As we all know for 3dsmax CPU is important for viewport performance. So my question sis it still worth getting Threadriper 1950x over Intel i9-7900x. I’m looking for building strong workstation for both hard modeling tasks, simulations and rendering. So things have to be leveled, best bung for buck for all worlds. To be honest I’m old Intel guys so I’m a bit afraid that AMD will be nice for rendering but when preparing scenes it might be a pain and maybe it’s worth to sacrifice few seconds of render time and get Intel.
1950x is a little bit faster and cheaper than 7900x. as far as i know there aren’t any problems.
Threadripper 1950X is 30-40% faster in multi-threaded workloads and about 10% cheaper than 7900X. So I’m not really sure what’s the point of 7900X at all. I can think of only one case where the Intel CPU might be appropriate and this is physics simulations which is mostly restricted to using 1-2 cores. But if that’s the case, just get a dedicated machine with a cheap 7700k CPU which is the king of single-core performance and save yourself some money from buying an expensive HEDT CPU and motherboard.
We have already replaced two of our Intel based workstations with AMD Threadripper 1950X. Zero stability or performance issues whatsoever with both of them. We are extremely happy with our purchase. 
So much so that we are looking to replace 2 of the render slaves with another 1950X which will be faster than both of them combined. The stability and heat problems with AMD CPUs are a thing of the past with their new Zen architecture. None of that Bulldozer excuse of a CPU. AMD Zen is whole new ballgame that has literally put Intel out of their monopolistic position they enjoyed for the past 8-10 years. They would now have to innovate again instead of releasing the same processor each year just with a different number and 2-3% performance increase.
If you are really concerned about the stability of the new AMD CPUs, people wouldn’t have been grabbing them like hotcakes. Check out some statistics about the sales of AMD Zen CPUs - https://www.techpowerup.com/236746/l…ore-processors A quote from this article:
Also, the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is outselling the Core i9-7900X by over three times.
This seems to be pretty much in line with the number of Vray benchmarks done with 1950X vs 7900X where 1950X has double the number of benchmarks done.
BTW, if you are not in a rush, I would wait for reviews and tests of Threadripper 2 (2950X) which will be released in a few months and will have even better single core and multi core performance. Recent leaked benchmarks show that the 2nd generation of Zen CPUs are ~10% faster than the 1st one. So I would expect Threadripper 2950X to be about 10% faster than 1950X. That’s if you can wait of course.
yeah I’m planing of buying new workstation late summer. But I though new TH will be released at the end of the year.
Threadripper was released August last year if I’m not mistaken so I expect a similar release date for the new one. If not, just get the 1950X, it’s still a beast of a CPU. AMD have said that their motherboards will be compatible with all new processors released up until 2020 so you can put a new CPU down the road without changing the motherboard (unlike Intel who change their sockets each year no matter if it’s warranted or not 
). Note that while the old motherboards will work with a new Threadripper, they may not have some features and extras of the newer ones.
Thanks Alex. Probably will pull the trigger before TH2 because there is chance to get parts from USA cheaper and family can bring it over
This is a little tosh though isn’t it ?
My 7980xe is actually 3 times faster than my 5960x and we’re, what, talking 2-3 years ? (both are/were best/fastest Intel processor at their time).
I’m not sure you can compare those processors like for like. There are substantial differences in core count, thermals and relative cost. I think Alex is referring to the difference in instructions processed per clock cycle on a per core basis, which for the most has only had marginal improvements over the last 4 generations.
Not tosh at all. The reason you could buy a non server Intel CPU that is 2-3 times faster than 5960x is literally because of AMD Ryzen. Intel wouldn’t have released a consumer-grade CPU with more than 10-12 cores if it wasn’t for AMD. And that’s not just my opinion but the opinion of the majority of the biggest tech news websites and channels. They would have milked us until the cows come home and not release anything more than 12-core for the foreseeable future at outrageous prices. All of Intel’s CPUs starting from Nehalem from 2008 up until 2017 are basically reheated meals with not much to be seen in terms of IPC gains and core count as @benb32 mentioned.
Up until Ryzen was released, an 8-core Intel CPU costed $1500-1600 USD where I live. Then Ryzen appears and Intel “magically” started selling 8-core CPUs at around the $700 mark (again, where I live). So if they can sell an 8-core CPU for $700 and still make a profit, how much were they fleecing us beforehand at more than double the price? You do the math. Let’s just say that they still make TONS of profit on the back of their customers at $700 for an 8-core CPU if AMD’s 8-core Ryzen 1700 can cost just $340 - literally half the price and only 5% slower than Intel’s counterpart. And to add insult to injury, Intel charge a lot more for their motherboards compared to AMD and also change their sockets every year for no good reason.
Here are some videos that are a mandatory watch for everyone pondering on the idea of buying an Intel CPU now or in the near future:
i found some interesting Benchmarks comparing the simulation ability of the cpus.
https://www.vfxarabia.co/single-post/2017/09/10/Houdini-Benchmark-Cores-vs-Clockspeed-updated