The Ryzen "ThreadRipper"... 16 cores of awesome

[Atari2600]

The problem with TR is that it offers zero new features, except for the pcie lanes. Considering that most people will be just fine with a 8C ryzen.

You are hovering near the ignore list for repeated trolling/gross stupidity.

No new features except:
- support for >64GB RAM
- 3 NVMe slots on the X399 motherboard
- 16 cores/32 threads (initially)
- possible ECC support (TBC)

 

[Cloudfire777]

The problem with TR is that it offers zero new features, except for the pcie lanes. Considering that most people will be just fine with a 8C ryzen.

For AMD it offers a ton of new features both in hardware and in software.
For Intel it offers reduced sales and reduced profit margins.

So yeah, its a "problem". Only for Intel though that thought they could continue eating the cake alone

 

[Topweasel]

You are hovering near the ignore list for repeated trolling/gross stupidity.

No new features except:
- support for >64GB RAM
- 3 NVMe slots on the X399 motherboard
- 16 cores/32 threads (initially)
- possible ECC support (TBC)

UDimm ECC support. Registered ECC only for EPYC.

But yeah a 16 core cost effective desktop CPU with oodles of IO and ram support, is a new thing. Specially if the rumors are true and the best TR is half the price of the best SLX.

 

[Bassman2003]

Does anybody know for certain that TR will have single core or "golden core" overclocking like the 7900X does? As stated earlier in the thread, I would need the single core performance to match the 7900X or TR is a no go for me. It seems this feature was absent from Ryzen. How do you know if it will or will not be a part of TR? Thanks.

 

[crashtech]

Does anybody know for certain that TR will have single core or "golden core" overclocking like the 7900X does? As stated earlier in the thread, I would need the single core performance to match the 7900X or TR is a no go for me. It seems this feature was absent from Ryzen. How do you know if it will or will not be a part of TR? Thanks.

There's no reason to believe that AMD will be able match Intel's max ST performance any time soon, since the latter continues to enjoy a pretty big clockspeed advantage.

 

[scannall]

There's no reason to believe that AMD will be able match Intel's max ST performance any time soon, since the latter continues to enjoy a pretty big clockspeed advantage.

I wouldn't expect the 16 and 18 core X299 parts to have much if any clockspeed advantage. Considering the thermal problems they are already having on the 7900X 10 core part.

 

[Topweasel]

Does anybody know for certain that TR will have single core or "golden core" overclocking like the 7900X does? As stated earlier in the thread, I would need the single core performance to match the 7900X or TR is a no go for me. It seems this feature was absent from Ryzen. How do you know if it will or will not be a part of TR? Thanks.

This is completely pointless. Just get the 7900. Whether AMD has a single core turbo (I think it is 2 core) doesn't matter. It won't clock as high as the 7900. Even if it could, it wouldn't perform as well for the most part.

If all that matters is the absolute performance of a single core turbo then why even look at 10 core solutions. A 7700k or 7740x would be better and the whole process of having a single core turbo means all other threads are inactive. Meaning 90% of your $1000 CPU is doing nothing.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for your replies. My hope for a larger core count chip would be to have one or two cores in the 4.5GHz range while the rest of the chip would probably be down around the 4GHz range. IF this is possible it would be a great workhorse. If not then the 7900X is my ticket which might be able to get 4.5GHZ on all cores if it does not burn down the house...

 

[Shivansps]

You are hovering near the ignore list for repeated trolling/gross stupidity.

No new features except:
- support for >64GB RAM
- 3 NVMe slots on the X399 motherboard
- 16 cores/32 threads (initially)
- possible ECC support (TBC)

Yes more PCI-E lanes gives you more NVMe slots, more cores is not really a feature, ECC is, in case it ends to be true. And >64GB of RAM, yes i forgot about that one. So thats 2, more PCI-E lanes and >64GB of ram, still very poor feature-like, most people are just fine with a 8C AM4 Ryzen, there are much reasons to go TR unless you need some crazy core counts or memory size.

 

[Bassman2003]

This is completely pointless. Just get the 7900. Whether AMD has a single core turbo (I think it is 2 core) doesn't matter. It won't clock as high as the 7900. Even if it could, it wouldn't perform as well for the most part.

If all that matters is the absolute performance of a single core turbo then why even look at 10 core solutions. A 7700k or 7740x would be better and the whole process of having a single core turbo means all other threads are inactive. Meaning 90% of your $1000 CPU is doing nothing.

No need to be snarky. I never said "All that matters". I need both ST and MT performance. One without the other is a waste of money for my setup.

 

[Topweasel]

No need to be snarky. I never said "All that matters". I need both ST and MT performance. One without the other is a waste of money for my setup.

Obviously you missed my point. The snark wasn't there. You asked about a feature that if it wasn't included would make the purchase not worth it to you since it needed to match the 7900 in ST. The question of whether AMD has it is pointless. It can't catch up to the 7900 on clocks and even if it was matching on clocks it still wouldn't be as fast. That isn't snark it's the truth. What we know or don't know about Turbo on TR doesn't apply when comparing single core performance against the 7900x. TR isn't for you.

I do see a problem with focusing on whether or not it can compete with the 7900x based on single core turbo numbers pointless. You don't get CPU's like this where ST matters so much that you actually have a workload that is so dependant on a single core clocking up that high since it requires the rest of the CPU to again be inactive. So again ~1k CPU, with 90+% of the CPU twidling their thumbs. If that was the case then the much better buy is the 7700 or 7740 that can clock much higher.

 

[crashtech]

I wouldn't expect the 16 and 18 core X299 parts to have much if any clockspeed advantage. Considering the thermal problems they are already having on the 7900X 10 core part.

In stock form, you may be right. The interesting thing about Intel switching away from solder even on LGA2066 is that they can now be delidded, so enthusiasts looking for maximum cores and clocks may find that a compelling option.

 

[scannall]

In stock form, you may be right. The interesting thing about Intel switching away from solder even on LGA2066 is that they can now be delidded, so enthusiasts looking for maximum cores and clocks may find that a compelling option.

While I'm sure there are a few brave souls that will delid a $2000 part, it really isn't something that should be a consideration for purchasing such an expensive part.

 

[coercitiv]

Specially if the rumors are true and the best TR is half the price of the best SLX.

Is there any doubt left about this? I thought the EPYC pricelist made it quite clear.

 

[formulav8]

I would need the single core performance to match the 7900X

Then you won't be getting TR.

 

[Bassman2003]

Topweasel, your point is obvious, so it is not missed. Your attitude is snarky. You are trying to make a decision for me based upon unknown information. Just say that you do not think TR will have comparable ST performance with the 7900x and stop trying to make this a teachable moment It's easy, leave the conjecture out and answer the question that was asked.

If I need strong MT performance wouldn't your example fall down with the 4 core chips? It is not an easy decision as life is complicated.

 

[Topweasel]

Is there any doubt left about this? I thought the EPYC pricelist made it quite clear.

It does and it doesn't. TR is bound to be clocked a lot higher than the 16 core EPYC (two less dies to clock). And they are serving two different markets one is supposed to be really expensive in its market the other is meant to be the second cheapest. But without a few more trustworthy leaks that include model numbers and not 10 and 14 core versions it will be "if the rumors are correct". That said I am confident that at least one version of the 16c will be sub 1k and probably even the highest.

 

[formulav8]

more cores is not really a feature

Come on dude, more than 8 cores isn't even possible on Ryzen right now, hence, having cpu's available with more cores is a new feature of TR.

 

[Space Tyrant]

The problem with TR is that it offers zero new features, except for the pcie lanes. Considering that most people will be just fine with a 8C ryzen.

One might also say that the problem with Intel's HEDT is that "most people will be just fine with a 8C ryzen" -- or even a quadcore i7.

 

[Shivansps]

Come on dude, more than 8 cores isn't even possible on Ryzen right now, hence, having cpu's available with more cores is a new feature of TR.

To me a features are things like ECC, NVME raid, VROC, AVX-512, pci-e lanes... Thats the problem with TR being the exact same core from the one used on AM4 platform, its the same thing but segmented based on the number of cores, also i think the rumor is that the chipset is actually the same one, renamed.

I dindt meant it to be a bad thing, i just think is a like poor on the features front compared to AM4. I i dont need more than 64GB of ram or more than 8 cores, there is even a reason to consider TR over AM4?

 

[dnavas]

Just say that you do not think TR will have comparable ST performance with the 7900x....

While I, too, am tired of being told that I not only can't have both, but it's *impossible* for me to want both (*), I do think we can be a bit bolder than just saying that we don't think TR will have 7900x ST performance. Maybe TRii will, but TR? Zen won't be air-overclocking to 5Ghz anytime soon, despite the binary meanderings of certain elements in the press. "It would take a [chocolate covered] miracle." I'm going to wait to see how exactly the 12-core and TR shake out, but ymmv. I kind of figure that the 14+ core offerings from Intel aren't going to clock as well, and it isn't clear to me how the 16-core TR will compare to the 12-core Skylake-X part yet.

Best guess is that Skylake is ~15% better IPC and will likely OC ~15% higher. If both of those are true, the 12-core Skylake may well be best for our case just because of the mix of needs. I'm going to pass on getting the 10-core, though, because it isn't faster enough from my current box, and the motherboards seem to be going through some maturing pain I'd rather not go through again :> And if I'm waiting anyway, might as well see what actually winds up shipping.

BTW, I assume you're the same bassman I know from elsewhere, in which case, thank you for the idea of adding a slow-mo inset vid. I really need a proper second camera for it, but the parental units were both very grateful for it.

--
(*) It's like saying I shouldn't want a mansion on the beach, because people who live on the beach wouldn't want to be in a big house because they're on the beach all the time, and people who really want to have a mansion don't have any time to play in the sand. Where do you even start to explain? Sometimes when I'm in my editor, I want to be doing motion tracking. Sometimes when I'm in my editor, I'm looking at four 4k streams. These operations require different profiles. I'm sorry your imagination has failed you? I dunno, I've just been shaking my head and moving on, but I die a little every time I read that stuff.

 

[Topweasel]

pweasel, your point is obvious, so it is not missed. Your attitude is snarky. You are trying to make a decision for me based upon unknown information. Just say that you do not think TR will have comparable ST performance with the 7900x and stop trying to make this a teachable moment It's easy, leave the conjecture out and answer the question that was asked.

You said TR will not work for you if it can't match the 7900x in ST your words not mine. Now I am getting a bit snarky. I am sorry you so incapable of reading post without inferring intent just because it was information you didn't like. I said it was pointless to ask about it because it was and explained why. You won't get what you are looking for. Whether it has a single core turbo makes no difference in the equation because the fricken limitation you set can not be met by Ryzen in any situation. It's a done deal.

If I need strong MT performance wouldn't your example fall down with the 4 core chips? It is not an easy decision as life is complicated

Do you not understand how the golden core turbo works on the 7900x? Because it might explain a lot if you didn't. Anyways I will try to be clearer so you can understand. To get to the top turbo on this or even AMD's Ryzen (since we don't have the full run down of turbo for TR) certain points have to be met. The CPU has to be under a certain temperature. The other major point is that a certain amount of cores have to be inactive while receiving a single or in the case of the step down two threads worth of heavy work. So again to actually hit those numbers you have to be doing only 1 thread worth of work period. Not two but the other is light, not three really week thread usages and one really large one. 1 Single heavy used thread. So the two can't go hand to hand. Again I am only talking about this single feature. If it is that important that not having it and not meeting it is so important you would give up 16 cores for 10. The reality would have to be that you would be better off buying a CPU that is 1/3 the price and clocks anoth 15% better.

You are talking about two expensive platforms that are about more than ST performance. A lot more you spend $1k on a CPU because you either A.) Just need the cores that bad (VM's) or B.) Total computational throughput. On some level I get limit thread usage that can still exceed 4c. But then wouldn't a 6c or 8c get you even better ST performance and still get you stronger MT performance then the 4c. I just can't imagine the use case for a 10c CPU that can't clock that high (high being 7700 high) costing 1k and then deciding at that point that no matter how strong a 16c solution is at that price just because it doesn't clock as high as the 10c solution. You are really into the use case for actual CPU throughput and not about 10 FPS in a game. If that is still the focus then you are making poor life choices. And again in these games the golden core nor the step below it has any effect because you aren't going to have the rest of the CPU at idle.

 

[crashtech]

While I'm sure there are a few brave souls that will delid a $2000 part, it really isn't something that should be a consideration for purchasing such an expensive part.

Have you seen the way the new tools work? It's not a dangerous procedure at all anymore. If I ended up with hot running Skylake-X chip, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[formulav8]

It's not a dangerous procedure at all anymore.

Except for croaking your warranty.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes more PCI-E lanes gives you more NVMe slots, more cores is not really a feature, ECC is, in case it ends to be true. And >64GB of RAM, yes i forgot about that one. So thats 2, more PCI-E lanes and >64GB of ram, still very poor feature-like, most people are just fine with a 8C AM4 Ryzen, there are much reasons to go TR unless you need some crazy core counts or memory size.

Sounds like you should not buy Threadripper.

Also, probably don't tell other people what is of value to them... since it's so very subjective, and it is their money to spend for whatever benefits/features are worth it.