The Performance and Efficiency of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 29,200 X and Ryzen 9 1920 X CPUs

In our recent testing, we've seen a performance improvement on thread Ripper when memory is made local or CPU dies are disabled at stock. The 29,20 X is getting average frame rates 5 percent higher than the 1920 X, and at other settings, the 29,20 X is only just little, from this is not all games perform there, so you can't just drop into legacy mode or change over to local memory from distributed when you plan on gaming. Always get the best performance as shown here by our favorite Ashes of the Singularity test. The highest frame rates are seen with distributed memory enabled, the default with local memory and HUF legacy mode lowering frame rates in this test.

At stock, the 29,20 X is performing just 4 percent better than the 1920 X in terms of average frame rates at 1440 pE or 4k resolutions. I'd expect much smaller differences even when compared to using an Intel CPU with faster clock speeds. If you're after more gaming benchmarks on these two CPUs along with other thread Ripper chips, that I can highly suggest the hardware unboxed video linked in the description. Realistically, I think most people myself included won't bother swapping between distributed and local modes as it requires a reboot. I know I'm personally happy playing games in distributed mode; the small frame rate boost isn't what the main issue but I've tested these games in birth to try and show you that the results vary on the game anyway.

For the temperatures, testing was completed with an Animax Lynktec 240 all-in-one liquid cooler as it's designed for the tr4 socket. Testing was completed with an ambient room temperature of 22 degrees Celsius with both CPUs running the blender closer benchmark so sort of a worst-case but realistic load for these chips at stock both were fairly similar with the 29,20 X just a couple of degrees warmer with PBO enabled on the 29,20 X it gets a fair bit hotter than any other result. But with the CPUs manually overclocked to the 1920 X is getting hotter than the 29,20 X despite of being clocked slower.

With both CPUs again running the same blender closer benchmark, the results are in line with what we just saw in the previous temperature graph where its stock the 1920 X is using less power than the stock 29,20 X but once overclocked the stock 1920 X is using more power than the higher clocked 29,20 X at the same 1.35 volts which I think starts to show the better efficiencies of thread Ripper.

Finally, let's discuss pricing for updated pricing check the links in the description as prices will change over time at the time of recording the 1920 X is going for four hundred and forty five US dollars while the twenty nine twenty X is going for six hundred and fifty US dollars so forty six percent more money for the twenty nine twenty X. As we've seen in the results previously, we're not getting anywhere near an equivalent improvement in performance to fully justify that price increase so it will depend on whether you personally want to pay that much more for approximately five percent better on average at least based on the applications tested here.

The first generation thread Ripper chips are available for some fairly low prices at the moment. The prices went down quite a bit when the second generation came out so will be interesting to see how the third generation affects the price of the twenty nine twenty X in the future it might end up being more worthwhile compared to the 1920 X later. So overall, the twenty nine twenty X is a nice little incremental improvement over the first generation 1920 x if you've already got the 1920 X I don't think it's worthwhile upgrading to the twenty nine twenty X at the current prices that's not to say it's bad it's an excellent CPU for the price point especially when you compare it against Intel's offerings with a similar core count.

It seems like AMD is competing in our product line at the moment. It's great to see the thread Rip a product mature over time learner with new features and improved memory support at cheaper prices I can see this potentially leading to a higher uptake in the platform consider that just over a year ago when the 1920 X launched it was going for eight hundred US dollars now just over a year later the better twenty nine twenty X launched its six hundred and fifty US dollars exciting times.

So what did you guys think of the new thread referred twenty nine twenty X? I hope the benchmarks and comparisons against the old and 1920 X have been useful especially if you're picking between the two let me know down in the comments which you'd pick. Thanks for watching and don't forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this one

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enAMD recently launched the new 12 core thread Ripper 2920 X CPU but just how much of an upgrade is it over the older 1920 X and which in you consider buying we'll take a look at both CPU and gain benchmarks in this comparison to help you find out let's start off by comparing the specs between these two CPUs to give us an idea of what's actually different between the first and second generation chips both are 12 core 24 thread parts however the 29 20 X is based on AMD's new is n+ architecture and has slightly higher clock speeds the second generation also has extra features like xf r2 and precision boost overdrive which we'll get into later before we dig into the results I'll briefly cover off the specs of the system that I'm testing with I've got the msi Meg x3 99 creation motherboard with the latest BIOS update available applied there's four sticks of g.skill flare X ddr4 3200 Co 14 memory running in quad-channel and I'm also using my trusty EVGA 1084 the winter graphics card not the best but it's what I've got available to test with for the CPU cooler I'm using the edimax lick tech 240 with its included thermal paste as that's what was available so birth to 1920 X and 29 20 X CPUs were tested in the same system and conditions both CPUs were tested at stock speeds and while manually overclocked it's worth keeping in mind that the Ophir clocks on your particular CPU will vary anyway based on many other factors such as cooling and the silicon muttering with that in mind I was able to get my 29:20 x2 4.2 gigahertz at 1.3 5 volts on all 12 cores and the 1920 X at 4.0 gigahertz with the same 1.3 5 volts and overclocking was done using the Verizon master software I didn't spend very much time tweaking the Yerba clocks though so they could probably be dialed in a bit better precision boost overdrive is a new feature present in thread Ripper - so I've also included results with this on the 29:20 X but not the 1920 X as it's not supported basically it automatically increases freak see and power limits like overclocking but also still lets us use precision boost to and XFR to so we might see better results in some tests compared to the manual or Core overclocks particularly in single threaded workloads where the cause can still boost above what I'd be setting with my lower or core ever clocks unfortunately like overclocking this does void your warranty although it's not exactly clear if anyone can actually determine you've done this all right that's a lot of explanation now for those results we'll start out with the CPU benchmarks followed by the games afterwards these tests were all completed with a distributed memory access mode enabled through the resin master software which is enabled by default and recommended for multi-core workloads starting with Cinebench at stock settings the 2920 X is 6% ahead of the 1920 X in the multi-core test and 4% ahead in the single core test with the 1920 X overclocked it's able to start scoring better than the 29:20 exit stock and multi-core performance but as this results in the 1920 X capping all cores at 4 gigahertz it's getting slightly slower single core performance with both CPUs overclocked the difference lowers slightly with the overclocked 29 20 X 4.6 percent ahead of the year for clocks 1920 X in the multi-core result in adobe premier i've tested using the latest 2019 version by exporting one of my laptop reviews at 1080p at stock settings the 29 20 X is completing the task just 4% faster than the 1920 X with both CPUs overclocked we're seeing similar improvements in terms of time saved but this equates to the overclocked to 1920 X now completing the task around 7% faster than the 1920 X I've also tested the warp stabiliser effect in Adobe Premiere although this was only done with a single instance running a once rather than multiple at stock speeds the twenty nine twenty X is getting this done almost 6 percent faster than the 1920 exit stock but once both CPUs are overclocked the 29 20 X's lead drops to a 4 percent improvement compared to the overclocked 1920 X as in this test I actually found the overclock making things worse for the 29th 20x which was not the case with the 1920 X in this specific test handbrake was tested by converting a 4k file to 1080p and then a separate 1080p file to 720p starting with the 4k exponent shown by the blue bar at stock the 29:20 X was performing the task almost seven percent faster than the stock 1920 X and then with both overclocked supply the gap low was a little with the overclocked 29 20 X now just 4% faster than the overclocked 1920 X in the 1080p export results shown by the purple bar at stock the 29 20 X is again around 7 percent faster than the stock 1920 X and then with both overclocked the 1920 X actually sees a fairly large improvement putting the 29 20 X just three percent faster in this test with the overclocked 1920 X are able to just get ahead of the stock 29 20 X blender was used to test the BMW and classroom benchmarks at stock speeds the 29 20 X is completing the BMW benchmark 6.6 percent faster than the stock 1920 X and 5.8 percent faster for the classroom benchmark with both CPUs overclocked through the 29 20 X is now just 5 percent faster than the overclocked 1920 X in the BMW benchmark and just under 3 percent faster in the classroom benchmark the corona benchmark renders out a scene using the CPU and its stock the 29 20 X is completing the task 6 percent faster than the 1920 X with both CPUs overclocked the gap closes a fair bit with the overclocked 29 20 X now just 3 percent faster than the overclocked 1920 X the v-ray benchmark also uses the CPU to render a scene and in this test at stock speeds the 29 20 X was just three point eight percent faster than the stock 1920 X with both CPUs overclocked the 29 20 X is now just four percent faster than the you ever clocked in 1920 X 7-zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds and the 29 20 X came out ahead in every test even after overclocking the 1920 X it wasn't quite able to pass the stop 29 20 X at stock speeds the 29th 20 X is performing compression tasks 4% faster than the stock 1920 X and the stock 29 20 X is 6 percent faster when it comes to decompression with the overclock supplied though the gap narrows with the overclocked 29 20 X now just to Poisson the head of the overclocked 1920 x4 compression and 4% faster for decompression veracrypt was used to test a es encryption and decryption speeds and in this test the overclocked 19 20 X was at least able to surpass the stock 29 20 X but realistically all results aren't too far apart here anyway at stock speeds the 29 20 X is just 2% faster and encryption and almost 3 percent better in decryption when compared to the stock 19 20 X with both chips overclocked the 2920 X moved further ahead of the overclocked to 1920 X in encryption going up to 2.7 percent faster but then a slower 2% improvement for decryption as we've seen the performance can vary quite a bit depending on the specific test though in general we seem to be looking anywhere from a 2% to 8% improvement with the 29:20 X and stock speeds with the average improvement being 5.4 percent when taking all applications tested into consideration with the ethic locks in place the average difference between the two CPUs lowers to the 29 20 X performing 3.9 percent better than the 1920 X though this will of course vary depending on the specific overclocks that you're able to get now for some games while I wouldn't recommend buying a thread Ripper CPU purely for gaming for many of us such as myself the reality is that we have one main system that we use and while I don't primarily use my 1950 x4 gaming I definitely do play games on it and this seems to be how AMD is marketing the x-series so birth in 1920 X and 29 20 X chips for the professional or enthusiast that also wants to kick back at the end of the day with some games far cry 5 was tested specifically because I know it performs better when making use of local memory and legacy modes as shown by the results this is an example which demonstrates some games we'll see a performance improvement on thread Ripper when memory is made local or CPU dyes are disabled at stock the 29 20 X is getting average frame rates 5 percent higher than the 1920 X and at the other settings we can see the 29 20 X is only just little and from this is not all games perform there so you can't just drop into legacy mode or change over to local memory from distributed when you plan on gaming to always get the best performance as shown here by our favorite ashes of the singularity test the highest frame rates are seen with distributed memory enabled the default with local memory and huf legacy mode lowering frame rates in this test at stock the 29 20 X is performing just 4 percent better than the 1920 X in terms of average frame rates at 1440 PE or 4k resolutions I'd expect much smaller differences even when compared to using an Intel CPU with faster clock speeds if you're after more gaming benchmarks on these 2 CPUs along with other thread Ripper chips that I can highly suggest the hardware unboxed video linked in the description realistically I think most people myself included won't bother swapping between distributed and local modes as it requires a reboot I know I'm personally happy playing games in distributed mode the small frame rate boost isn't what the reboot but I've tested these games in birth to try and show you that the results vary on the game anyway for the temperatures as mentioned I'm testing with the Animax lynktec 240 all-in-one liquid cooler as it's designed for the tr4 socket testing was completed with an ambient room temperature of 22 degrees Celsius with both CPUs running the blender closer benchmark so sort of a worst-case but realistic load for these chips at stock both were fairly similar with the 29 20 X just a couple of degrees warmer with PBO enabled on the 29 20 X it gets a fair bit hotter than any other result but with the CPUs manually overclocked to the 1920 X is getting hotter than the 29 20 X despite of being clocked slower with both being set to 1.3 5 volts here's with the total system power drawer looked like with both CPUs again running the same blender closer of benchmark the results are in line with what we just saw in the previous temperature graph where its stock the 1920 X is using less power than the stop 29 20 X but once overclocked the stock 1920 X is using more power than the higher clocked 29 20 X at the same 1.35 volts which I think starts to show the better efficiencies of thread Ripper - finally let's discuss pricing for updated pricing check the links in the description as prices will change over time at the time of recording the 1920 X is going for four hundred and forty five US dollars while the twenty nine twenty X is going for six hundred and fifty US dollars so forty six percent more money for the twenty nine twenty X as we've seen in the results previously we're not getting anywhere near an equivalent improvement in performance to fully justify that price increase so it will depend on whether you personally want to pay that much more for approximately five percent better on average at least based on the applications tested here the first generation thread ripper chips are available for some fairly low prices at the moment the prices went down quite a bit when the second generation came out so will be interesting to see how the third generation affects the price of the twenty nine twenty X in the future it might end up being more worthwhile compared to the 1920 X later so overall the twenty nine twenty X is a nice little incremental improvement over the first generation 1920 x if you've already got the 1920 X I don't think it's worthwhile upgrading to the twenty nine twenty X at the current prices that's not to say it's bad it's an excellent CPU for the price point especially when you compare it against Intel's offerings with a similar core count it seems like AMD you're competing with our in product line at the moment it's great to see the thread rip a product mature over time learner with new features and improved memory support at cheaper prices I can see this potentially leading to a higher uptake in the platform consider that just over a year ago when the 1920 X launched it was going for eight hundred US dollars now just over a year later the better twenty nine twenty X launched its six hundred and fifty US dollars exciting times so what did you guys think of the new thread referred twenty nine twenty X I hope the benchmarks and comparisons against the old and 1920 X have been useful especially if you're picking between the two let me know down in the comments which you'd pick thanks for watching and don't forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this oneAMD recently launched the new 12 core thread Ripper 2920 X CPU but just how much of an upgrade is it over the older 1920 X and which in you consider buying we'll take a look at both CPU and gain benchmarks in this comparison to help you find out let's start off by comparing the specs between these two CPUs to give us an idea of what's actually different between the first and second generation chips both are 12 core 24 thread parts however the 29 20 X is based on AMD's new is n+ architecture and has slightly higher clock speeds the second generation also has extra features like xf r2 and precision boost overdrive which we'll get into later before we dig into the results I'll briefly cover off the specs of the system that I'm testing with I've got the msi Meg x3 99 creation motherboard with the latest BIOS update available applied there's four sticks of g.skill flare X ddr4 3200 Co 14 memory running in quad-channel and I'm also using my trusty EVGA 1084 the winter graphics card not the best but it's what I've got available to test with for the CPU cooler I'm using the edimax lick tech 240 with its included thermal paste as that's what was available so birth to 1920 X and 29 20 X CPUs were tested in the same system and conditions both CPUs were tested at stock speeds and while manually overclocked it's worth keeping in mind that the Ophir clocks on your particular CPU will vary anyway based on many other factors such as cooling and the silicon muttering with that in mind I was able to get my 29:20 x2 4.2 gigahertz at 1.3 5 volts on all 12 cores and the 1920 X at 4.0 gigahertz with the same 1.3 5 volts and overclocking was done using the Verizon master software I didn't spend very much time tweaking the Yerba clocks though so they could probably be dialed in a bit better precision boost overdrive is a new feature present in thread Ripper - so I've also included results with this on the 29:20 X but not the 1920 X as it's not supported basically it automatically increases freak see and power limits like overclocking but also still lets us use precision boost to and XFR to so we might see better results in some tests compared to the manual or Core overclocks particularly in single threaded workloads where the cause can still boost above what I'd be setting with my lower or core ever clocks unfortunately like overclocking this does void your warranty although it's not exactly clear if anyone can actually determine you've done this all right that's a lot of explanation now for those results we'll start out with the CPU benchmarks followed by the games afterwards these tests were all completed with a distributed memory access mode enabled through the resin master software which is enabled by default and recommended for multi-core workloads starting with Cinebench at stock settings the 2920 X is 6% ahead of the 1920 X in the multi-core test and 4% ahead in the single core test with the 1920 X overclocked it's able to start scoring better than the 29:20 exit stock and multi-core performance but as this results in the 1920 X capping all cores at 4 gigahertz it's getting slightly slower single core performance with both CPUs overclocked the difference lowers slightly with the overclocked 29 20 X 4.6 percent ahead of the year for clocks 1920 X in the multi-core result in adobe premier i've tested using the latest 2019 version by exporting one of my laptop reviews at 1080p at stock settings the 29 20 X is completing the task just 4% faster than the 1920 X with both CPUs overclocked we're seeing similar improvements in terms of time saved but this equates to the overclocked to 1920 X now completing the task around 7% faster than the 1920 X I've also tested the warp stabiliser effect in Adobe Premiere although this was only done with a single instance running a once rather than multiple at stock speeds the twenty nine twenty X is getting this done almost 6 percent faster than the 1920 exit stock but once both CPUs are overclocked the 29 20 X's lead drops to a 4 percent improvement compared to the overclocked 1920 X as in this test I actually found the overclock making things worse for the 29th 20x which was not the case with the 1920 X in this specific test handbrake was tested by converting a 4k file to 1080p and then a separate 1080p file to 720p starting with the 4k exponent shown by the blue bar at stock the 29:20 X was performing the task almost seven percent faster than the stock 1920 X and then with both overclocked supply the gap low was a little with the overclocked 29 20 X now just 4% faster than the overclocked 1920 X in the 1080p export results shown by the purple bar at stock the 29 20 X is again around 7 percent faster than the stock 1920 X and then with both overclocked the 1920 X actually sees a fairly large improvement putting the 29 20 X just three percent faster in this test with the overclocked 1920 X are able to just get ahead of the stock 29 20 X blender was used to test the BMW and classroom benchmarks at stock speeds the 29 20 X is completing the BMW benchmark 6.6 percent faster than the stock 1920 X and 5.8 percent faster for the classroom benchmark with both CPUs overclocked through the 29 20 X is now just 5 percent faster than the overclocked 1920 X in the BMW benchmark and just under 3 percent faster in the classroom benchmark the corona benchmark renders out a scene using the CPU and its stock the 29 20 X is completing the task 6 percent faster than the 1920 X with both CPUs overclocked the gap closes a fair bit with the overclocked 29 20 X now just 3 percent faster than the overclocked 1920 X the v-ray benchmark also uses the CPU to render a scene and in this test at stock speeds the 29 20 X was just three point eight percent faster than the stock 1920 X with both CPUs overclocked the 29 20 X is now just four percent faster than the you ever clocked in 1920 X 7-zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds and the 29 20 X came out ahead in every test even after overclocking the 1920 X it wasn't quite able to pass the stop 29 20 X at stock speeds the 29th 20 X is performing compression tasks 4% faster than the stock 1920 X and the stock 29 20 X is 6 percent faster when it comes to decompression with the overclock supplied though the gap narrows with the overclocked 29 20 X now just to Poisson the head of the overclocked 1920 x4 compression and 4% faster for decompression veracrypt was used to test a es encryption and decryption speeds and in this test the overclocked 19 20 X was at least able to surpass the stock 29 20 X but realistically all results aren't too far apart here anyway at stock speeds the 29 20 X is just 2% faster and encryption and almost 3 percent better in decryption when compared to the stock 19 20 X with both chips overclocked the 2920 X moved further ahead of the overclocked to 1920 X in encryption going up to 2.7 percent faster but then a slower 2% improvement for decryption as we've seen the performance can vary quite a bit depending on the specific test though in general we seem to be looking anywhere from a 2% to 8% improvement with the 29:20 X and stock speeds with the average improvement being 5.4 percent when taking all applications tested into consideration with the ethic locks in place the average difference between the two CPUs lowers to the 29 20 X performing 3.9 percent better than the 1920 X though this will of course vary depending on the specific overclocks that you're able to get now for some games while I wouldn't recommend buying a thread Ripper CPU purely for gaming for many of us such as myself the reality is that we have one main system that we use and while I don't primarily use my 1950 x4 gaming I definitely do play games on it and this seems to be how AMD is marketing the x-series so birth in 1920 X and 29 20 X chips for the professional or enthusiast that also wants to kick back at the end of the day with some games far cry 5 was tested specifically because I know it performs better when making use of local memory and legacy modes as shown by the results this is an example which demonstrates some games we'll see a performance improvement on thread Ripper when memory is made local or CPU dyes are disabled at stock the 29 20 X is getting average frame rates 5 percent higher than the 1920 X and at the other settings we can see the 29 20 X is only just little and from this is not all games perform there so you can't just drop into legacy mode or change over to local memory from distributed when you plan on gaming to always get the best performance as shown here by our favorite ashes of the singularity test the highest frame rates are seen with distributed memory enabled the default with local memory and huf legacy mode lowering frame rates in this test at stock the 29 20 X is performing just 4 percent better than the 1920 X in terms of average frame rates at 1440 PE or 4k resolutions I'd expect much smaller differences even when compared to using an Intel CPU with faster clock speeds if you're after more gaming benchmarks on these 2 CPUs along with other thread Ripper chips that I can highly suggest the hardware unboxed video linked in the description realistically I think most people myself included won't bother swapping between distributed and local modes as it requires a reboot I know I'm personally happy playing games in distributed mode the small frame rate boost isn't what the reboot but I've tested these games in birth to try and show you that the results vary on the game anyway for the temperatures as mentioned I'm testing with the Animax lynktec 240 all-in-one liquid cooler as it's designed for the tr4 socket testing was completed with an ambient room temperature of 22 degrees Celsius with both CPUs running the blender closer benchmark so sort of a worst-case but realistic load for these chips at stock both were fairly similar with the 29 20 X just a couple of degrees warmer with PBO enabled on the 29 20 X it gets a fair bit hotter than any other result but with the CPUs manually overclocked to the 1920 X is getting hotter than the 29 20 X despite of being clocked slower with both being set to 1.3 5 volts here's with the total system power drawer looked like with both CPUs again running the same blender closer of benchmark the results are in line with what we just saw in the previous temperature graph where its stock the 1920 X is using less power than the stop 29 20 X but once overclocked the stock 1920 X is using more power than the higher clocked 29 20 X at the same 1.35 volts which I think starts to show the better efficiencies of thread Ripper - finally let's discuss pricing for updated pricing check the links in the description as prices will change over time at the time of recording the 1920 X is going for four hundred and forty five US dollars while the twenty nine twenty X is going for six hundred and fifty US dollars so forty six percent more money for the twenty nine twenty X as we've seen in the results previously we're not getting anywhere near an equivalent improvement in performance to fully justify that price increase so it will depend on whether you personally want to pay that much more for approximately five percent better on average at least based on the applications tested here the first generation thread ripper chips are available for some fairly low prices at the moment the prices went down quite a bit when the second generation came out so will be interesting to see how the third generation affects the price of the twenty nine twenty X in the future it might end up being more worthwhile compared to the 1920 X later so overall the twenty nine twenty X is a nice little incremental improvement over the first generation 1920 x if you've already got the 1920 X I don't think it's worthwhile upgrading to the twenty nine twenty X at the current prices that's not to say it's bad it's an excellent CPU for the price point especially when you compare it against Intel's offerings with a similar core count it seems like AMD you're competing with our in product line at the moment it's great to see the thread rip a product mature over time learner with new features and improved memory support at cheaper prices I can see this potentially leading to a higher uptake in the platform consider that just over a year ago when the 1920 X launched it was going for eight hundred US dollars now just over a year later the better twenty nine twenty X launched its six hundred and fifty US dollars exciting times so what did you guys think of the new thread referred twenty nine twenty X I hope the benchmarks and comparisons against the old and 1920 X have been useful especially if you're picking between the two let me know down in the comments which you'd pick thanks for watching and don't forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this one\n"