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

[lolfail9001]

Dude, the X390 is on the AM4 platform

Dude, no, it's not. Matter of fact, there is about as much evidence for X390 existing at all as i have material in my Ph. D thesis. That i never had.

Not even sure what you are upset about here, or what your questions are suppose to answer?

He softly tells you that you were a damn fool for believing random rumor mills without a single grain of salt applied. It's weird he does that with your "bold" predictions, but i'll let it slide.

 

[T1beriu]

Now he have definitive proof that w3rd was living in a parallel reality, as many already suggested, that his silly ramblings were based on alternative facts brought to him on a platter by the Fake News Network™ and by ignoring other credible and logic constructed information.

Now we know that all the slides he used to backup his "arguments" were just fakes. Now we're sure that Threadripper has 64 PCIe lanes, not 44, that X399 is for TR only, not for EPYC as well.

Anything posted on the internet is real these days? It screams fake from a mile away.

Ignoring this is a table that anyone could have created, ignoring the stupid naming scheme, ignoring the incredibly large number of SKUs, ignoring the large number of TDP tiers, that official speed memory support tops at quad channel 3200Mhz (when Ryzen starts from dual-2666 & EPYC 8x2400, really? ), but the number of PCI lanes should signal clearly fake. TR is half of EPYC, that has 128 PCIe lanes, so TR should have 64.

So, what you are saying is that you are just choosing to arbitrarily dismiss all of it & facetiously pretend NONE of it is true.?
lol..

And here:

Study closely^.
Not sure what you are beating your head over and trying to understand. Or even what you are rambling on about.

 

[SketchMaster]

It will be interesting to see how applications start to scale for all these new HEDT platforms that are becoming the new norm. I wonder how soon games will require at least 6 threads, and content creation apps start to really scale past 10 threads.

 

[krumme]

It will be interesting to see how applications start to scale for all these new HEDT platforms that are becoming the new norm. I wonder how soon games will require at least 6 threads, and content creation apps start to really scale past 10 threads.

Agree. This is the needed start.
Push.

 

[DisEnchantment]

Agree. This is the needed start.
Push.

Indeed, suddenly that best gaming cpu, Core i5, starts feeling kind of inadequate with all these new stuffs from both the Intel/AMD camps.

I would not be surprised though if some reviewer comes up and stick 4x Vega, runs some 5 year old game at 720 p and says Thread ripper is bottlenecking

 

[scannall]

Seems like it took forever to break through that 32 bit wall in video games. But when it finally went down, it went down fast.

 

[IEC]

Threadripper confirmed by AMD at Computex to have up to 16c/32t, 64 PCIe3 lanes, and quad channel memory. *All* Threadripper processors will have 64 PCIe3 lanes. I don't recall hearing a launch date except "later this summer". Epyc server processors launching June 20th. Vega FE June 27th, RX Vega (gaming card) end of July.

 

[IEC]

I anticipate seeing a laser-engraved "Threadripper" on a IHS in the near future... yes it's cheesy. Yes I like it.

I called it on May 17. Threadripper *is* laser-engraved on the IHS:

 

[JDG1980]

Threadripper definitely is shaping up to be competitive, but it's disappointing that we got no detailed info on SKUs and pricing. This was a remarkably thin and content-light Computex event.

 

[ddogg]

That had to be one of the most attrocious AMD presentations I've seen. Why can't they take a leaf out of Nvidia's book? All we got was another teaser essentially.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[dnavas]

Threadripper definitely is shaping up to be competitive, but it's disappointing that we got no detailed info on SKUs and pricing.

I don't know if this is AMD's usual, but it's more than disappointing, it's concerning. That tepid hand-clapping at the end was really telling. Their main competitor just released a whole slew of processors, and they can't even show a Blender score? And it's shipping "summer"? While Epyc is out next month? That implies, to me, that there are problems. If I were in the market, I'd be making plans to buy Skylake, and once those systems are sold, "upsell" to TR is more than just a little uphill. AMD has to know this. My only conclusion is that TR isn't competitive. Presumably because of clocks, especially if Epyc is shipping.

Hey, and good on them for not pushing a non-competitive product, it's a marathon, after all, not a sprint. But yes, very disappointing.

 

[Yeroon]

I don't know if this is AMD's usual, but it's more than disappointing, it's concerning. That tepid hand-clapping at the end was really telling. Their main competitor just released a whole slew of processors, and they can't even show a Blender score? And it's shipping "summer"? While Epyc is out next month? That implies, to me, that there are problems. If I were in the market, I'd be making plans to buy Skylake, and once those systems are sold, "upsell" to TR is more than just a little uphill. AMD has to know this. My only conclusion is that TR isn't competitive. Presumably because of clocks, especially if Epyc is shipping.

Hey, and good on them for not pushing a non-competitive product, it's a marathon, after all, not a sprint. But yes, very disappointing.

Its the speculation thats been bumping their stock. I don't blame them for playing it. I don't like it, but its not changing release dates.
As for saying that them not releasing info means its non-competitive, thats absurd. Yeah, Intel released pn's, core counts and pricing, but clocks are still missing for the high end, and no real performance numbers. We already know TR is slated for 16 cores, and 2x 1700 is competitive regardless, which is about as low as you'd expect something with more than double the TDP to land MT wise.

 

[R0H1T]

I called it on May 17. Threadripper *is* laser-engraved on the IHS:

I wonder if there's already jokes penned on TR, it certainly sounds double entendreish

Threadripper definitely is shaping up to be competitive, but it's disappointing that we got no detailed info on SKUs and pricing. This was a remarkably thin and content-light Computex event.

A lot will depend on Intel's next set of moves, there's also the possibility that TR will be much cheaper but x399 may not especially wrt x299 from Intel.

 

[ddogg]

Either way I am still excited for Thread-ripper as I have the upgrade bug from my 6700k. If it's priced right and performs within 10% of competing Intel CPUs I will likely get one. Vega is turning out to be disappointing though. Dual GPU setup on a dated game like prey doesn't really instill any enthusiasm in me to see it.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Ajay]

Well, AMD has less employees than Nvidia (never mind Intel) - so it's no big surprise that they are having trouble getting all this new hardware out of the door.

 

[moonbogg]

Threadripper's success will come down to price, of course. I think that 16 core Ryzen at $1,000 would put Intel in a tight spot. If clocks are only in the 2ghz range or something like that, then threadripper will anemic. Vega is coming way too late though. 1080ti already cleaned house and Volta is right around the corner. I think VEGA is basically DOA.

 

[T1beriu]

If clocks are only in the 2ghz range or something like that, then threadripper will anemic.

Not a chance being this low. The leaked engineering samples for 16 cores have 3.1/3.6 (base turbo) and 2.7/3.2 for 12 cores.

I see no problem in sticking two 1700 dies on a TR package with the same frequencies.

 

[ddogg]

Thread-ripper is definitely above 3ghz and likely close to 4 with an OC. A 16C at $1000 would be awesome and would likely force Intel to cut prices of their Skylake x line if they perform well.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[dnavas]

As for saying that them not releasing info means its non-competitive, thats absurd.

Could be. But that's the way I received it. I'm proceeding under the assumption that TR isn't even in good enough shape to share clock speeds, that "summer" means "October", and that this is all hat no cattle. You're right, I also don't see any reason you couldn't slap two 1700s together, but they didn't even show a number after Blender. Down right weird, man. One would figure, with Vega too late to compete with Pascal, that you'd want to highlight the stuff that is shipping, but even the server specs were really thin.

That said, as I said, I don't know if this is AMD's MO. Maybe this kind of dysfunction is normal?

 

[tamz_msc]

That had to be one of the most attrocious AMD presentations I've seen. Why can't they take a leaf out of Nvidia's book? All we got was another teaser essentially.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Given the hype, disappointment and backlash surrounding their graphics products, they should stop with teasers and demos altogether and just release their products at a certain launch date.

 

[ericlp]

The good news to take away from all of this...

If AMD had not of come out with it's hardware, would Intel even bother releasing it's i9 line? I thought it was interesting that most of the news in the mainstream media is focusing on Intel and i9. With only a small line about the thread ripper and how intel had an answer for that.

Intel has never shown any real interest in going above 4 cores. To this date, the largest consumer core count on their processors has been just 8 cores, with the sweet spot being the Intel Core i7-5820K a 6 core part, if you didn't want to pay the insane price of the 8 core part.

The point is, Intel has been sitting on it's ass where it's been selling 95% of all it's consumer grade chips at just 2 and 4 core chips. If anything has come from this, at least we are headed in the right direction... For just twice as much money now we getting an i9 part with more than twice the core count. Might have not even happened if it wasn't for AMD to step up and come out with the Thread Ripper.

So... in conclusion, we are all winning ... It has been long overdue that we needed massive CPU's to push the envelope. I believe in the "build it and they will come" philosophy. With more cores, developers and programmers will be pushing the software side to take advantage of the new hardware. Maybe one day, a new app or game will be out and the box will say 8 cores minimum and 16 highly recommended! I give AMD a lot of credit for taking charge and opening the door for these new multi core processors, for that alone I am not disappointed at all!

 

[krumme]

The good news to take away from all of this...

If AMD had not of come out with it's hardware, would Intel even bother releasing it's i9 line? I thought it was interesting that most of the news in the mainstream media is focusing on Intel and i9. With only a small line about the thread ripper and how intel had an answer for that.

Intel has never shown any real interest in going above 4 cores. To this date, the largest consumer core count on their processors has been just 8 cores, with the sweet spot being the Intel Core i7-5820K a 6 core part, if you didn't want to pay the insane price of the 8 core part.

The point is, Intel has been sitting on it's ass where it's been selling 95% of all it's consumer grade chips at just 2 and 4 core chips. If anything has come from this, at least we are headed in the right direction... For just twice as much money now we getting an i9 part with more than twice the core count. Might have not even happened if it wasn't for AMD to step up and come out with the Thread Ripper.

So... in conclusion, we are all winning ... It has been long overdue that we needed massive CPU's to push the envelope. I believe in the "build it and they will come" philosophy. With more cores, developers and programmers will be pushing the software side to take advantage of the new hardware. Maybe one day, a new app or game will be out and the box will say 8 cores minimum and 16 highly recommended! I give AMD a lot of credit for taking charge and opening the door for these new multi core processors, for that alone I am not disappointed at all!

I agree except i wouldnt frame it as give "credit" to amd or Intel sitting on their ass. Its not in any way a moral step as "credit" could imply merely a consequence of the new zen tech. Intel does what they are expected to do. And as we can expect in a more monopoly like market we had for years. Its what happens - things slow down. Its quite normal. The same goes for amd. They did what is expected and innovated.

Btw i really appriciate your positive attitude to the entire situation thumbs up.

Yes we are all winning. People should be happy.

 

[dnavas]

Given the hype, disappointment and backlash surrounding their graphics products, they should stop with teasers and demos altogether and just release their products at a certain launch date.

I would think that hype and demos and teasers would work well with the gaming crowd, but demoing 4k gaming on an hedt? Why? You want workstation software companies up on stage with you telling your potential customers (their existing customer base) why you're a force to be reckoned with: CAD, 3D modeling/animation, media editing, data visualization (bonus points for running queries against your servers), maybe machine learning? If you want the professional market, you'll have to start acting that way.

If AMD had not of come out with it's hardware, would Intel even bother releasing it's i9 line? I thought it was interesting that most of the news in the mainstream media is focusing on Intel and i9. With only a small line about the thread ripper and how intel had an answer for that.

I think the media was all spun-up to do something for the scrappy under-dog, but AMD didn't give them anything to work with. Maybe that's for the best, so long as they saved their marketing dollars to do a proper pro-launch with correctly pitched outreach. The bad news, though, is that the i9 info is out there, and at least everyone in my office is already mentally building systems they want to buy.

But yes, absolutely AMD shook Intel loose. There would never have been more than 12 cores, and there might not have even been a 12 core from Intel given their previous path. It's what I've said to anyone who asks me why I bought a Ryzen system -- if my purchase helps bring better hardware sooner, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

 

[Topweasel]

But yes, absolutely AMD shook Intel loose. There would never have been more than 12 cores, and there might not have even been a 12 core from Intel given their previous path. It's what I've said to anyone who asks me why I bought a Ryzen system -- if my purchase helps bring better hardware sooner, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Considering the die change between the 12c and 14c chips. SL-X was going to go up to 12c originally and them bringing the 14c, 16, and 18c options is an attempt to head off TR.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Can anyone tell me if these new ryzen cpu's have rfid chips on them? Intel's I9 has them and they are a red flag for me.