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

[BigDaveX]

Both of you should read page 1 of this thread, esp. The Stilt's posting.

You might not need a package supporting all the features of the server version, but reports indicate that the pin count is the same on both the server and HEDT chips, and shrinking 4,000+ contact pads into a smaller area is no small matter (pun not intended). And while the comparison was made between Socket C32 and Socket G34, the two had different pin-counts; 1207 on the former and 1944 on the latter.

The fact that the pin counts are the same on both versions sounds like the situation will be more comparable to Intel having LGA2011-v3 for its HEDT i7 and 2P Xeon systems, and LGA2011-v2 for 4P+ Xeon systems, with the two being mechanically compatible, but electrically incompatible. That being said, these are just rumours right now, so I wouldn't put it past AMD to come up with something with a pin-count in-between AM4+ and their new server socket.

 

[Midwayman]

I would like to think they would but I should note that it can't be a Ripper of Threads if it's only got 8 cores.

Still a lot of threads. More importantly getting a 8 core with the IO of the HEDT platform would be nice. AM4 is a little on the constricting side.

 

[Topweasel]

Still a lot of threads. More importantly getting a 8 core with the getting IO of the HEDT platform would be nice. AM4 is a little on the constricting side.

Oh it is and it's the number one reason I hopped onto the Ryzen train as soon as it rolled by. Just saying now anyone can have 8 threads. You aren't really ripping them till you go higher.

 

[w3rd]

4 cores are dead.

Come this holiday season 8 core will be the norm. I say this because as time goes on, the AM4 platform (@8core $299), will mature and both the x299 & x399 platforms will also be out by then. And No cost conscious consumer is going to buy anything less than 8 cores, if they plan on utilizing the CPU for 4 years.

Specially, when Holiday season leads into 2018 new years. By then (Vega & Volta), who will be talking about dx11, or 4C gaming as talking points? Even the Xbox Scorpio will take the mainstream consumer past those limits.

8 core will be the new "standard" for PC gaming. This is inevitable & 2018 is only 7 months away.



My wallet is ready, but for once I just have too much candy to choose from & feel just like a kid in a candy store. Been a long time since consumer had choices, or seen actual movement in the PC world.

I am building three rigs, ideally they would all be the same. But I might go one of each platform for the hell of it.

 

[nathanddrews]

Oh it is and it's the number one reason I hopped onto the Ryzen train as soon as it rolled by. Just saying now anyone can have 8 threads. You aren't really ripping them till you go higher.

4 cores are dead.

That escalated quickly.

 

[ddogg]

4 cores are dead.

Come this holiday season 8 core will be the norm. I say this because as time goes on, the AM4 platform (@8core $299), will mature and both the x299 & x399 platforms will also be out by then. And No cost conscious consumer is going to buy anything less than 8 cores, if they plan on utilizing the CPU for 4 years.

Specially, when Holiday season leads into 2018 new years. By then (Vega & Volta), who will be talking about dx11, or 4C gaming as talking points? Even the Xbox Scorpio will take the mainstream consumer past those limits.

8 core will be the new "standard" for PC gaming. This is inevitable & 2018 is only 7 months away.



My wallet is ready, but for once I just have too much candy to choose from & feel just like a kid in a candy store. Been a long time since consumer had a had choices, or actual movement in the PC world.

I am building three rigs, ideally they would all be the same. But I might go one of each platform for the hell of it.

Couldn't agree with this more. 8 cores was out of reach for most people prior to the ryzen release so hopefully, it pushes game developers to utilize all those available cores as this becomes mainstream now.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Malogeek]

it pushes game developers to utilize all those available cores as this becomes mainstream in 5 years time.

FTFY

It's been the issue with DX12, there's no way publishers could target DX12 only until the install base is much bigger and there's a clear benefit. The vast majority of gaming platforms is 4c4t + nvidia. That doesn't exactly promote 8c and DX12 development but it certainly does move things along at a much faster pace than if we waited for Intel and Nvidia to move the goal posts.

 

[coercitiv]

And No cost conscious consumer is going to buy anything less than 8 cores, if they plan on utilizing the CPU for 4 years.

I hear a lot of unconscious reviewers and consumers see the 6 core R5 as some kind of best value thing, but don't mind them, they lack the crystal ball perspective.

 

[dnavas]

If it's $799, it's most definitely going in my rig. I'm expecting the top CPU to go for $999. I'm likely going to pick up a 12/14 core CPU if the performance is good.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Maybe the 12 core is $800, but I'd expect a premium over the 1800X for any 8-core model given the increase in capability (lanes and security and other I/O) and linear scaling after that. Even if we move the 1800X back down to $450 (remove the top-sku halo), I'm thinking $600, $900, and $1200. That said, the I/O doesn't scale linearly with cores, so it's possible to pay, say, 1700X prices for the core differences: $550, $750, $950 for a downclocked model, and (1800X core price-based) $600, $825, $1050 for top-sku (plus top-sku halo pricing).

That's from an engineering perspective. Marketing might look at that and say "hey, let's put the top sku under $1000" and go with $599, $799, and $999, but I'm not sure if that's a round-up of the downclocked model or a round-down of any top-dog

I'd have a hard time justifying $800 for a 16-core. That's only twice 1700X, and you're getting a lot better I/O and other stuff for that price. Not that I wouldn't take it, mind you

 

[Topweasel]

I hear a lot of unconscious reviewers and consumers see the 6 core R5 as some kind of best value thing, but don't mind them, they lack the crystal ball perspective.

It's just people hedging their bets.
AMD started out the cores wars when they first brought out the A64 X2, then the Phenom X4, and then the Phenom X6. It was about the time of the 4 where AMD decided they needed to come up with a plan to keep the trend going and developed Bulldozer. At the same time they tried to push systems to more thread usage by developing Mantle. Both Bombed because AMD was trying it do it their way, waaay to early. BD had to be specifically utilized and optimized for it to perform competitively and it would still be slower. Mantle was never going to get any traction because it was really a Solo effort by AMD and any work done with it would be unused by 90% of the players.

Fast forward. DX12 has been supported for 3 years. People are already using it. Nvidia is going to have to develop a true DX12 arch soon enough (Volta?) and AMD just released a consumer CPU with cores that don't needed to be coded for, that are competitive with Intel, and have tons more of them for the price.

This year 1/4th of the games tested are using DX12, Next year half will be, and so on. This isn't a 3-5 years out redrumming of the old BD "it will come eventually". We are already at that, 4c4t CPU's are bottlenecking as we speak. 4c8t systems are capping out on threads. Intel is going 6 core mainstream later this year/early next year. Anyone thinking that this is going to be a slow transition is in for a surprise. Since BD, since Mantle, since Xbone/PS4, this has been a slow climb, but we are at the peak of the mountain. The trip down is going to be fast and be gaining speed the whole time.

 

[ddogg]

Maybe the 12 core is $800, but I'd expect a premium over the 1800X for any 8-core model given the increase in capability (lanes and security and other I/O) and linear scaling after that. Even if we move the 1800X back down to $450 (remove the top-sku halo), I'm thinking $600, $900, and $1200. That said, the I/O doesn't scale linearly with cores, so it's possible to pay, say, 1700X prices for the core differences: $550, $750, $950 for a downclocked model, and (1800X core price-based) $600, $825, $1050 for top-sku (plus top-sku halo pricing).

That's from an engineering perspective. Marketing might look at that and say "hey, let's put the top sku under $1000" and go with $599, $799, and $999, but I'm not sure if that's a round-up of the downclocked model or a round-down of any top-dog

I'd have a hard time justifying $800 for a 16-core. That's only twice 1700X, and you're getting a lot better I/O and other stuff for that price. Not that I wouldn't take it, mind you

I wouldn't think twice about snagging that 16 core monster if it was 799 but it's extremely unlikely. 999 has been the going rate for extreme edition CPUs until the 6950x and I expect AMD to follow that pattern. We shall find out soon enough.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Bassman2003]

4 cores, 6 cores, 16 cores, it does not matter until we see the performance. Unless you need very heavily threaded tasks taken care of, most would favor the fastest CPU over a lot of slower cores.... I am preparing for Intel's offerings to be much of the same (small increases) with a possible slight discount and the AMD chips to fall a little bit short on the performance side but be a great value. Always hope for positive surprises but I do not think much will be different other than it is nice to have new products and competition. Next week should be fun and I am sure there will be a lot of tired reviewers!

 

[Ajay]

If it's $799, it's most definitely going in my rig. I'm expecting the top CPU to go for $999. I'm likely going to pick up a 12/14 core CPU if the performance is good.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Glo. has indicated that the top binned 16C/32T will likely go for ~$1500. There will be no 10 or 14 core models - because of the way the internal security manager works, the possible configuration would be 8/12 & 16 cores (8 core will have less L3 cache).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

So what you're saying is I might finally have a reason to replace my Athlon MP rig?

 

[Ajay]

So what you're saying is I might finally have a reason to replace my Athlon MP rig?

LOL! Yeah, it's time

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Now 4 cores, 8 threads are becoming mainstream in even the low end. No more dual cores, 4 thread garbage from Intel. Horray!!

 

[mattiasnyc]

Stilt confirmed that the cores+cache combination on each CCX have to be identical on both die. So only really 12 and 16 make sense.

I re-read this. Each Ryzen has two CCX, correct? And that's one die, correct? So if Threadripper has two die on one CPU, that would be four CCX, correct?

If I take what you wrote literally then it's possible to have;

CCX 1 / Die 1 - 3 cores
CCX 2 / Die 1 - 2 cores
CCX 1 / Die 2 - 3 cores
CCX 2 / Die 2 - 2 cores

Correct? The CCX would be "identical on each die", total 10 cores.

 

[mattiasnyc]

Glo. has indicated that the top binned 16C/32T will likely go for ~$1500. There will be no 10 or 14 core models - because of the way the internal security manager works, the possible configuration would be 8/12 & 16 cores (8 core will have less L3 cache).

The price seems likely to me. If AMD is marketing the 1800X as essentially keeping up with the 6950K in some workloads, then doubling the core count would surely put it ahead. If that's the case keeping the price the same would still make it a better buy. So I think that a 16c TR at $1,500 seems likely.

And if that's the case I wonder how the rest would line up. I guess if they only have 8 and 12 cores as alternatives maybe $700/1,100?

 

[LTC8K6]

Now 4 cores, 8 threads are becoming mainstream in even the low end. No more dual cores, 4 thread garbage from Intel. Horray!!

Unfair considering that those 4 thread chips were often able to defeat an 8 thread AMD chip...

 

[T1beriu]

I re-read this. Each Ryzen has two CCX, correct? And that's one die, correct? So if Threadripper has two die on one CPU, that would be four CCX, correct?

If I take what you wrote literally then it's possible to have;

CCX 1 / Die 1 - 3 cores
CCX 2 / Die 1 - 2 cores
CCX 1 / Die 2 - 3 cores
CCX 2 / Die 2 - 2 cores

Correct? The CCX would be "identical on each die", total 10 cores.

This has been discussed in depth in other threads. The short answer is no, it's impossible because all the CCXs need to have the same number of active cores.

 

[CatMerc]

Ryzen Pro, Threadripper, and Epyc, this is impressive that AMD is releasing all these variants. I never thought they would be doing all this so early after Ryzen was released.

And even more impressively, all of this is done from one die only, Zeppelin.

 

[Ajay]

And even more impressively, all of this is done from one die only, Zeppelin.

And Intel will be going the same way with Ice Lake server/HEDT with their EMIB, though not till 2019.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Whether you go green or blue these are exciting times indeed and I'm tickled to death by all of the new stuff coming out.

 

[maddie]

This has been discussed in depth in other threads. The short answer is no, it's impossible because all the CCXs need to have the same number of active cores.

To be precise and maybe nitpicking, this is not correct.

You can have variable core values, but they introduce an asymmetry in the design which can impact performance depending on where a thread is running.

 

[dnavas]

So I think that a 16c TR at $1,500 seems likely.

Well, that'd be good for AMD's bottom line, assuming there are buyers.
I'd pass at that price :shrug:
Might as well get a better clocking Skylake (unless Intel prices the 12-core at $2k or above).