Question Will there be an 16 core TRX40 Threadripper?

[Kedas]

I wanted an 4 mem-channel 16 core but it seems the leaks only show 24 cores and up.
16 core I can ALSO use for games but 24 cores, I don't think that will work well?
Buying to disable 8 cores isn't really acceptable.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The cache will be spread over 3 dies and the average clock will be lower.
I want to see it first before I call an 24 core a gaming CPU.

Actually, the cache might be spread across four dice (4 CCDs, 6 cores per CCD). I think @RetroZombie might be right about that. AMD already has a 2 CCD chip with 6 cores per CCD - the 3900x.

 

[Topweasel]

The cache will be spread over 3 dies and the average clock will be lower.
I want to see it first before I call an 24 core a gaming CPU.

It will be across 4 dies and why would the average clock be lower? It has twice (if not more) the power allotment.

 

[Kedas]

It will be across 4 dies and why would the average clock be lower? It has twice (if not more) the power allotment.

Because I'm not planning to make it run at 280W TDP
The 16 core AM4 is 105 W TDP

 

[Ajay]

We, the answer is no. AMD isn’t targeting TR to enthusiasts anymore. It’s going to be for professionals in content creation, engineering, etc.

 

[JoeRambo]

We, the answer is no. AMD isn’t targeting TR to enthusiasts anymore. It’s going to be for professionals in content creation, engineering, etc.

Yeah, the irony is that Intel X299 cost less per core than TR3, so AMD kinda left mid range systems to Intel with current pricing. Intel's 14 and 18 core offerings are priced real well for amount of performance they offer. AMD needs 16 core TR offering, but 4 chiplets, IO die, chipset on a pricey mb is a boatload of silicon to sell in a range of prices between desktop Zen2 16C and 24C TR3.

 

[Kedas]

Gaming mode will be present but not needed for most games.

 

[Markfw]

I don't see the mystery here. If you want a 16 core, get the 3950x, if you need more than that, get the TR3 platform with 24 cores or more.

 

[Kedas]

I don't see the mystery here. If you want a 16 core, get the 3950x, if you need more than that, get the TR3 platform with 24 cores or more.

Well I'm only going to buy one system...the 24 core 4 channel is overkill not that good for games and the 16 core 2 channel is low for simulations.

 

[Markfw]

Well I'm only going to buy one system...the 24 core 4 channel is overkill not that good for games and the 16 core 2 channel is low for simulations.

I would wait until benchmarks come out. The 16 core is no pig in simulations, and the 24 core might actually be about the same in games, with the IO die, and the cores spread out more on that big HSF, it may even clock higher.

 

[StefanR5R]

I'm only going to buy one system...the 24 core 4 channel is overkill not that good for games

Where were you able to obtain this information? The NDAs for review reports haven't expired yet.

As others have said, it is unlikely that the 24c TR 3000 is worse for interactive low-threaded workloads like video games than a hypothetical 16c TR 3000 or the top end Ryzens.

• Boost clock specs are practically the same.
• TDP headroom is there.
• If the processor firmware works similar to the ones on Ryzens, and this is likely, then the clock boost behavior with few busy threads will be the same.
• Cache layout is exactly the same. You get several 3- or 4-core CCXs, each with one 16 MB L3 cache.
• You get an UMA machine.

While I agree that AMD is leaving a certain gap between the Ryzens and TR 3000s (at least for the time being), that's how things are, and you have plenty of alternatives buying new or 2nd hand, from AMD or from Intel.

 

[Topweasel]

Because I'm not planning to make it run at 280W TDP
The 16 core AM4 is 105 W TDP

But isn't that a you decision not an actual outlook on the CPU itself. But even if you capped it lower you are looking at a 3600/3700x situation. A game loads even lets say 8 cores. Those will clock up pretty high even under a limited power allotment. Limiting the power usuage will only really hurt under heavy core usage like your simulation work.

 

[Topweasel]

Yeah, the irony is that Intel X299 cost less per core than TR3, so AMD kinda left mid range systems to Intel with current pricing. Intel's 14 and 18 core offerings are priced real well for amount of performance they offer. AMD needs 16 core TR offering, but 4 chiplets, IO die, chipset on a pricey mb is a boatload of silicon to sell in a range of prices between desktop Zen2 16C and 24C TR3.

Problem is as core count goes up Intels clock speed advantage goes away and Cascade Lake -X is just SL-X++ which Zen 2 is already better then. End result is I think that they will be nearly a wash on price/perf. Just with Intel being able to have configuration smaller then AMD can get (because all of this revolves around AMD's limitations with its Die configurations) them being able to hit a sweet spot that isn't that feasible for AMD to match. It wouldn't be smart for AMD to leave a bunch on the table to try to push the price down on the 24c TR3 just to try to fill in that price gap. The plus side is that this is AMD, if sales wain to much, AMD is always willing to be quite flexible on pricing. If the market can only take the 3960x at $1K then in a few months expect to see it close in on that price.

 

[StefanR5R]

being able to have configuration smaller then AMD can get (because all of this revolves around AMD's limitations with its Die configurations)

AMD are getting around any such limitations well enough in the server market, where they offer 8-core (8-ccx, 4-ccx, 2-ccx), 12-core (4-ccx), and 16-core (8-ccx, 4-ccx) Epyc 7002 SKUs. They'll have their reasons why they did not announce similar Threadripper 3000 models at this time.

 

[jpiniero]

AMD are getting around any such limitations well enough in the server market, where they offer 8-core (8-ccx, 4-ccx, 2-ccx), 12-core (4-ccx), and 16-core (8-ccx, 4-ccx) Epyc 7002 SKUs. They'll have their reasons why they did not announce similar Threadripper 3000 models at this time.

The 7232P might still be a 4 die product with one CCX enabled per die and the L3 halved.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I would wait until benchmarks come out. The 16 core is no pig in simulations, and the 24 core might actually be about the same in games, with the IO die, and the cores spread out more on that big HSF, it may even clock higher.

Only problem I see is that people who wanted tons of I/O and RAM are now going to have to pay for more CPU than they had to buy in the past with Threadripper. If you didn't need a lot of CPU grunt (per se) but needed more RAM and PCIe lanes than what AM4 could provide you, then something like a 1920x fit the bill perfectly.

 

[Atari2600]

I don't see the mystery here. If you want a 16 core, get the 3950x, if you need more than that, get the TR3 platform with 24 cores or more.

I do.

Say if you are wanting this for CFD - then 2 channels of DDR is completely choking 16cores.

4 channels of DDR4 is choking 24 cores!

The sweet spot would be around 12-16 cores (rule of thumb is ~3 cores per memory channel).

So TR3 stack as it sits simply isn't suited to CFD.


Of course, you could go buy EYPC - but that is another price bracket above - and EYPC doesn't have the high ST speeds for interactive work (i.e. meshing or post-processing) for a workstation.


If TR3 is aimed at professionals - AMD have done a fairly poor job of scoping out their requirements as there is a need for a lower core count solution using 4ch of DDR4. The most frustrating thing is that they have the solution sitting there - but have chosen purely for non-technical reasons not to implement it. OK, could go out and buy the 24core version - but these things don't exist in a bubble of blank cheques and the Intel alternative may end up being the more attractive one due to better balance of price vs. capability [i.e. ~identical speed with lower price].

 

[jpiniero]

People who are actually doing this for work isn't buying Threadripper anyway, not unless AMD gets OEM deals.

 

[StefanR5R]

Say if you are wanting this for CFD

Dual-socket 2011-3, or single- or dual-socket SP3, or single- or dual-socket 3674 would be more appropriate choices for CFD.

EYPC doesn't have the high ST speeds for interactive work (i.e. meshing or post-processing) for a workstation.

If the CFD problem sizes are too large for a 4-channel memory machine, run the solver on a dedicated machine.

If the problem size is small enough for a 4-channel memory desktop PC, then yes, you'd by a few more cores than needed for CFD.

If TR3 is aimed at professionals

AMD say it is aimed at the so-called content creators; TR40 board makers say the same and video games.

Edit,

the Intel alternative may end up being the more attractive one due to better balance of price vs. capability

This includes only professionals who are ready to bite the bullet and use video game hardware for work.

 

[Kedas]

VR in the industry is increasing so that means game performance.
Although they will probably have the budget to buy two different purpose systems.

Related to this:
The Ryzen 3000 will have the eco-mode feature (105W->65W, 65W->45W) not present in the new TR3, could be a great setting to make it more silent when doing heavy work. (it's not like I have a separate room to put the PC in)
280W TR3 could really use something similar like 280W->180W->105W

 

[Topweasel]

AMD are getting around any such limitations well enough in the server market, where they offer 8-core (8-ccx, 4-ccx, 2-ccx), 12-core (4-ccx), and 16-core (8-ccx, 4-ccx) Epyc 7002 SKUs. They'll have their reasons why they did not announce similar Threadripper 3000 models at this time.

You just listed products that AMD already has competitive products in. The point was that AMD really can't do something that fits closer to the 1k-1200 without pushing the 24 down really low. I mean that would be awesome. But in the long run for many reasons it wouldn't make sense for AMD to have half their lineup overlap other well selling products with lower manufacturing cost. They have been careful not to price the CPU to much because of the platform when there is overlapp and selling an 8 core cpu with 4 ccds and a huge Io die for $450 bucks doesn't seem like a smart move. At least with Intel's hdet the when core size is mostly similar the die size isn't that much larger.

But then it ramps up poorly from 16 cores and that is where the real issue is. After 16, 24 is the next closest and competitively there isn't anything that can touch it in the area. But it's still within realm of their value. I mean we know what Intel does when it has this kind of lead. The 24 would be 2k, the 32 would be 3k and there would be no talk of doing a 48 or 64c CPU at all.

 

[StefanR5R]

They have been careful not to price the CPU to much because of the platform when there is overlapp and selling an 8 core cpu with 4 ccds and a huge Io die for $450 bucks doesn't seem like a smart move.

The single part among the three 8-core SKUs of Epyc 7002 which has 8 CCXs, and thus needs 4 partly functional CCDs, is priced higher than that (yet still fairly reasonably for the more exotic server CPU which it is). And this one may be a low volume part anyway.

If the other two SKUs weren't priced smartly, they would have vanished from the market by now or moved up in price; neither one happened. But it is of course a different market.

As for workstation CPUs, a sizeable overlap WRT core count and computing throughput between desktop CPUs and workstation CPUs has always existed and has never been a problem, except maybe for a casual observer. There is still differentiation by memory capacity, amount of I/O, and reliability/ availability features.

 

[Kedas]

Maybe they put the prices high to make sure they didn't under estimate demand, lowering prices is easy, if they are already too low then you get a supply shortage.
The first 8 core threadripper 1900X also was not released until much later. (if I remember correctly)

End of the year promotions are coming up anyway so gives them some price drop margin. the typical increase price so you can drop it.

 

[StefanR5R]

The first 8 core threadripper 1900X also was not released until much later. (if I remember correctly)

Sales of 1950X and 1920X started earlier than 1900X indeed (August 10 vs. August 31, 2017). But model numbers and specs were announced for the three together at Siggraph, end of July.

 

[Topweasel]

The single part among the three 8-core SKUs of Epyc 7002 which has 8 CCXs, and thus needs 4 partly functional CCDs, is priced higher than that (yet still fairly reasonably for the more exotic server CPU which it is). And this one may be a low volume part anyway.

If the other two SKUs weren't priced smartly, they would have vanished from the market by now or moved up in price; neither one happened. But it is of course a different market.

As for workstation CPUs, a sizeable overlap WRT core count and computing throughput between desktop CPUs and workstation CPUs has always existed and has never been a problem, except maybe for a casual observer. There is still differentiation by memory capacity, amount of I/O, and reliability/ availability features.

Server it makes sense because the chips fill certain needs like NAS setups where the IO matters more then the CPU, or certain licenses that are charged per core where memory size makes the biggest difference.

There would be some overlap on TR. But really as a consumer CPU they have the comparable Ryzen product, and more importantly I don't think there are to many 2 or 4 core dies out there. The supply of those chips would mean they are either fighting Epyc for the crippled dies, or they are crippling dies that could go into higher margin products. All for a CPU that already has a great alternative in the 3800x/3900x/3950x. Specially since the 3950x slots in price wise exactly into the space the 2950x filled.

But all that is besides the point the real point is that above the 3950x and below the 3960x (notice what AMD did there with the 16c Ryzen's name), there isn't anything in the 1k CPU spot for the last 3 gens of HDET by Intel this has been a sweet spot for the HDET market. AMD can't fill this in with 18c/20c/22c CPU because of their modular design and I think its asking a bit much to have AMD to push a 30%-45% faster CPU down to that price range, in what is supposed to be a premium CPU market, just to say TR3 has a $1k CPU.

 

[jpiniero]

Seriously, HEDT is all about the e-penis (and dem margins). There isn't a sweet spot. Intel typically did sell a bit at the lower end but that was more like $500-$600. But the point of doing it is the very high end.