AMD Threadripper 1998X vs AMD Epyc 7401p- speculation please.

[julianb]

Hey guys,

Sorry for the somewhat childish post, I know there are no direct comparisons yet but it's time for me to assemble a brand new workstation and I need to start getting information about this and that.

The workstation will be primarily used for rendering with V-Ray and very little gaming.

I need to know what you think will be speedier- the Threadripper 1998X or Epyc 7401p?
One is HEDT CPU and the other is Server CPU. The difference in price is negligible, 60-70 USD, I think.
Judging by the base clocks the 1998X will be faster (16x3.5=56GHz vs 24x2=48GHz) but is that all there is to it?
I don't suppose I can count on boost clocks all that much while rendering, right?
Is there any feature in V-Ray that will benefit significantly from the additional 8 cores that 7401p has?

Much appreciated.

[delineator]

Say no more: epyc isn't for desktop use. Its like trying to game on a xeon or opteron (which you could, sure, but your paying more for less performance). Also keep in mind that mobos will be far more expensive for epyc (and less featured). There are some benchies coming down the pipeline for epyc that I've seen, and for various server loads, looks intriguing (especially at half the price of a comparable xeon). But honestly, I can't imagine a scenario in which you'd want to use it for desktop use

[julianb]

Say no more: epyc isn't for desktop use. Its like trying to game on a xeon or opteron (which you could, sure, but your paying more for less performance). Also keep in mind that mobos will be far more expensive for epyc (and less featured). There are some benchies coming down the pipeline for epyc that I've seen, and for various server loads, looks intriguing (especially at half the price of a comparable xeon). But honestly, I can't imagine a scenario in which you'd want to use it for desktop use

Thanks for that.
Regarding motherboards choice and features you are right, server boards have never been as appealing as their desktop counterparts.
So leaving aside gaming, you still think Threadripper might be faster for rendering with V-Ray, right?

[delineator]

So leaving aside gaming, you still think Threadripper might be faster for rendering with V-Ray, right?

I mean.....that's a loaded question without constraints. Faster for the same price or cheaper (as a holistic platform)? Definitely. Although, then you would also want to look at the 1800x. Off the top of my dome, I think my 1800x is around 1600 cinebenches, and the top end Threadripper is just around 3000 (for twice the price). But hey, if you need the max performance in a single box, then yeah, threadripper FTW

And because the single core clocks are still high, you won't get that slowdown that you can experience on a low clock, high core machine (think Xeon's that run at like 2ghz). Vray rendering scales and uses all threads, but not everything we do on a daily basis does. Even simple stuff like opening and closing a Photoshop, or most compression, or importing something is still single threaded. Something to keep in mind that really separates a workstation rig that does a bit of everything vs a render node where core count is king

[julianb]

Got it. Much appreciated, delineator.
I will stick with the 1998X then.

All the best.

[delineator]

Well....I don't know if thats a real part anymore. I know that's what some of the tech rumour blogs were picking up, but according to the launch last night, we get 3 flavors of threadripper (topping out at 16/32 cores and 3.4ghz base clock with 4.0ghz boost clock).

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processor...-and-Preorders

According to some stuff back in the springtime, the official 1950x looks like it matches up with the rumoured 1998x. http://wccftech.com/amd-threadripper...ors-x399-x390/

Could amd launch something better down the line? Of course, and they will, but I think the 1950x is where you want to be for now (based on a few cinebenches, it comes in at around 3k)

[werticus]

likely less, faster cores is better especially if the total GHZ adds up to more with the thread ripper. You have to keep in mind there is still the odd calculation that is single threaded in max and or vray so it is often much better to be working on a machine with less / faster cores vs a multi core monster.

Over a long enough render however i think just the pure ghz will win.

[duke2]

likely less, faster cores is better especially if the total GHZ adds up to more with the thread ripper. You have to keep in mind there is still the odd calculation that is single threaded in max and or vray so it is often much better to be working on a machine with less / faster cores vs a multi core monster.

Over a long enough render however i think just the pure ghz will win.

Yeah but most CPU's max out at 4ghz in single threaded performance so there shouldn't, in theory, be much a difference between them. That's why the competition is in the amount of cores.

[delineator]

well, and IPC.

[fraggle]

Hello,
look carrefully at the available Benchmark provided by Chaos.


The first AMD Zen CPU is ranked N?2 (EPYC), while the first Threadripper is above 40s vs vs less then 20s for most of the I5.
Some old opteron reach 53s, ahead of some Ryzen architecture.

I believe there is no better way to compare than real test and the Chaosgroup Benchmark is a good test to know the true performance of CPU.