Amd threadripper 2950x 






=>  http://nonsuckfeco.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MjE6Imh0dHA6Ly9iaXRiaW4uaXQyX2RsLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MjI6IkFtZCB0aHJlYWRyaXBwZXIgMjk1MHgiO30=




































Rule 2: No referral links, including Amazon! Yet it went on to claim the top performance crown with the , beating Intel's flagship 10-core Core i7-6950X thanks to a six-core advantage. We have included their comparison tables above. Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.
However, it won't be available until October. The workstation market encompasses a wide range of distinct power users, and despite the need for speed, there is rarely a one-size fits all solution.
This also meant it was 28% faster than Intel current flagship Core i9 part. Rule 6 Use original sources. Then there was also the part where they said that they would have a more in depth article about overclocking performance. The 2950X isn't going to boost to the same peaks as a Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K, to be certain, but 4. Bringing up the rear is the 2920X, sitting in to replace the 1920X and with a similar trade-off to the other parts.
AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2950X CPU reviewed - The 2950X isn't going to boost to the same peaks as a Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K, to be certain, but 4. With that being said, the 2990wx is still a modern marvel of technology, even more so when you consider the price.
As was the case with the 1950X, the 2950X can be configured in one of two ways. It consists of not two Zeppelin dies but rather four, enabling up to 32 cores. The biggest of these limitations being that there are still just four memory controllers. We still only have quad-channel memory access, so memory bandwidth remains the same, but now we have twice as many cores to feed. Likely this is going to make an already niche product, even more focused, so keep that in mind. The 2950X is no slouch either though it does only improve upon the 1950X by a mere 5% margin. Next up we have another rendering benchmark though this one is based on real-world software. The Corona Renderer has been used to test workstations with over 64 cores, so it scales very well. This also meant it was 28% faster than Intel current flagship Core i9 part. Also this time the 2950X was just 4% faster than the 1950X, so another small gain, but a gain all the same. Disappointingly the much more complex and therefore longer to complete Gooseberry workload was less favorable to the 2990X. Here it was able to reduce the rendering time by 40% when compared to the 2950X and this meant it was 65% faster, so again not amazing scaling but 65% is much better amd threadripper 2950x what we saw in Corona and Blender. Amd threadripper 2950x made the 32-core processor slower than even the 1950X. This meant the 2950X was able to complete the 6% faster than the 1950X, so again a great result.