Ennél a tesztnél maradtunk, az általad linkeltekből vannak a képek.
As you probably have heard, Intel made a bit of a sting in one of their media processor slides, calling Threadripper glued together. The reality is, there is some merit to that statement. In the end there are two dies active under that big heatspreader. That engineering choice does come with consequences and, in the end, compromises. First and foremost is the idle power consumption. You have two 8-core dies, obviously one of them isn't mysteriously shutting itself down when in idle. As a result your idle power consumption nearly doubles and sits just under or around a hundred watts. In the year 2017, really you want to see, say, 50'ish Watts there. Intel on their 10-core parts (with the newest firmware) sit a good 25 Watts lower in the 70 Watt range, not great either. So yes, I am not happy about idle power consumption. Average and peak utilization power consumption is fine.
The UMA (distributed) / NUMA (local) memory mode toggles are just embarrassing really. I mean, why oh why is there always some sort of compromise to be made with AMD memory solutions? With Ryzen it was the need for faster clocked memory, not for the clocks but the Infinity Fabric connecting it all uses the same memory multiplier. For Threadripper, really, you don't want to switch in-between less or more threaded modes, the sum of all parts and performance there should be equal in all circumstances.
I also need to mention gaming. Do not expect your Threadripper setup to run faster due to the many cores or quad-channel memory, it is the same Ryzen architecture and you will need to invest in expensive high-frequency memory to get that all up-to snuff. I do not consider the Threadripper platform to be an ultimate gamers platform whatsoever, not even all the PCI-Express Gen 3 channels will make that much of a difference. It is however as good as regular Ryzen 5 and 7. So if you are after more bang for buck, your value is to be found in regular Ryzen setups.
Last but not least, tweaking remains to be a bit of a conundrum. You can achieve an all-core tweak to 4.0 GHz. Intel goes higher on their clocks and often can reach 4.5 to 5 GHz. That's where some residual games performance is found in CPU bound situations. It also would have been nice to see a per core or even per CCX (per 4 cores) tweak. Say, four cores at 4200 MHz, four at 4000 MHz and the rest at 3700 MHz. That way you can balance heat and energy consumption better while getting more performance in your main and prioritized threads. The fact that you can clock 16 cores to 4.0 GHz stable at fairly low voltage however is pretty amazing stuff. And that's where we land in the following paragraph."
Válasz írásához előbb jelentkezz be!