so, in the game, all Threadrippers are worse than all the Ryzen 7 and i7 8700/8700k?

[Noire Black Heart]

I haven't noticed it but why all Threadrippers are worse than Ryzen 7 and i7 8700/8700k? is it because of their single core performance?
https://benchmarks.ul.com/compare/best-cpus?amount=0&sortBy=SCORE&reverseOrder=true&types=DESKTOP&minRating=0
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1393945338

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Your first link to the benchmarks UL website is broken, but games and benchmarks in general usually benefit from high clock speed chips more than multi-core.

All threadripper chips are 4.0 ghz max turbo, and default to 3.4~3.8 ghz base clock.

7700K is 4 cores but 4.2ghz base, 4.5 ghz max turbo, stock.

And 8700K is 3.7 ghz base, but can turbo up to 4.6~4.7 ghz stock.

In real life, In general, threadripper is not the best for gaming or benchmarking. Threadripper is more for heavily multi-threaded things. Like Maya, or 3ds max, or blender, or adobe premiere, etc.

However, despite the internal ranking program in this game and what it says there, in PCBS right now, threadripper systems are the fastest in the game in 3dmark. This is because right now PCBS adds +10% cpu score per stick of ram installed, and threadripper systems are the only system in the game to allow 8 sticks of ram currently. So a fully populated threadripper system in-game should be roughly +70% with 8 sticks of ram vs just 1.

[Noire Black Heart]

Originally posted by Impending Rentacle Tape:

Your first link to the benchmarks UL website is broken, but games and benchmarks in general usually benefit from high clock speed chips more than multi-core.

All threadripper chips are 4.0 ghz max turbo, and default to 3.4~3.8 ghz base clock.

7700K is 4 cores but 4.2ghz base, 4.5 ghz max turbo, stock.

And 8700K is 3.7 ghz base, but can turbo up to 4.6~4.7 ghz stock.

In real life, In general, threadripper is not the best for gaming or benchmarking. Threadripper is more for heavily multi-threaded things. Like Maya, or 3ds max, or blender, or adobe premiere, etc.

However, despite the internal ranking program in this game and what it says there, in PCBS right now, threadripper systems are the fastest in the game in 3dmark. This is because right now PCBS adds +10% cpu score per stick of ram installed, and threadripper systems are the only system in the game to allow 8 sticks of ram currently. So a fully populated threadripper system in-game should be roughly +70% with 8 sticks of ram vs just 1.

the link to 3dmark ranking site isn't broken, it just need to be copied and pasted to another browser as steam doesn't seem to be able to redirect to the site. clearly, all threadrippers (except the 1900x) ranks higher than every core i7 and ryzen 7, only being beaten by the core i9s
https://i.imgur.com/qZ8uRJS.png

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by Noire Black Heart:

the link to 3dmark ranking site isn't broken, it just need to be copied and pasted to another browser as steam doesn't seem to be able to redirect to the site. clearly, all threadrippers (except the 1900x) ranks higher than every core i7 and ryzen 7, only being beaten by the core i9s
https://i.imgur.com/qZ8uRJS.png

I hope you do realize this is a synthetic benchmark and is not an indicator of actual gaming performance in actual games. In actual gaming, the threadripper chips are not as fast as most of these chips in games.

See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gi_lnDMHE0

Skip to 17:00 minute mark for gaming results. In most games the threadripper chips run about equal with old I7-2600K chips in gaming.

If you see earlier in the review here, where these chips shine is like I said up there, Blender, Adobe Premiere, work loads like that.

Just because a chip does well in 3dmark does not mean it's good at games.

[RAMChYLD]

Originally posted by Impending Rentacle Tape:

I hope you do realize this is a synthetic benchmark and is not an indicator of actual gaming performance in actual games. In actual gaming, the threadripper chips are not as fast as most of these chips in games.

Indeed. In fact, due to the Threadripper's design, It's actually something like running two Ryzen CPUs instead of a single CPU (think Intel's older Pentium D chips- the Threadripper actually has two silicon dies inside- well, 4, but the two other dies are dummies just there to balance the weight of the chip), and the memory channels are actually segmented- two channels go to the first die, another two goes to the second die. This creates latency and thus slowdowns in applications that are not heavily multithreaded, particularly games. Using Ryzen Master to put the CPU into gaming mode actually disables one of the dies (and thus, the second pair of memory channels). However, there is no denying that heavily-multithreaded programs like Vegas can take full advantage of the architecture, I'm quite impressed that I could render a 1080p50 video at 1:1 speed (as in, a 20 minute video actually renders in 20 minutes. My older FX-8320 rig took a whole hour to render a 20 minute video).

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by RAMChYLD:

Indeed. In fact, due to the Threadripper's design, It's actually something like running two Ryzen CPUs instead of a single CPU (think Intel's older Pentium D chips- the Threadripper actually has two silicon dies inside- well, 4, but the two other dies are dummies just there to balance the weight of the chip), and the memory channels are actually segmented- two channels go to one die, another two goes to the second die. This creates latency and thus slowdowns in many applications, particularly games. Using Ryzen Master to put the CPU into gaming mode actually disables one of the dies (and thus, the second pair of memory channels). However, there is no denying that multithreaded programs like Vegas can take advantage of this, I'm quite impressed that I could render a 1080p50 video at 1:1 speed (as in, a 20 minute video actually renders in 20 minutes. My older FX-8320 rig took a whole hour to render a 20 minute video).

Yep. If you're in to that sort of work load, like vegas and blender and other multi-threaded stuff, the Threadripper chips are actually quite nice and great performance for $879 when they can match (and in some programs beat) Intel's current $2000 18-core chips.

But.. if folks are just strictly in to gaming and live streaming, cheaper 1800X or 8700K would be a much better fit.

Different systems for different work loads.