AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Review

Power Consumption

We establish the package’s power consumption results by using a special sensor loop. This way, our values represent the exact amount of power that goes into the CPU and then reemerges in the form of power loss, which is to say waste heat dissipated by the cooling subsystem. We check our sensor readings using shunts and measuring overall power consumption directly at the EPS connector (current probe and direct voltage measurement).

The CPU values supplied by the voltage converters on the motherboard via HWinfo64 are sufficiently precise for our purposes, even though the measurement intervals are longer than those of our oscilloscope. We retested Intel’s Core i9-7900X after overclocking it to 4.5 GHz and added its results to the graphs to provide a fair comparison.

We need to note that AMD’s Threadripper CPUs use different partial voltages for the SOC and SMU rails at different clock rates. These partial voltages, which, again, depend on the frequency, do have an influence on the overall package’s power consumption results. AMD recommended that we use the profile included with their 32GB DDR4-3200 kit. If the memory was operated using the standard SPD values for DDR4-2133, then the power consumption would be 15W lower!

Both of AMD’s CPUs are designed for a maximum power consumption of 180W at their default settings. If the memory’s overclocked, then the CPU gets 15W less, which might affect performance in usage scenarios that employ all of the cores and, consequently, get too close to the limit.

Idle Power Consumption

Compared to AMD’s Ryzen 7, the Threadripper’s idle power consumption is just over twice as high. However, Threadripper also hosts two dies instead of one, and it also hits higher clock rates under occasional loads. The overclocked version utilizes higher voltages as well, and we just mentioned the memory’s role in power consumption.

CAD Workload Power Consumption

AutoCAD 2016 rarely uses more than two or three cores for its usual tasks. In fact, most of the time it's limited to a single core. Thus, it's not surprising that the CAD power consumption only adds a maximum of 15W to the idle power numbers, especially since the latter’s not truly idle power consumption to begin with.

The two overclocked versions add another 14W, which makes for an almost 30W difference compared to the idle power consumption. And then there’s the memory, of course.

Gaming Power Consumption

When it comes to gaming, we see an issue where Threadripper’s many cores get in each others' way. Consequently, overall performance ends up lackluster. The power consumption’s on the same level as that of Intel’s Core i9-7900X, even though Skylake-X fares much better in the benchmarks. The results are similar to those we reported for the real-time 3D CAD benchmarks.

Stress Test & Maximum Power Consumption

Power consumption goes through the roof during our stress test. This is especially true for the overclocked configurations.

In the case of a stock Intel Core i9-7900X, the motherboard has to shoulder some of the blame for this. It doesn’t lower the processor’s clock rate in accordance with the rules, but leaves them at a much higher level.

AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper doesn’t have those kinds of issues. The Asus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme motherboard limits power consumption to exactly 180W, just as it should, when using the default settings. Things look a whole lot different once the processor is manually overclocked to maximize its frequency, though. The 1950X needs 1.35V to achieve 3.9 GHz. At that point, AMD's new processors join Intel's overclocked Core i9-7900X well beyond 300W.

Bottom Line

Depending on the task, Threadripper's two dies sometimes consume more power than other processors’ single dies. This is to be expected when all cores are operating at full load. The high power consumption’s okay if it’s put in the context of correspondingly high application performance, as long as the work that’s being done has been parallelized well and the software is optimized for AMD's architecture.

Unfortunately, Threadripper's efficiency during gaming turns out to be significantly worse than Intel’s. Skylake enjoys notably higher IPC, after all. A large portion of Threadripper's higher power consumption comes simply from a baseline that notches up from Ryzen 7. Even at idle, it draws an additional 15W or so. If those 15W are subtracted from Threadripper's gaming power consumption, then the results look a lot better. It brings their lower power consumption increase compared to idle in line with their lower gaming performance.

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