AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Review

CPU Computing & Rendering Performance

CPU Workstation Performance

The 3D graphics performance we just measured isn’t all that matters to professional rendering software. Applications run many other tasks (like simulations, compute jobs, preview rendering) on the CPU simultaneously. The full picture’s only achievable by looking at both of them together.

Many modern suites include modules that are based exclusively on computing and simulations. This means we need to go beyond just 3D workstation performance to form our opinion of these high-end CPUs.

SolidWorks, for instance, doesn't scale well with increasing core count, which means that even quad-core processors with high IPC (and SMT) do well. AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processor keeps up with respectable results.

Frequency is what matters in Creo 3.0, so long as your CPU offers at least eight threads.

Clock rate and core count matter in 3ds Max 2015. Intel’s Core i7-7700K performs surprisingly well due to its high frequency. It would fare a lot worse if we turned off Hyper-Threading.

The CPU composite score includes rendering, which has its own separate section right below. Consequently, AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processor does really well.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.

Nobody beats AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper when it comes to rendering in 3ds Max 2015. Core count is much more important than clock rate, and performance scales beautifully with added on-die execution resources.

The console version of LuxRender confirms these results. The 1950X is in a league of its own.

Last but not least, we take a look at Blender. The usual workload (with a sample size of 200 pixels) confirms what we saw in the preceding benchmarks. The Threadripper 1950X finishes way ahead of the field.

The results obtained from SPECwpc’s Blender loop look very similar, even though this benchmark presents a somewhat different task consisting of more than just rendering.

With the rendering portion of the workload easing up, a stock Intel Core i9-7900X rejoins the party.

This trend gets stronger once multiple factors play a role in the benchmark loop, not just photorealistic rendering. It’s not exclusively up to core count anymore, but IPC’s important as well in this scenario.

Intel’s Core i9 CPUs offer acceptable performance for the semi-professional field. However, practically the same can be said for AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processor. Depending on the task, it ranges from being able to keep up reasonably well to beating the competition hands-down. We’ve waited a long time to say that. The accolades are well deserved!

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
5 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • vMax
    Very good in depth review. Threadripper looks like a great productivity CPU especially for the price to performance... At last AMD are back at the big table and thats not to put Intel down as they still make the fastest CPU's overall...just you have pay that much more for the privilege, but finaly we have a real choice at all price points... Great for the consumer. Good job Tom's and AMD.
    0
  • HEXiT
    so happy this has happend. intel wont be, but for amd, its great news. 95%+ the perfomance for half the price makes threadripper a very attractive cpu for virtual machines and even office environments that use terminals rather than every 1 using a desktop.
    so much potential for a £2k build that just wasnt there a year ago...
    0
  • fla56
    where is XFR testing?

    surely it's clear by now that the worst way to overclock a Ryzen is to try and overclock the cores?
    0
  • gferrin2012
    Hmm. I will first state I have no preference to AMD nor Intel. I can buy any CPU, or GPU that suits my needs. I looked over you "benches" and I will be very upfront. I do not believe yours. I think the "threadripper" benches a lot better than your are showing. Your test methods seem to favor Intel. I have long suspected and heard of Toms Hardware of being an Intel fanboy site. I have owned Intel and swore by them for years. In am considering AMD for the first time. I will continue to look at, what I believe, to be more honest test sites. Lets see how this plays out. I happen to have a friend who has an 1800x and and another associate that has an I7-7700k. I am familiar with Blenders Bmw benchmark. I would like an explanation as to why, in CPU rendering using blender 2.78c, the 1800x literally destroys the I7-7700k.
    If you look at my account (go ahead) here on Toms Hardware, you will notice I am not an AMD fanboy at all. When I start feeling I am getting biased reviews and have the sneaking suspicion of Intel slipping the 'ol kickback to you, it's time to delete my membership.
    0
  • HEXiT
    i think the variance between these and other benches is the way they have done em... maybe they didnt set the cpu to productivity and just used gaming mode or vies-versa. but there is some discrepancy between what im seeing here and elsewhere. whats up toms. normally your stuff is accurate.
    0