Apple should have gone AMD

[CPotter]

 

[Roswell]

This is a pretty irrelevant comparison. Epyc is what you should be comparing to Xeon, not consumer parts.

 

 

[SupaKomputa]

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

This is a pretty irrelevant comparison. Epyc is what you should be comparing to Xeon, not consumer parts.

Xeon W is for workstation and should be compared with threadripper.

[GDRRiley]

M sku CPUs are being being replaced by L at the same cost for xeon scalable 2nd gen. I don't know that it applies to xeon W

No one was buying them.

 

7 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

This is a pretty irrelevant comparison. Epyc is what you should be comparing to Xeon, not consumer parts.

 

 

threadripper is prosumer/server grade it just lacks some ram capacity. (it comes down to needing venders to make larger sticks or AMD supporting different types.)

[hishnash]

While in general I agree with this video:

Some points: 

1) Threadripper has quite a low memory limit no? Apple would have had to stick to Epyc/Rome to get the high memory usage. And those cpus have much lower single core performance.

2) On the GPUs for people (not video editors) who need powerful GPUs they need VRAM the gpu you were comparing to has much much less VRAM and also does not have ECC VRM, to compare you would need to look into a professional grade gpu. (apple should have shipped with the new Navi based GPUs as the base model)

3) Apple has been pushing the audio engineer angle a lot, and in-fact the 1.5TB of memory is most likely going to be most used by audio engineers rather than video or other users. Being able to load all your instruments (very high res samples of 1000s of instruments playing millions of different sounds each) into ram means you don't have any random delays loading sounds from SSD (not acceptable at all). Without this audio engineers will typically use multiple machines splitting up their orchestra over these machines so that they can keep the full sample set in memory, this is a complete and utter pain (and costs a lot more than a single mac pro 2020, in other hardware needed to keep them all in time and sync)

[Roswell]

41 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

Xeon W is for workstation and should be compared with threadripper.

It really shouldn't. It's completely missing workstation features, most glaringly error correcting memory, 6/8 channel memory support, dramatically less PCI lanes, etc.

[Roswell]

39 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

Threadripper is prosumer/server grade it just lacks some ram capacity. (it comes down to needing venders to make larger sticks or AMD supporting different types.)

Definitely not server grade. No company in their right mind would deploy non ECC capable chips with such limited memory constraints in their servers.

[Commodus]

This piece largely sidesteps the RAM limitations on the Threadripper, which actually get mentioned in earlier clips... and I'm sorry, but that's an absolutely critical factor.

 

Practically speaking, 3rd-gen Threadrippers are capped at 256GB of RAM.  That's fine for many tasks, but there are also many pro customers who can benefit from or even need more than that... and no, not just people editing a ton of 8K video.  Apple wasn't going to sell a pro desktop that many in its target audience simply couldn't use.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had seriously considered Threadripper, but ruled it out for that very reason. Apple's goal isn't to please YouTubers who like running benchmarks; it's to please pros who need the best overall balance of hardware to get the job done.  And I'm not convinced AMD would've fit the bill.

[hishnash]

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had seriously considered Threadripper, but ruled it out for that very reason. Apple's goal isn't to please YouTubers who like running benchmarks; it's to please pros who need the best overall balance of hardware to get the job done.  And I'm not convinced AMD would've fit the bill.

Apple could have asked AMD to make a semi custom Threadripper without these limits (maybe)? but maybe not since the IOdie for the threadripper and the Epyc seem to be diffrent (on Epyc the IOdie is also the system chipset on Epyc you still have a chipset).

[Commodus]

Just now, hishnash said:

Apple could have asked AMD to make a semi custom Threadripper without these limits (maybe)? but maybe not since the IOdie for the threadripper and the Epyc seem to be diffrent (on Epyc the IOdie is also the system chipset on Epyc you still have a chipset).

Maybe, but I suspect it wouldn't have been as easy as that.  Even Apple's custom Intel chips are usually just different clock speeds and/or TDP levels.

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

This piece largely sidesteps the RAM limitations on the Threadripper, which actually get mentioned in earlier clips... and I'm sorry, but that's an absolutely critical factor.

 

Practically speaking, 3rd-gen Threadrippers are capped at 256GB of RAM.  That's fine for many tasks, but there are also many pro customers who can benefit from or even need more than that... and no, not just people editing a ton of 8K video.  Apple wasn't going to sell a pro desktop that many in its target audience simply couldn't use.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had seriously considered Threadripper, but ruled it out for that very reason. Apple's goal isn't to please YouTubers who like running benchmarks; it's to please pros who need the best overall balance of hardware to get the job done.  And I'm not convinced AMD would've fit the bill.

apple could have easily talked to amd (you know their GPU partner) and gotten custom threadripper/epyc chips specked the way apple wanted. hell apple could have their dream of no one being able to upgrade chips outside of them if they did something funky.

 

512gb will become available if memory makers start making larger modulus.

 

AMD would have fit the bill whether it be epyc or threadripper or a custom combo of the 2.

 

6 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Definitely not server grade. No company in their right mind would deploy non ECC capable chips with such limited memory constraints in their servers.

they support ECC just down to boards to make sure it happens.

 

Just now, Commodus said:

Maybe, but I suspect it wouldn't have been as easy as that.  Even Apple's custom Intel chips are usually just different clock speeds and/or TDP levels.

it would be, AMD has made a custom sku for Microsoft and the surface line.

[SupaKomputa]

9 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

It really shouldn't. It's completely missing workstation features, most glaringly error correcting memory, 6/8 channel memory support, dramatically less PCI lanes, etc.

AMD could just make a custom memory controller for that, TR-Epyc hybrid like it did with the custom ryzen surface laptop chip.

The cost of making it is less than intel due to the modular nature of the cpu.

 

[hishnash]

Just now, Commodus said:

Maybe, but I suspect it wouldn't have been as easy as that.  Even Apple's custom Intel chips are usually just different clock speeds and/or TDP levels.

Yer I agree, i think if apple were to get a custom part from AMD it would have been a custom Epyc (with higher clock speeds/binning) rather than a custom Threadripper. (and the price would go alone with that).

It would not be cheaper, would be better with PCIe/RAM bandwidth through

Apple would not need to do much work if to optimiser macOS since macOS is BSD based it has good support for multiple NUMA Nodes

[hishnash]

Just now, SupaKomputa said:

AMD could just make a custom memory controller for that, TR-Epyc hybrid like it did with the custom ryzen surface laptop chip.

The cost of making it is less than intel due to the modular nature of the cpu.

 

The cost would be higher due to the low volumes through.

[SupaKomputa]

Just now, hishnash said:

The cost would be higher due to the low volumes through.

In Apple world, cost is not a thing. If AMD gets a greenlight it would gladly do so.

[hishnash]

4 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

In Apple world, cost is not a thing. If AMD gets a greenlight it would gladly do so.

AMD would only take it as a loss leader if they got the rest of apples mac platforms. Given the large number of laptops apple ships that would be worth it but not just for the macPro.

I think more likely they would produce a high clocked/binned Epyc cpu than adapt a threadripper. But that would then have the price tag of an Epyc. Maybe apple could build a custom motherboard that could support both?.. then they could ship threadripper on lower memory systems and Epyc on higher but that would be a very apple solution. 

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

AMD would only take it as a loss leader if they got the rest of apples mac platforms. Given the large number of laptops apple ships that would be worth it but not just for the macPro.

I think more likely they would produce a high clocked/binned Epyc cpu than adapt a threadripper. But that would then have the price tag of an Epyc. Maybe apple could build a custom motherboard that could support both?.. then they could ship threadripper on lower memory systems and Epyc on higher but that would be a very apple solution. 

no need to ship 2 different kinds, EPYC goes from 8 cores at 450$ to 64 cores at 4250$

[hishnash]

6 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

no need to ship 2 different kinds, EPYC goes from 8 cores at 450$ to 64 cores at 4250$

But those are quite low clock speeds compared to the Threadripper or XeonW apple would need to get AMD to produce a higher binned Epyc CPU that can reach the same clocks as the threadrippers (or at least the XeonW).  3.3Ghz max clock speed on the 16 core is quite low compared to the 16core in the macPro 4.4GHz.
 

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, hishnash said:

But those are quite low clock speeds compared to the Threadripper or XeonW apple would need to get AMD to produce a higher binned Epyc CPU that can reach the same clocks as the threadrippers (or at least the XeonW).  3.3Ghz max clock speed on the 16 core is quite low compared to the 16core in the macPro 4.4GHz.
 

well threadripper chips are just binned epycs.

[Delicious Cake]

It's pretty obvious that Apple is tied to Intel via long-term contracts. AMD are no strangers to creating custom solutions and it would probably have been less work than developing the console SoCs.

 

People forget that Intel is big enough that Apple can't outright dictate whatever terms they'd like. AMD probably would love the chance to 'power' a Mac lineup, particularly if it was the top-end lineup if it was to be only one. It would be huge boost for brand recognition and mindshare, especially as it'll be via the most recognised SI on the planet. It would also be a massive bit of leverage they'd have when it comes to the other more traditional/volume SIs like Dell, HP, Acer, etc. because of the halo effect.

[hishnash]

27 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

well threadripper chips are just binned epycs.

They have a different IODie no? since the motherboard requires a chipset and the Epyc motherboards do not. Having a diffrent IODie would also be a good reason as to why they do not support the buffered memory. 

[hishnash]

1 minute ago, Delicious Cake said:

It's pretty obvious that Apple is tied to Intel via long-term contracts. AMD are no strangers to creating custom solutions and it would probably have been less work than developing the console SoCs.

 

People forget that Intel is big enough that Apple can't outright dictate whatever terms they'd like. AMD probably would love the chance to 'power' a Mac lineup, particularly if it was the top-end lineup if it was to be only one. It would be huge boost for brand recognition and mindshare, especially as it'll be via the most recognised SI on the planet. It would also be a massive bit of leverage they'd have when it comes to the other more traditional/volume SIs like Dell, HP, Acer, etc. because of the halo effect.

That is true AMD would love that halo that being apples chip supplier would provide.

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, hishnash said:

They have a different IODie no? since the motherboard requires a chipset and the Epyc motherboards do not. Having a diffrent IODie would also be a good reason as to why they do not support the buffered memory. 

they are are the same chiplets from 3600 to 64 core epyc.

same socket but I don't remember on the IO die

[Delicious Cake]

Both north- & southbridge/chipset functions are integrated in Epyc. Has to be a different I/O die specifically designed for handling all I/O functions, surely.

[Luscious]

The fact that Apple's boxes are using LAST GEN Xeon parts probably means they're getting a significant price cut from Intel alongside now being the clearing house for old inventory. Only Apple can get away with marking up last gen tech for the ripoff prices they're asking LOL. Maybe the question should be "when" Apple plans to switch to 2nd gen Cascade Lake, or if these parts are even drop-in compatible.

 

The more interesting take-away here is that we have three different CPU's all compatible with different operating systems. Epyc is fine on Linux and server version of Windows but lacks consumer Windows support. Your 3990X will work fine on Win 10 so long as you are using the workstation or enterprise flavor. Meanwhile anything with 64 threads or less is happy with regular Win 10 pro and Mac OS.

 

Clearly there is a hard coded barrier in Windows 10 for CPUs with greater than 64 threads, warranting the need for a workstation/enterprise version for people who have software and hardware that doesn't play well with Windows Server, and I am thinking this is the same deal with Mac OS as well. The 256GB RAM limit of TR is a moot point if the OS you want to use isn't supported, and MacOS doesn't even have a server variant.

 

It's understandable AMD doesn't want to cannibalize Epyc with TR, but while a 3990X may check the boxes for "workstation grade" the boards available for it are all flashy gamer and consumer level parts. That makes comparisons to 2P unrealistic if that Xeon Mobo IS server grade, packs a 5 year NBD support option AND has drivers for every OS under the sun.

 

Sure, in an ideal world we could choose between a 2P Rome or Xeon workstation, but we have reached the point where the operating system is now the bottleneck.