The 7900X needs very expensive water cooling to run at stock clocks. Air is out of the question. And a hard overclock, required a $1000 custom highend cooler. 7900X Thermal ProblemsZen won't be air-overclocking to 5Ghz anytime soon, despite the binary meanderings of certain elements in the press. "It would take a [chocolate covered] miracle." I'm going to wait to see how exactly the 12-core and TR shake out, but ymmv. I kind of figure that the 14+ core offerings from Intel aren't going to clock as well, and it isn't clear to me how the 16-core TR will compare to the 12-core Skylake-X part yet.
The 7900X needs very expensive water cooling to run at stock clocks. Air is out of the question. And a hard overclock, required a $1000 custom highend cooler. 7900X Thermal Problems
Indeed, while all my numbers were run at 4.5G, I was actually expecting 4.7-4.8, so the reviews *have* been surprising. To be clear, the "5Ghz on air" was a nod to two separate rumors (one about Zen, and one about TR http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57799/asus-pushes-amd-threadripper-16c-32t-cpu-5ghz/index.html in what appears to be, a fool me once shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you moment). Looking at those voltage curves, it's hard to imagine 4.5G, nevermind 5. But if TR throws down anything over 4, it'll be of interest to me :shrug:
I've never had cause to warranty a CPU, so that's a non-issue as far as I am concerned.Except for croaking your warranty.
It won't. Just really isn't feasible. The 1800x actual full load power usage is something like 95-100w. I think TR will be 160w. So that's the best case scenario for launch is clocking in between the 1700 and 1700x (much closer to the 1700x) . But we also know the cap on the Zeppelin dies in general and even a best case scenario for OC is something like 4.1 or 4.2 at probably 250-280w.
Yes more PCI-E lanes gives you more NVMe slots, more cores is not really a feature, ECC is, in case it ends to be true. And >64GB of RAM, yes i forgot about that one. So thats 2, more PCI-E lanes and >64GB of ram, still very poor feature-like, most people are just fine with a 8C AM4 Ryzen, there are much reasons to go TR unless you need some crazy core counts or memory size.
While I, too, am tired of being told that I not only can't have both, but it's *impossible* for me to want both (*), I do think we can be a bit bolder than just saying that we don't think TR will have 7900x ST performance. Maybe TRii will, but TR? Zen won't be air-overclocking to 5Ghz anytime soon, despite the binary meanderings of certain elements in the press. "It would take a [chocolate covered] miracle." I'm going to wait to see how exactly the 12-core and TR shake out, but ymmv. I kind of figure that the 14+ core offerings from Intel aren't going to clock as well, and it isn't clear to me how the 16-core TR will compare to the 12-core Skylake-X part yet.
Best guess is that Skylake is ~15% better IPC and will likely OC ~15% higher. If both of those are true, the 12-core Skylake may well be best for our case just because of the mix of needs. I'm going to pass on getting the 10-core, though, because it isn't faster enough from my current box, and the motherboards seem to be going through some maturing pain I'd rather not go through again :> And if I'm waiting anyway, might as well see what actually winds up shipping.
BTW, I assume you're the same bassman I know from elsewhere, in which case, thank you for the idea of adding a slow-mo inset vid. I really need a proper second camera for it, but the parental units were both very grateful for it.
--
(*) It's like saying I shouldn't want a mansion on the beach, because people who live on the beach wouldn't want to be in a big house because they're on the beach all the time, and people who really want to have a mansion don't have any time to play in the sand. Where do you even start to explain? Sometimes when I'm in my editor, I want to be doing motion tracking. Sometimes when I'm in my editor, I'm looking at four 4k streams. These operations require different profiles. I'm sorry your imagination has failed you? I dunno, I've just been shaking my head and moving on, but I die a little every time I read that stuff.
most people are just fine with a 8C AM4 Ryzen,
You said TR will not work for you if it can't match the 7900x in ST your words not mine. Now I am getting a bit snarky. I am sorry you so incapable of reading post without inferring intent just because it was information you didn't like. I said it was pointless to ask about it because it was and explained why. You won't get what you are looking for. Whether it has a single core turbo makes no difference in the equation because the fricken limitation you set can not be met by Ryzen in any situation. It's a done deal.
Do you not understand how the golden core turbo works on the 7900x? Because it might explain a lot if you didn't. Anyways I will try to be clearer so you can understand. To get to the top turbo on this or even AMD's Ryzen (since we don't have the full run down of turbo for TR) certain points have to be met. The CPU has to be under a certain temperature. The other major point is that a certain amount of cores have to be inactive while receiving a single or in the case of the step down two threads worth of heavy work. So again to actually hit those numbers you have to be doing only 1 thread worth of work period. Not two but the other is light, not three really week thread usages and one really large one. 1 Single heavy used thread. So the two can't go hand to hand. Again I am only talking about this single feature. If it is that important that not having it and not meeting it is so important you would give up 16 cores for 10. The reality would have to be that you would be better off buying a CPU that is 1/3 the price and clocks anoth 15% better.
You are talking about two expensive platforms that are about more than ST performance. A lot more you spend $1k on a CPU because you either A.) Just need the cores that bad (VM's) or B.) Total computational throughput. On some level I get limit thread usage that can still exceed 4c. But then wouldn't a 6c or 8c get you even better ST performance and still get you stronger MT performance then the 4c. I just can't imagine the use case for a 10c CPU that can't clock that high (high being 7700 high) costing 1k and then deciding at that point that no matter how strong a 16c solution is at that price just because it doesn't clock as high as the 10c solution. You are really into the use case for actual CPU throughput and not about 10 FPS in a game. If that is still the focus then you are making poor life choices. And again in these games the golden core nor the step below it has any effect because you aren't going to have the rest of the CPU at idle.
I am just trying to figure out which path to take as an upgrade from my 4790k. I have a difficult situation as I am a video professional and my software has a mix of ST and MT tasks.
Whatever, I will play along as I never said I was a CPU expert. I am just trying to figure out which path to take as an upgrade from my 4790k. I have a difficult situation as I am a video professional and my software has a mix of ST and MT tasks. Yes, 16 cores would be nice for encoding but timeline playback (h.264 decoding) would suffer. (and no, the Intel IGP does not accelerate my codec 10bit 4:2:2) So just like the megapixel race, more is not always the answer. The 7900x seems like a great mix if the heat can be controlled. But since TR is just around the corner I thought I would explore if it could work for my situation. I did not realize things had to be so serious. Yes, 8C is a choice but the 7820x is a bit gimped and I need to see if the performance in my NLE would benefit from the 7900x more than the 7820.
So no crazy life choice you can denigrate, just looking for the best fit for my business.
Is there any doubt left about this? I thought the EPYC pricelist made it quite clear.
Whatever, I will play along as I never said I was a CPU expert. I am just trying to figure out which path to take as an upgrade from my 4790k. I have a difficult situation as I am a video professional and my software has a mix of ST and MT tasks. Yes, 16 cores would be nice for encoding but timeline playback (h.264 decoding) would suffer. (and no, the Intel IGP does not accelerate my codec 10bit 4:2:2) So just like the megapixel race, more is not always the answer. The 7900x seems like a great mix if the heat can be controlled. But since TR is just around the corner I thought I would explore if it could work for my situation. I did not realize things had to be so serious. Yes, 8C is a choice but the 7820x is a bit gimped and I need to see if the performance in my NLE would benefit from the 7900x more than the 7820.
So no crazy life choice you can denigrate, just looking for the best fit for my business.
You still are unlikely to ever see the consistent "golden core" in action. It is so hard to keep all cores at idle specially in windows. You have to choose. Timeline or actual encoding work.
The curious thing to me is:
1) Threadripper ES chips have been spotted running at 3.4-3.5 GHz base + a 3.9GHz boost.
2) The 18 core intel ES chip has been spotted by a few different sites with a 2.9 ghz base clock...boost appeared to be disabled from what I've seen.
3) Threadripper could possibly be 3.6/4.0 at launch.
That's a blatant lie.The 7900X needs very expensive water cooling to run at stock clocks. Air is out of the question. And a hard overclock, required a $1000 custom highend cooler. 7900X Thermal Problems
Clearly, only you know what will meet your needs. I certainly can't read your mind. Nor can anyone else. If you are spending high end money though, having all the information helps a lot when you go to lay your money down. Perhaps they should rename it Lava Lake?
It is and it isn't. I Intel actually recommends for the 10c and up water cooling. Part of the reason is that actually power and heat levels require a pretty significant cooler. It's easier to say water cooler and know that it will cover it then saying find a cooler that can safely disperse and cool 140w+.That's a blatant lie.
We're talking about stock clocks here. How many air coolers have a cooling rating above 140w? 150w, if you wish? Even decent bottom rung air coolers are rated higher than that. No need to get dramatic over this.It is and it isn't. I Intel actually recommends for the 10c and up water cooling. Part of the reason is that actually power and heat levels require a pretty significant cooler. It's easier to say water cooler and know that it will cover it then saying find a cooler that can safely disperse and cool 140w+.
So no do you need a water cooler. No but you have to be a lot more picky about your choice.
Sorry to get snappy at the last post I just took offense to you attacking me because I gave a straight answer. It's still the same answer you will have to choose. In this case I can't speak to your specific issue on Timeline, I don't know the tool you are using but Jay2cents said that his timeline work was near real time and didn't feel any slower than his 5960 (which was clocked much higher than the 1800x) in his tool. I just can't tell you if you really will see any Timeline performance increases. But again you set a limit. That limit can't be hit. That was all I was trying to point out. On top of that even if your Timeline process is just a single core of usage. You still are unlikely to ever see the consistent "golden core" in action. It is so hard to keep all cores at idle specially in windows. You have to choose. Timeline or actual encoding work.
The reason why you would hardly see TR turbo reaching anything over 4ghz is the same reason Ryzen is barely clocking to that figure consistently. Intel's silicon has no such problems and so while base may be low due to power and thermal constraints, turbo boost 3.0 would most certainly have no problems clocking two clocks way past 4.0ghz; especially with the thermal and power headroom that'll be available during such scenarios.1) Interesting, I thought the top 16-core was 3.8 boost? I guess it's all rumors now anyway.
2) Yes, I don't think the SkyX 14-18 core models will clock well, the interesting one to me would be the 12-core.
3) I really hope they can, but I don't think they'll make it to 3.6 base. Not unless that B2 stepping was a pretty big step forward. I do hope we can see turbo up to 4.
The hilarious thing to me is that we almost certainly wouldn't be having this conversation if TR turbo was over 4. AMD is remarkably close....
I am not getting dramatic. And there are much more coolers that don't work with 140w than do. We as enthusiasts talk about only the well known solutions that would work fine (even their most basic forms). But again the point is that Intel actually states the recommended configuration is a water cooler.We're talking about stock clocks here. How many air coolers have a cooling rating above 140w? 150w, if you wish? Even decent bottom rung air coolers are rated higher than that. No need to get dramatic over this.
"Water cooler" is not the same as "very expensive water cooling." The dude is talking about a "$1000 custom highend cooler."!! Any $70 AIO is actually overkill for stock operation. Heck, a lot of people running Ryzen 1800Xs are going for highend air and AIOs. AMD doesn't even bother to bundle a cooler with the 1800x. What is AMD's recommendation for cooling the 1800x again? Again, no need for drama.I am not getting dramatic. And there are much more coolers that don't work with 140w than do. We as enthusiasts talk about only the well known solutions that would work fine (even their most basic forms). But again the point is that Intel actually states the recommended configuration is a water cooler.
We're talking about stock clocks here. How many air coolers have a cooling rating above 140w? 150w, if you wish? Even decent bottom rung air
coolers are rated higher than that. No need to get dramatic over this.
It's all about a level of perception. To you and expensive water cooling setup could mean a full out three radiator loop all put together by a professional. To someone else a $70 AIO is an expensive cooler than the simple $30 212evo that works fine on the competitors CPU."Water cooler" is not the same as "very expensive water cooling." The dude is talking about a "$1000 custom highend cooler."!! Any $70 AIO is actually overkill for stock operation. Heck, a lot of people running Ryzen 1800Xs are going for highend air and AIOs. AMD doesn't even bother to bundle a cooler with the 1800x. What is AMD's recommendation for cooling the 1800x again? Again, no need for drama.
True. I'm interested in seeing that test too. But that problem only raises its head when you start pushing clocks past 4.5Ghz, from all the reviews I read. Never stock.The problem with the 7900K is not the total heat dissipation, it is the poor thermal transfer from the die --> TIM --> IHS.This pretty much necessitates AIO cooling at a minimum, if not custom loop.
No one has taken me up on my request to run BOINC @ 100% all cores for extended periods of time to see what the maximum clocks attainable under that kind of usage are. I have a feeling the poor thermal transfer will make max OCs for 100% load 24/7/365 lower than expected - or cause longevity issues due to prolonged operation above 90C.