32C64T:AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX(Workstation?)CPU-Z screenshot leaks out

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hans de Vries

Senior member
May 2, 2008
324
1,047
136
www.chip-architect.com
But not threadripper. Maybe more than 8 cores, but not 32.

Certainly not 32. I don't know what is coming , but there is room for 2 dies and 125W TDP (twice the 2700)
Slightly higher ST, much higher MT with lots of overclocking room ("Enhanced layout and digital power design")
Possibly a "gaming mode" with only one die active. The investment in two high speed 3200/3600MHz DDR4s
pays out double: Low latency for gaming and high throughput for multitasking.

attachment.php

(Embedded EPYC)
 

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,007
148
106
You certain? When I looked at TR for work, I found boards that did not. That was time ago, maybe now they all do.

Yes it is,
. 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

https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-cpu,review-33976.html

So all TR4 motherboard support and certified to use ECC ram.

TR4 even support buffered ram, but not all motherboard support it.
 

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
886
542
136
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, 2970WX, 2950X and 2920X specs and pricing leaked


https://videocardz.com/77031/amd-ry...70wx-2950x-and-2920x-specs-and-pricing-leaked

The 32-core, 64-thread Threadripper 2990WX will cost 1799 USD. This chip will boost up to 4.2 GHz. The model with 24-cores and 48-threads (2970WX) will operate at the same frequency as 32-core SKU. It will also be 500 USD cheaper. Both WX series processors will be 250W TDP models.

The two members of the X-series (for gamers) are called 2950X and 2920X. Both will be available under 1000 USD. The 16-core and 32-thread model will boost up to 4.4 GHz and it will retail at 899 USD. The slowest Threadripper from 2000 series will only cost 649 USD and offer 12-cores. The X-series processors are 180W TDP.

According to our sources, only Threadripper 2990WX will be available at launch, followed by 2950X and 2970WX and 2920X ‘later’.
 

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
559
292
136
Whoops: AMD France lists Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX + Cinebench score
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/w...readripper-2990wx-cinebench-score-online.html

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

To be taken with salt but thoughts on scaling? (unverifiable or potential OS/BIOS/Freq limits aside)
 

dnavas

Senior member
Feb 25, 2017
355
190
116
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)

Hard to know, but let's assume the 7980 was all-core turbo'ing to 3.4Ghz, while 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 (clearly only four channels, given the 4x8GB setup). I would have expected the TR chip to do significantly less well than it did. Of course, that conclusion is rooted in some pretty serious clock assumptions. We have some idea of where the normal all-core turbo hits for 7980, and absolutely none for TR2. The 7980EX is capable of being overclocked to something like 4.6Ghz, at which point you're talking something like 4400 on CB, but we have no idea if you can hit an all-core OC on TR2 of even 4Ghz, nor if the system would become bandwidth constrained before you could take advantage of the extra 25% clocks or not. It would be very interesting to get answers to those questions, as it'll inform some Zen2 thinking as well....
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,536
4,324
136
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.

Scaling is not good considering that CBench should scale at 99% or so even with 32C, and since this bench is not very sensitive to RAM speed this point to frequency as the limiting factor.
Extrapolating from the R7 1700, wich score about 1400 pts, this 2990WX is clocked at about 2.9GHz...
 

plopke

Senior member
Jan 26, 2010
238
74
101
It's kinda funny 2 years ago we had very average 8 core from amd , 8core consoles and mainstream 4C/8T ( FOR LIKE 10 BLOODY YEARS!!!) , and now we can buy main stream 8C/16T for as cheap as 200-320dollars 16C/32T for like less then 1000$ and i honostly would have called people hypetrain boys/girls if they said i could buy a consumer 32C/64T with decend IPC for less than 2000$ in 2018..
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
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 :
Gigabyte_MZ31-AR0.jpg

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 :
SuperMicro+4028GR-TRT+Shot+001.jpg

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
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

StefanR5R

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2016
5,914
8,822
136

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.
 

Triloby

Senior member
Mar 18, 2016
587
275
136
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.

That's because AMD has pointed out that the WX moniker is meant for workstations. The 2920X and 2950X are meant, by AMD's word, for gaming and multi-tasking at once. The 2970WX and 2990WX are mainly designed for rendering and other heavy workloads that does not involve gaming. Considering that there are no current games out there that can take advantage or 32, let alone even 24, 16, 12, 8, or even 6 CPU cores, the designation and segmentation is quite understandable.
 

StefanR5R

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2016
5,914
8,822
136
Notice how AMD's 2950X slide compares rendering, gaming, encoding, compression, whereas their 2990WX slide compares rendering, rendering, rendering, rendering?
That's because AMD has pointed out that the WX moniker is meant for workstations.
I have been running CFD (computational fluid dynamics) on workstations of mine on occasions.
 

StefanR5R

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2016
5,914
8,822
136
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.
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.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,886
1,103
126
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.

That's because the WX use all four dies so I expect them to be slower than the 2950x and 2920x in gaming. Still, it's not really relevant because no one is using 32 cores to game.
 

StefanR5R

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2016
5,914
8,822
136
What is it with everybody's fascination with pointing out that the WX parts are not targeted towards gaming? :rolleyes:
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?
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,886
1,103
126
What is it with everybody's fascination with pointing out that the WX parts are not targeted towards gaming? :rolleyes:
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?

...because some people will still use them for gaming? I thought the answer would be obvious.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
Just an FYI, based on that screenshot, only 1 or 2 cores are boosting to 4 GHz. Look at the voltage being used. That clearly indicates the rest of the cores are idling.
 

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,007
148
106
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 :
Gigabyte_MZ31-AR0.jpg

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 :
SuperMicro+4028GR-TRT+Shot+001.jpg

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

There are plenty pcie riser out there, so dense slot is not really deal breaker.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
...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.
 

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,980
249
106
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.

I wouldn't want to game on a 32c/64t cpu, could you just imagine the heat out put?? My whole house heats up like a sauna when running my 1950x with my Noctua air cooler and fans on full blast when gaming or video editing. I would hate to see what it is like when there are 32c/64t heating the house LOL. Anyways are there any new motherboards coming out for the 20xx threadripper cpu's?? Or are the 20xx just for drop in replacements?? Would really like to upgrade from 1950x to 2950x for higher speed and hopefully cooler temps!!
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
There are plenty pcie riser out there, so dense slot is not really deal breaker.
PCIE 3.0 x16 Riser cables @ 200mm are about $25. @300mm $50. @600mm $65.
Fair enough.
If you could do a layout with 200mm cables, that'd only be about $200 more added on.

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.
That and the I/O is literally cut in half from what you should be getting making the processor completely unbalanced.
I'd have to pay double what I paid for my 1950x while sitting with the same I/O. This is where I establish a no-go zone. The diminishing returns are too pronounced. It's funny because I got railed for this when I applied it to intel vs amd. However, clearly I am without bias as I can apply it to AMD's own processor line. 1950x/2950x is peak balance on this particular AMD HEDT platform in my opinion.

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. 128 PCIE lanes vs 64 PCIE lanes.

That being said, I guess this is interesting because its a new architecture to consider. You have 2 dies w/ no direct I/O being fed by infinity fabric. You get double the amount of cores but no increase in I/O. I guess this will make sense to someone. I can't help but recognize though that the EPYC is $400 more and the mobo $200 more. If you're going to spend $1800 on a processor anyway... But then again you get higher clocks on RAM/Processor if you go with threadripper vs Eypc. So, if you don't care about I/O scaling much or a terabyte of ram capacity and you care more for ram/cpuclocks then this is your processor...

$1800 is nothing to sneeze at. I await 7nm
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
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.

With current prices if you can afford 1TB of dram, CPU price for EPYC is no big deal at all :)