But not threadripper. Maybe more than 8 cores, but not 32.
But not threadripper. Maybe more than 8 cores, but not 32.
You certain? When I looked at TR for work, I found boards that did not. That was time ago, maybe now they all do.
. Threadripper features independent dual-channel memory controllers, one per die, that combine to provide quad-channel support with varying data transfer rates (outlined below) based upon memory configurations. The platform supports ECC memory and a functional limit of 256GB of RAM, though it can support up to 2TB of capacity as memory density increases
Test setup:
AMD:
- AMD Ryzen ™ Threadripper ™ 2990WX
- sTR4 motherboard socket X399
- GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card (driver 24.21.13.9793)
- 4 x 8 GB DDR4-3200
- Windows 10 x64 Pro (RS3)
- Samsung 850 Pro SSD
- score: 5,099
Intel:
- Gigabyte X299 AORUS Gaming 9
- Intel Core i9-7980XE
- GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card (driver 24.21.13.9793)
- 4 x 8 GB DDR4-3200
- Windows 10 x64 Pro (RS3)
- Samsung 850 Pro SSD
- score: 3,335
Whoops: AMD France lists Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX + Cinebench score
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/w...readripper-2990wx-cinebench-score-online.html
To be taken with salt but thoughts on scaling? (unverifiable or potential OS/BIOS/Freq limits aside)
TR was at 3.2. I'm sure someone will let me know when I go wrong, but:
5099 / 32 / 3.2 / (3335 / 18 / 3.4) = 91.4%
which seems like really good scaling considering the memory setup.
Notice how AMD's 2950X slide compares rendering, gaming, encoding, compression, whereas their 2990WX slide compares rendering, rendering, rendering, rendering? It may or may not be significant.
On the positive side, the presence of four different applications on the 2950X slide hints that 2950X might not be regressing versus 1950X e.g. due to a changed node layout.
Can hardly wait for reviews to be published.
I have been running CFD (computational fluid dynamics) on workstations of mine on occasions.That's because AMD has pointed out that the WX moniker is meant for workstations.Notice how AMD's 2950X slide compares rendering, gaming, encoding, compression, whereas their 2990WX slide compares rendering, rendering, rendering, rendering?
Ian Cutress' article confirms that 2950X and 2920X remain at a 2-die layout. A few other TR2 articles which I looked at somehow fail to discuss this.On the positive side, the presence of four different applications on the 2950X slide hints that 2950X might not be regressing versus 1950X e.g. due to a changed node layout.
Notice how AMD's 2950X slide compares rendering, gaming, encoding, compression, whereas their 2990WX slide compares rendering, rendering, rendering, rendering? It may or may not be significant.
On the positive side, the presence of four different applications on the 2950X slide hints that 2950X might not be regressing versus 1950X e.g. due to a changed node layout.
Can hardly wait for reviews to be published.
What is it with everybody's fascination with pointing out that the WX parts are not targeted towards gaming?
If these are supposed to be workstation parts, what is their performance in workstation workloads, such as CFD, FEA, and similar kinds of numeric simulation?
As a 1950x owner, this is a clear point of diminishing returns IMO over 1950x.
Whereas, all dies are properly fed w/ balanced I/O on 1950x, you now have 2 dies w/ zero I/O that have to be fed across infinity fabric. Both the DDR4 access and all of the I/O access except for Infinity fabric is nipped on 2990WX. If I was going to spend $1800 on a processor, I'd just pony up for a proper EPYC system w/ the full range of capability. This is a little too much of a Frankenstein processor for my liking. You have a TDP of 250Watts on a package w/ two significantly gimped dies. All of this wattage is going to feed the clocks? Dam near half the silicon is off on two dies... I'm guessing this would be impossible w/ 4 proper dies? An epyc processor w/ lower clocks has a 180W TDP. At 32 cores, you're deciding core count and overall server grade architecture w/ tons of RAM capacity and I/O is more important than clocks. Then you also only have 128MB of RAM capacity and 4 channels... $1800.
This seems to be moreso about flagpole setting on both Intel/AMD's part vs. a sound and balanced chip. This is where I get off the diminishing returns ride. I look forward to what occurs at 7nm. For now, my heavily loaded TR1950x build will be just fine. I have all of the PCIE slots occupied w/ cards, all of the nvme slots are occupied, SSDs, spinning rust, the chipset is loaded w/ I/O and I'm working my way up to filling all of the RAM slots. 1/2 of the i/o goes to one die. The other half of the i/o goes to the other die. Both dies are properly fed by 2 channels of DDR. This is what I seek out when speccing such a system : I want every aspect of it to be balanced and put to FULL use.
It's good that intel and AMD both want to compete for that top slot, but as a consumer in a world where a CPU is not the center of attraction, I'd need a lot more balance on the I/O side to justify this.
IMO, one thing they need to do enhance the desktop is make a new motherboard spec for HEDT. ATX is far too small and cramped and so is E-ATX. It's getting towards the point of stupidity IMO w.r.t to how cramped everything is becoming on these platforms and the physical board dimensions seems to limit more efficient and useable placement. IMO, they need to come up with a new type of riser board or something for PCIE and put it and its powering in a different and separate dimensioned break out case. EPYC would be the target for me at 32 cores but then I look at the workstation board :
![]()
This is a joke right? It's as if dual slot GPUs nor full length cards exists.
So, tbqh, there seems to be some in between market and potential exists that no one is capitalizing on because of legacy footprints and this goofy segmentation that still exists on a number of enterprise features like PLX PCIE switches. I'm not going anywhere near 32 core+ counts at such pricing until 7nm/PCIE 4.0/PLX switches get put on the motherboard/potentially a bigger board spec/risers.
Both AMD/Intel need to start thinking outside of the legacy box here because it seems like they're putting way too much on too little or too gimped a platform. This is due to trying to preserve legacy enterprise premium markets and this needs to be rethought in the years ahead.
This is what I am ideally referring to at these core counts and configs :
![]()
A PLX PCIE switch ties the CPU to a breakout board that has proper spacing for dual slot GPUs.
Meanwhile you don't have to ridiculously cram everything on to tiny ATX motherboard that obviously can't fit it. Literally sacrificing config possibilities due to physical restrictions is stupid.
So, I'm not sure what to say but 32 core w/ the I/O gimping seems like a frankenstein. Intel's processor is also stupidly priced and the I/O scaling even far worse. It's like they both want to sit atop something neither wants to create because they want to preserve their juicy enterprise priced segments.
I love what they're both doing otherwise. But this is also why I want someone new to approach computing architecture all together. Its been stagnant for far too long centered on incremental improvements and legacy artificial segmentation. Break the walls down. Push the boundaries and innovate.
/Rant off
...because some people will still use them for gaming? I thought the answer would be obvious.
I purchased my 1950X because it provided the best value for all that I do, including gaming, however, I wouldn't dream of buying that 32 core chip, clock speeds are too low, and people are dreaming if they think they'll get decent overclocks out of that thing on any board. I may pick up a 2950X though. I don't think people realize the amount of power you would need to pump through the CPU to get to 4+ GHz for the 2990wx, which is probably why it's labeled 'wx' and not 'x'.
EDIT: Oh and if we are going to continue growing in cores, we need a new way to cool CPUs.
PCIE 3.0 x16 Riser cables @ 200mm are about $25. @300mm $50. @600mm $65.There are plenty pcie riser out there, so dense slot is not really deal breaker.
That and the I/O is literally cut in half from what you should be getting making the processor completely unbalanced.I purchased my 1950X because it provided the best value for all that I do, including gaming, however, I wouldn't dream of buying that 32 core chip, clock speeds are too low, and people are dreaming if they think they'll get decent overclocks out of that thing on any board. I may pick up a 2950X though. I don't think people realize the amount of power you would need to pump through the CPU to get to 4+ GHz for the 2990wx, which is probably why it's labeled 'wx' and not 'x'.
EDIT: Oh and if we are going to continue growing in cores, we need a new way to cool CPUs.
128GB of RAM limit is a joke at with such a core count when the EPYC processor of this core count supports a Terabyte of RAM with 16 dimm slots.
