EliteRetard
Diamond Member
I think both of these would make a lot of sense, do you agree or disagree?
Epyc 7381 16c 32t 2.6 - 3.5GHz 64MB 180w $1500
Threadripper 1900x 8c 16t 3.6 - 4.0GHz 32MB 140w $599
I noticed AMD's server line currently doesn't offer a lower core count high clock speed CPU. Even in the single socket line they all top out at 3.0GHz. Even if you don't need (or want) a lot of cores, the only way to get a higher clocked chip is to get an Epyc 7451 24c 48t at $2400. I think they really need to offer a lower core count high speed CPU, and the logical choice based on their current design is a 16c 32t CPU.
Considering they have a 32c 64t at 3.2GHz 180w TDP, and a consumer 16c 32t at 4.0GHz 180w TDP...I think they can squeeze a 10% higher clock into a server chip without breaking the 180w TDP, thus a 16c 32t 2.6 - 3.5GHz with all the fixings. They already have a 7x81 in the lineup, I think they could use it again to denote the special chip and TDP. Besides their own lineup, this higher clocked chip would offer better competition against Intel's higher clocked chips, and specifically it lines up well with their Gold 1520 (14c 28t 2.2 - 3.2GHz $1555)
====================
As for the Threadripper lineup, they currently only offer two high end CPUs. I think they need an entry chip as well, for those who want to start off cheaper on the platform and/or don't need the extra cores...but still want the extra PCIE/RAM/cache and potentially MOBO features. Based on their design limits, the logical choice is an 8c 16t. Yes they have cheaper 8 core options, but again they have some limitations.
Keeping the current $200 pricing steps on X399, it makes for an excellent fit. The 1900x would be "only" $100 more than an 1800x, have the same high stock speed, and give you twice the cache/RAM options, more than double the PCIE, and may open more MOBO options. It also fits excellently against Intel, coming in at the exact spot of their 7820x, and trading maximum clock speeds for far more PCIE lanes...along with any of AMDs other advantages, like ECC memory support and more cache for those who need it.
I also think AMD could match the 140w TDP of Intel's chip, and fitting nicely between their own 1800x 95w and 1920x 180w. with 33% fewer cores than the 1920x (or 50% less than the 1950x) it simply doesn't need as much power. Yet it does have more PCIE, RAM, cache etc to run, so it makes sense to have a higher TDP than the similar core count 1800x.
Epyc 7381 16c 32t 2.6 - 3.5GHz 64MB 180w $1500
Threadripper 1900x 8c 16t 3.6 - 4.0GHz 32MB 140w $599
I noticed AMD's server line currently doesn't offer a lower core count high clock speed CPU. Even in the single socket line they all top out at 3.0GHz. Even if you don't need (or want) a lot of cores, the only way to get a higher clocked chip is to get an Epyc 7451 24c 48t at $2400. I think they really need to offer a lower core count high speed CPU, and the logical choice based on their current design is a 16c 32t CPU.
Considering they have a 32c 64t at 3.2GHz 180w TDP, and a consumer 16c 32t at 4.0GHz 180w TDP...I think they can squeeze a 10% higher clock into a server chip without breaking the 180w TDP, thus a 16c 32t 2.6 - 3.5GHz with all the fixings. They already have a 7x81 in the lineup, I think they could use it again to denote the special chip and TDP. Besides their own lineup, this higher clocked chip would offer better competition against Intel's higher clocked chips, and specifically it lines up well with their Gold 1520 (14c 28t 2.2 - 3.2GHz $1555)
====================
As for the Threadripper lineup, they currently only offer two high end CPUs. I think they need an entry chip as well, for those who want to start off cheaper on the platform and/or don't need the extra cores...but still want the extra PCIE/RAM/cache and potentially MOBO features. Based on their design limits, the logical choice is an 8c 16t. Yes they have cheaper 8 core options, but again they have some limitations.
Keeping the current $200 pricing steps on X399, it makes for an excellent fit. The 1900x would be "only" $100 more than an 1800x, have the same high stock speed, and give you twice the cache/RAM options, more than double the PCIE, and may open more MOBO options. It also fits excellently against Intel, coming in at the exact spot of their 7820x, and trading maximum clock speeds for far more PCIE lanes...along with any of AMDs other advantages, like ECC memory support and more cache for those who need it.
I also think AMD could match the 140w TDP of Intel's chip, and fitting nicely between their own 1800x 95w and 1920x 180w. with 33% fewer cores than the 1920x (or 50% less than the 1950x) it simply doesn't need as much power. Yet it does have more PCIE, RAM, cache etc to run, so it makes sense to have a higher TDP than the similar core count 1800x.
