• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FRONTPAGE Threadripper 2 Review Compilation (2990WX and 2950X)

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Overclockers.com

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Today, AMD has released its latest Threadripper CPU, dubbed Threadripper 2, with a monster 32 core 64 thread 2990WX and the 16 core 2950WX. The new parts are based off the Zen+ architecture and continue AMD's onslaught of additional cores trumping similar processors from Intel by price and number of cores and threads.

Click here to view the article.
 
Pretty sure the AT review said 500W at 4.0 Ghz all c/t. Somewhere around its 250w tdp at stock.

I honestly havent had time to read much of them today.

Edit: techspot said 383W syztem load in corona at stock... so 250+
 
Last edited:
Back to the topic of this thread however... I read some of the reviews, seems like some heavy hitting power to me. And yes it's a LARGE power draw for a CPU, but seriously it's 32c/64t can't exactly expect 4+ GHz on that many cores at 8 core power usage. I'll be interested to read the write up on them here when they come. I said it in a previous thread however seeing the 2nd gen 16 core hitting 4.4 GHz is exciting (for me at least) news and suggests Ryzen 3000 series has a bright future with even higher frequency capability not to mention the next iteration of these chips, Threadripper 3. Which will probably be un-godly core counts at the top tier. Still not entirely sure why AMD and Intel are pushing core counts for home computers 15 years into the future, but it's kinda fun to watch, almost like the space race of the cold war era US and USSR.
 
After quick browsing the articles I see it's not overclocking better than the first gen of TR. Max boost on single cores is higher but manual OC is ~4.0-4.1GHz in most cases. It makes my 1920X look pretty good :)
 
Yes, of course less cores, hard to miss that :) ... not that I need so many, still it would be great to play with 32 cores but I guess after couple of days I wouldn't care if there is 12 or 32 cores. 16 core version OC the same as 32 looking at the results around the web.
 
32 cores at the same speed as 16 cores is twice the chip. If you can use the cores, that's impressive. Intel has their work cut out for them to match those numbers outright.
 
Ive got 32 threads... but have HT off and run 16c. Chip was given to me so, it doesnt break my heart to save 10C and run 16c a bit faster at less voltage. :)
 
No doubt. The number of people who need, or can even use, 32c/64t is pretty small. Like infinitesimal for the most part. But those who can and will utilize it make TR2-32 a tough one to beat.
 
Based on what i am seeing here, this processor is excellent if you want to render multiple things at the same time. Steamers do come to mind, but i do not think this processor would be beneficial for them due to complexity of how much is just crammed in there. all that latency and such.

Full name of it should have been put on the box as "AMD 2990 Workstation eXtreme" instead of "AMD 2990WX". something like that.
 
Paired with some decent RAM (3200-3600?) latency shouldn't be much of an issue. With the Ryzen architecture (Infinity Fabric), the faster the RAM the faster the chip. I wonder if it's that same design component that makes it harder to run faster RAM? It seems like a nice stable DDR4 3866 MHz-4000 MHz would make it a serious force to be reckoned with.
 
Back