1. AMD Ryzen Threadripper review

AMD is in the midst of a big comeback this year, with the release of multiple new CPUs based on the Zen architecture. The range has just been expanded with two new high-end processors known as Ryzen Threadripper.

These high-end desktop CPUs feature a ton of cores, cache and PCI-E lanes and so are targeted at workstation professionals and home artists who want the very best performance in content creation applications such as CAD, CAM, BIM, 3D graphics and video production.

Unlike the Ryzen 3, 5, 7 CPUs, which all share the same common architecture, simply with more cores added; Threadripper shares its design with AMD’s Epyc server CPUs. This means that Threadripper CPUs don’t fit into the AM4 socket and require a socket TR4 motherboard based on the AMD X399 chipset. This puts Threadripper in a similar position to Intel’s Core X CPUs which also require a different motherboard and chipset to Intel’s mainstream CPUs.

At launch there are two Threadripper CPUs, the 1950X and 1920X. The flagship 1950X features 16 physical cores running at between 3.4 and 4GHz while the cheaper 1920X has 12 physical cores running at between 3.5 and 4GHz. As you would expect, both CPUs support SMT, which like Intel’s HyperThreading allows each physical core to process two threads at once for additional performance if the application is coded appropriately.

Unlike Ryzen 3, 5 and 7 CPUs which have a dual-channel memory controller, Threadripper has a much capable more quad-channel controller, providing considerably more memory bandwidth. On paper Threadripper supports 2666MHz DDR4, although in our test in-house testing we could only get the RAM running this fast with just 16GB, any more memory than that and the system was only stable at 2133MHz.

The other big difference between Ryzen 3, 5, 7 and Threadripper is the PCI-E controller, with the former supporting 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, while Threadripper has a far more generous 64 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. This means that depending on the motherboard a Threadripper system could support far more graphics cards and NVME SSDs than a Ryzen system, which is a big selling point for workstation users.

In comparison, Intel’s equivalent CPUs, the Core X series currently have between 6 and 10 physical cores plus Hyperthreading, a quad-channel memory controller that happily runs at 3000MHz, plus up to 44 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. The table below shows the key specifications of each of AMD’s Threadripper and Intel’s Core X CPUs.

We tested the Threadripper 1950X head to head with the Intel Core i9 7900X, as these two CPUs are closest in price. As both CPUs retail for close to £1000 inc VAT neither CPU is really aimed at gamers so we focussed our testing on workstation applications.

The Threadripper test system comprised an Asus RoG Zenith Extreme motherboard plus 32GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000MHz which we had to clock down to 2133MHz to run stably while the Core i9 test system featured an Asus RoG STRIX X299-E GAMING motherboard plus 32GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000MHz. Both CPUs were kept cooler by a Corsair H100i hydrocooler as this is one of the first coolers to market that supports the new TR4 socket used by Threadripper.

Threadripper got off to a great start in our first test, Cinebench R15, which is based on the popular 3D content creation application Cinema 4D, proving an astonishing 38% faster than Core i9, indicating that Threadripper looks to be an excellent choice for 3D rendering. This pattern continued in our second test which uses Handbrake to encode an H.264 video, with the Threadripper proving 18% faster than Core i9.

However, after that Intel’s Core i9 started to strike back, posting a 7% faster score while editing high resolution photos in GIMP. We also ran both CPUs through the comprehensive SPECviewperf 12 benchmark which measures performance across nine popular real-world workstation applications such as 3ds Max, CATIA, Maya and Solidworks. Interestingly, the Core i9 proved noticeably faster than Threadripper in all nine of these tests with as much as a 15% performance lead.

Finally, while both CPUs are overkill for gaming as the majority of games do not run any faster on a CPU with more than four cores we also ran Heaven on the two CPUs as some users may want to play games in the evening after work. While the Core i9 was faster, it’s arguable that both CPUs are already so fast it barely matters.

Unfortunately we didn’t get very far overclocking the Threadripper 1950X CPU, as the CPU would throttle above 4GHz, which is the Turbo frequency supported by AMD. This sort of thing isn’t uncommon with early hardware and is likely to improve with future BIOS releases, however it’s looks like you’ll need very substantial cooling to overclock AMD’s new power hungry CPUs. It’s only fair to mention that Intel’s Core X CPUs are eminently overclockable, with the Core i9 7900X reaching at least 4.3GHz or even higher with custom watercooling.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Ryzen Threadripper is a massive step forward for AMD and marks the company’s first true high-end CPU in years, delivering workstation class performance thanks having lots of efficient cores and plenty of memory and bandwidth and PCI-E lanes.

Providing up to 16 physical cores at the launch price of £999 inc VAT means the Threadripper 1950X is sensibly priced too, although it’s only fair to point out that the Intel Core i9 7900X is £100 cheaper at £899 inc VAT. Also don’t forget that both companies produce cheaper CPUs with fewer cores if the flagship models are beyond your budget.

Performance wise the Threadripper 1950X is very competitive with the Core i9 7900X, delivering superior speed in some applications but worse performance in others. This makes it hard to pick a clear cut winner and as such my recommendation would be to look very closely at the performance results we’ve posted and choose the platform that is best for the applications you run. After all, whichever you choose you’ll be in a treat, as both Threadripper and Core i9 are much faster than previous generation CPUs and thanks to the added competition in the CPU market are much more affordably priced too.

You can browse the full range of AMD Ryzen Threadripper CPUs and motherboards plus Intel Core X CPUs and motherboards on the Scan website, along with our award-winning 3XS Systems featuring these processors.

2. AMD Ryzen 3 review

At the opposite end of the spectrum from Threadripper AMD has also expanded its desktop CPU range with Ryzen 3, which comprises a pair of quad-core models.

The Ryzen 3 1200 is clocked at 3.1GHz and retails for just under £100 while the Ryzen 3 1300X is clocked a fair bit higher at 3.5GHz but retails for £25 more. Either way, both CPUs represent the cheapest way to get quad-core performance and are extremely competitively priced considering that Intel only offers dual-core Core i3 processors at these sorts of prices.

Intel’s Core i3 does have the edge in clock speed though, which means they are noticeably faster than Ryzen 3 in most games. That said, all but one Core i3 are not overclockable, whereas both Ryzen 3 CPUs are overclockable to around 3.9GHz, which allows the AMD CPUs to close the performance gap in games.

You can view the range of AMD Ryzen 3 CPUs on the Scan website along with a range of affordable 3XS gaming PCs based on the new processors.

3. AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review

AMD revealed a year and a half ago that its next generation of gaming graphics cards would be based on a new architecture called Vega, and this month they’ve finally emerged onto the market.

The flagship card is the Radeon RX Vega 64, with a cut down card called the Vega 56 due to launch imminently. Vega marks a big step forwards for AMD, as it’s the company’s first high-end GPU architecture to made using a 14nm process. As a result, Vega GPUs run at much higher frequencies than their predecessors from the Fury range. For instance, the old Fury X walked along at 1,050MHz while the Vega 64 runs along at 1,546MHz. Vega still makes use of HMB2 memory, but has doubled the capacity from 4 to 8GB. There are many architectural improvements in Vega too although AMD hasn’t revealed too much at this stage. However, it has stated that improved compute performance was a key target for Vega, which bodes well for the professional Vega graphics cards due for release later this year.

The table below highlights the key specifications of the Vega 64 which is available in both air cooled and watercooled versions, the previous generation Fury X plus the GeForce GTX 1080 as that’s the closest price NVIDIA card. However, it’s worth noting that most GTX 1080s on the market today feature custom coolers and considerably higher clock speeds than the Founders Edition card listed here.

The two most readily apparent things from that table is that the Vega 64 has a lot more memory bandwidth on tap than the GTX 1080 and that its official board power is a whopping 63% higher.

What this translate into in real world terms is that Vega 64 trades blows with the GTX 1080, delivering faster performance in some games and slower performance in others. For instance, in Doom at 2,560 x 1,440 the Vega 64 was 4% faster, while in The Witcher 3 it was 4% slower. Benchmarked across six other games this translates into the GTX 1080 being slightly faster overall by around 5%, the exception being the ever-popular GTA V at which the Vega 64 was a whopping 20% slower than the GTX 1080.

Unfortunately, despite this competitive performance the higher board power of Vega 64 is noticeable in the real world too, with our Vega 64 test PC drawing 350W from the wall when gaming versus just 265W with a GTX 1080 fitted. This not only means less electricity to pay every month, but potentially a cheaper low-wattage PSU as well if you chose a GTX 1080. All that power has to go somewhere too, and as a result the Vega 64 is definitely on the noisy side, emitting around 44dBA when gaming versus 35dBA for a custom-cooled GTX 1080 such as the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW.

It’s disappointing that AMD’s latest and greatest graphics card is outpaced by the GTX 1080 which is more than a year old, especially when you consider than the latter is as much as £100 cheaper, consumes less power and is much quieter too. Hopefully many of these characteristics will be improved as board partners get to play with Vega 64 and release custom-cooled overclocked cards, but right now the GTX 1080 is still the best option for gaming at 2560 x 1440 or similar high resolutions.

4. Intel reveals specs of future Core-X CPUs

Returning to the topic of CPUs Intel has unveiled the tech specs of the next four models of Core X processor family. These names of these models were announced in the original launch last month but it’s only now that we’re getting the full specifications. The table below shows the four new CPUs on the right, with the existing three Core X CPUs on the left for comparison.

According to the news release on the Intel website, the Core i9 7920X will be available from August 28th while the other three models will release from September 25th onwards. As soon as we have samples we’ll post a full report on these new processors.

5. Deep Learning Expertise

Scan is delighted to have been awarded Elite Solution Provider for Deep Learning status by NVIDIA, the first company in EMEA to receive this accolade. The Elite Solution Provider level is awarded to partners that have built up the knowledge and skills to support the integration of deep learning solutions using our in-house team of data scientists, hardware and software engineers.

Elite Partner Level is rewarded in recognition of Scan’s ability and competency to integrate a wide portfolio of NVIDIA’s deep learning solutions such as the DGX-1 server and DGX Station.