Maybe you should read my post again.That review is BS.9900k dont have 145fps in fc5 benchmark.Like you see it is 129fps
Maybe you should read my post again.That review is BS.9900k dont have 145fps in fc5 benchmark.Like you see it is 129fpsEven comparing those 2 does not make sense. A 12 core 2.9 ghz base clock ? against a 8 core 3.9 ghz ? HEDT vs Desktop ? And why are we looking at Intel benchmarks on a Ryzen 3000 speculation thread ?
I understand that, but why are we talking about Intel benchmarks in a Ryzen 3000 SPECULATION thread.Maybe you should read my post again.That review is BS.9900k dont have 145fps in fc5 benchmark.Like you see it is 129fps
Because that review is clearly fake?Atleast intel performance is like random number generator in that reviewI understand that, but why are we talking about Intel benchmarks in a Ryzen 3000 SPECULATION thread.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10...700k-cpu-test/2/#diagramm-far-cry-5-1920-1080Because that review is clearly fake?Atleast intel performance is like random number generator in that review
OK, Maybe I misunderstood. The linked review had 9900k on Farcry5 at 145 fps, and you say THAT is fake, but use a different link to prove it.Because that review is clearly fake?Atleast intel performance is like random number generator in that review
What are you trying to say ? you need to comment on your link,
since the over 400 square mm IO die seems like a waste for the lower end ThreadRipper parts
This is 3600 mid-tier chip, there will be higher binned and clocked 8c/12c and 16c chips that should put the 9900k firmly in it's place in just about everything, gaming included, if this is what the lower end chips can provide. Also it's a beta/1st release bios for Ryzen 2 on x470, memory performance will improve on release bios or at least further agesa updates, that I'm sure of.
I've made this point before: The IO dies for Threadripper are free. All AMD Epycs support the same connectivity. A die that large is going to have lots of rejects that have a faulty memory controller or a PCIe root complex. They can just shove all of those that have the appropriate 2 memory controllers and 4 root complexes intact but have faults in some of the others into the TR IOdie bin and have more of those than they will ever sell TR cpus.
I am not sure what you mean by a "pro version". Threadripper is already an HEDT part that is essentially a "pro version".I don’t know how good yields are on 14 nm. I know that they will have some salvage, but it is unclear whether that will be sufficient for supplying the whole ThreadRipper market. Salvage (binning by functionality, really) is already part of the cost equation. There is no “free” die. They should be able to sell almost all of the cpu die that they make since they have parts that may only have 2 cores active on the whole chip. They will have some parts that have a whole CCX disabled. That is good since yields on 7 nm probably aren’t great and wafers are significantly more expensive. Are the 6 core cpu die “free” just because they aren’t fully functional?
Binning for functionality with the Epyc IO die isn’t as easy as it is with the cpus. With the cpus, they can disable just about any core. With the IO die, it has external connections such that it probably has to be specific bits that are functional; it can’t just be half overall. The ThreadRipper market is a small enough volume that it may be possible that all ThreadRipper IO die have some defect that prevents them from being an Epyc part. I have heard of cases where manufactures end up selling full functional parts in lower functional bins since there aren’t enough available to fill demand. They can control the demand by manipulating the price though. A fully functional die is a lot more valuable as Epyc than as ThreadRipper, so it yields are good and Epyc demand is high, then expect higher ThreadRipper prices. Even without the cost of an Epyc IO die wafer figures in, I expect the prices for this generation to go up a bit. With 16-core moving down to AM4 at $749, ThreadRipper needs to move up a bit in market placement.
Personally, I would like to see AMD make a bigger push into the workstation market with an actual pro version of ThreadRipper. That would be higher volume such that it would make more sense to develop a cheaper solution for the ThreadRipper class part.
Quotation needed. The 16-core parts will simply only have 2 chiplets not 8 chiplets with only 2-core active.they have parts that may only have 2 cores active on the whole chip.
Salvage (binning by functionality, really) is already part of the cost equation. There is no “free” die.
I am not sure what you mean by a "pro version". Threadripper is already an HEDT part that is essentially a "pro version".
Honestly feel the name holds it back from an enterprise standpoint. I build/repair pc’s for businesses doing photo and video editing, rendering, etc the whole kit and caboodle. The amount of times we tried to steer some towards threadripper for their encode machines, but they went with an i9 because they knew the intel i series brand name astounded us. (In their defence at the time Adobe CC and RED weren’t well optimised for AMD but the price just seemed right) The name threadripper is almost kinda childish imo... like some marketing intern was sitting in on a meeting full of puzzled faces, chuckled and was forced to say their choice out loud only for the train to derail and the team to roll with it.
Ahhhhhh NO.Arguably higher than both Intel (or even Nvidia's).
What are you trying to say ? you need to comment on your link,
Please anything but another geekbench score
I love Apple, but the same "benchmark" put the A12 in the same perf class as an i5
Ahhhhhh NO.
You can give the salvage IO dies some bookkeeping price, but my point is that the IO dies are free in the sense that if they are not used for TR, there is nothing else they can be used for. Because of that, spending any money for a TR-specific solution is a waste, because they could just pull some from the gigantic pile of EPYC IO die rejects. We don't know the yields they have on their IO dies, but it really doesn't matter. The market for EPYC is so, so much bigger than the market for TR that even with fantastically good yields for such a large chip, they'd have more than enough rejects.I don’t know how good yields are on 14 nm. I know that they will have some salvage, but it is unclear whether that will be sufficient for supplying the whole ThreadRipper market. Salvage (binning by functionality, really) is already part of the cost equation. There is no “free” die. They should be able to sell almost all of the cpu die that they make since they have parts that may only have 2 cores active on the whole chip. They will have some parts that have a whole CCX disabled. That is good since yields on 7 nm probably aren’t great and wafers are significantly more expensive. Are the 6 core cpu die “free” just because they aren’t fully functional?
Each IO die has 4 (double channel) memory controllers and 8 root complexes. We have it direct from AMD marketing that they are not going to segment by connectivity, so any fault in any of those means an IO die that is unusable for EPYC. Even if you assume that you instantly trash any dies with double defects, and trash all the ones that have defects in the 2 memory controllers or 4 root complexes that are connected in a TR socket, and take conservative estimates for EPYC market growth and very optimistic estimates for TR market growth, there would still be several times more available salvaged IO chips for TR than there is demand.Binning for functionality with the Epyc IO die isn’t as easy as it is with the cpus. With the cpus, they can disable just about any core. With the IO die, it has external connections such that it probably has to be specific bits that are functional; it can’t just be half overall. The ThreadRipper market is a small enough volume that it may be possible that all ThreadRipper IO die have some defect that prevents them from being an Epyc part. I have heard of cases where manufactures end up selling full functional parts in lower functional bins since there aren’t enough available to fill demand. They can control the demand by manipulating the price though. A fully functional die is a lot more valuable as Epyc than as ThreadRipper, so it yields are good and Epyc demand is high, then expect higher ThreadRipper prices. Even without the cost of an Epyc IO die wafer figures in, I expect the prices for this generation to go up a bit. With 16-core moving down to AM4 at $749, ThreadRipper needs to move up a bit in market placement.
Ahhhhhh NO.