farm used for VRay ray tracing purposes.
techguy wrote:https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/07/11/seasonic_focus_plus_gold_850w_power_supply_review/4. That works out to almost exactly 400W. Handbrake uses AVX also so that's about as demanding a scenario as you're going to find. If you like I could give you a sample file and my Handbrake settings so we could see just how fast Threadripper really is.
There's a reason AMD is doubling FPU width in Zen 2 afterall.
Waco wrote:techguy wrote:https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/07/11/seasonic_focus_plus_gold_850w_power_supply_review/4. That works out to almost exactly 400W. Handbrake uses AVX also so that's about as demanding a scenario as you're going to find. If you like I could give you a sample file and my Handbrake settings so we could see just how fast Threadripper really is.
There's a reason AMD is doubling FPU width in Zen 2 afterall.
https://techgage.com/article/battle-of- ... st-cpus/4/
I don't know, it doesn't seem like there's a massive delta there.
techguy wrote:Feel free to copy my settings and try it for yourself on your 1950x system. When I first built this machine I went with a 7900x after reading every single review on the net comparing Skylake-X with Threadripper, specifically in Handbrake. Almost none of those reviews showed much of a difference, virtually no scaling beyond 8-10 cores. I found one at the time, I will try to find it again. I recall the review using drastically different settings than just about every other review out there though, which made me realize that most of the workloads being tested were not pushing these CPUs in the right way.
Waco wrote:techguy wrote:Feel free to copy my settings and try it for yourself on your 1950x system. When I first built this machine I went with a 7900x after reading every single review on the net comparing Skylake-X with Threadripper, specifically in Handbrake. Almost none of those reviews showed much of a difference, virtually no scaling beyond 8-10 cores. I found one at the time, I will try to find it again. I recall the review using drastically different settings than just about every other review out there though, which made me realize that most of the workloads being tested were not pushing these CPUs in the right way.
I'd have to virtualize on my NAS to do so, but it definitely handles many streams of 1080p transcoding without a hiccup via Plex. 4K transcoding on the fly is actually functional as well.
I'd be interesting in seeing what the tuning can do on each, though!
Waco wrote:Ah, I guess that's not how I use it. Maximal streams at a time and/or maximal speed for transcoding 4K. The 1950x is pretty capable for that.
techguy wrote:It's one thing to be power hungry and not offer top tier performance, it's an entirely different matter when your products consume more power whilst providing more performance, as is the case with Intel's HCC chips in the vast majority of workloads.
<anecdotes>
Concupiscence wrote:I'm using a be quiet! Dark Rock 4, so that shouldn't be a source of problems.
techguy wrote:How many clients have you been able to stream to while transcoding?
Chrispy_ wrote:techguy wrote:It's one thing to be power hungry and not offer top tier performance, it's an entirely different matter when your products consume more power whilst providing more performance, as is the case with Intel's HCC chips in the vast majority of workloads.
<anecdotes>
Well, yes. I agree with you but I have no idea why you quoted me; I didn't mention performance even once in my post. I'm simply saying that the 165W TDP of the 7940X is a joke of a lie. If provided with a '165W' cooler it will throttle and fail to meet base clocks.
Chrispy_ wrote:We all know it's a 250W chip by simply looking at multiple stock-speed power draw results on the countless reviews around the web. If you want more than the rated all-core base speeds you are going to need to provide maximum cooling, no expense spared - as your 400W example proves.
Chrispy_ wrote:In fairness to common sense, if you're going to buy a $1300 chip and expensive supporting board, you really do need to spend a proportional amount on cooling. Intel's crazy 28 core consumer part needed a 1770W Tetrafluoroethane refrigerant system, and Anandtech's 7980XE pulls down a kilowatt when all the taps are opened. Don't get me wrong, their 7980XE is ludicriously fast, but from a performance-per-Watt argument, you could genuinely build four 2990WX boxes in that power envelope - and Intel aren't going to hold a candle to 128C/256T of Threadrippers.
techguy wrote:Can you provide evidence of this? I ran my 7900x at stock clocks and stock TIM under the IHS and it never got all the way down to base clock, or exceeded the 165W TDP as best my calculations can tell (usage under full load a full 100W less than the 7960x @ 4GHz).
techguy wrote:The purpose of including the rest of my system's specs is to demonstrate that not all of the power consumption can be attributed to the CPU
techguy wrote:Can you provide evidence of this? I ran my 7900x at stock clocks and stock TIM under the IHS and it never got all the way down to base clock, or exceeded the 140W TDP as best my calculations can tell (usage under full load a full 100W less than the 7960x @ 4GHz). The lowest all-core speed I ever saw was 3.6GHz (base clock is 3.3) and 95% of the time the chip sat at 4.0GHz.
Intel wrote:...there is a very accurate way to measure server power under a users “real world” conditions. And again, Intel and AMD both agree on this point: “The best way to measure a server’s power consumption is the power meter, an inexpensive tool that is plugged into the wall, and then your device, like a server, can be plugged into the power meter...
Concupiscence wrote:Alright, I may as well conclude this thread and put a bow on it. I went out and acquired a Noctua NF-F12 fan and strapped that onto the be quiet! Dark Rock 4, moving the default SilentWings 3 fan to the other side to push air to the case's vent fan. That definitely helped - Cinebench performance jumped from 5282 cb with AVX offsets disabled to 5566 with the motherboard running defaults. I may play with undervolting later, but this feels like it's managing thermal load much better... The real test is going to be subjecting it to Blu-ray rips with Handbrake and seeing how it fares. Thanks for all of your help!
thecoldanddarkone wrote:Concupiscence wrote:Alright, I may as well conclude this thread and put a bow on it. I went out and acquired a Noctua NF-F12 fan and strapped that onto the be quiet! Dark Rock 4, moving the default SilentWings 3 fan to the other side to push air to the case's vent fan. That definitely helped - Cinebench performance jumped from 5282 cb with AVX offsets disabled to 5566 with the motherboard running defaults. I may play with undervolting later, but this feels like it's managing thermal load much better... The real test is going to be subjecting it to Blu-ray rips with Handbrake and seeing how it fares. Thanks for all of your help!
So I actually own this processor. During cinebench r20 it maintains 3.8 all core (on a hyper 212 plus, lol) a bit above 6700. It seems pretty close to it's tdp except in one instance, prime 95 small fft all core load which pushes it to 3.5 (I think). I'll double check power usage etc. It's summer time and my ps4/monitor are on the same feed.
I used to own an MSI x299 sli plus (good board, bad for overclocking, but good stock). I currently use an MSI x299 carbon pro ac. I know my friend got similar scores at stock.