AMD Ryzen Threadripper and Ryzen 3 Product Updates (Threadripper price reveal)

[XenosTech]

RIP dreams of buying TR as a sever machine.... Maybe I'll be able to afford a whole build after 6 months to a year of saving.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

 

I'm hoping; if the temps are grand under extreme load, it should be possible to overclock 8 cores to 3.9Ghz at least.

 

Best of both works, high jiggawatz for gaming and clock frequency sensitive work, and all those cores for rendering and encoding

1.21 jiggawatz!!! Are you mad, next you'll put your BLK to 88 Mph err I mean 88 Mhz.

[Valentyn]

Just now, XenosTech said:

RIP dreams of buying TR as a sever machine.... Maybe I'll be able to afford a whole build after 6 months to a year of saving.

 

Well there's still supposed to be some none X variants, and the 10 core model as well. The latter should be great bang for buck if it's actually coming.

[DrMikeNZ]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

7900X score is too low. I really don't know how AMD got this score. 

 

Threadripper is looking very impressive tho

7900X at stock isn't impressive, but has a massive overclocking headroom if you have the fire brigade on call.

Threadripper is clocked much closer to its limit, but still has a little more to give.

Cinebench really favours Ryzen for some reason, I get much higher scores with my R7 1700 than my 6900K, but everything else my 6900K walks all over it.

[tom_w141]

3 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

 

I'm hoping; if the temps are grand under extreme load, it should be possible to overclock 8 cores to 3.9Ghz at least.

 

Best of both works, high jiggawatz for gaming and clock frequency sensitive work, and all those cores for rendering and encoding

you've posted this 3 times  whilst I agree you are confusing the F outta me when I see the same reply over and over  

[Coaxialgamer]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

RIP dreams of buying TR as a sever machine.... Maybe I'll be able to afford a whole build after 6 months to a year of saving.

to be fair, it's not like the price is unreasonable.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

Where did you get this score...? 

AMD may have been using an older BIOS

[Valentyn]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

you've posted this 3 times  whilst I agree you are confusing the F outta me when I see the same reply over and over  

Haha sorry, just excited; especially when people mention potential overclocking.

I hope Noctua doesn't charge a fortune for the new coolers

 

[Jurrunio]

19 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

You are late. Intel smothered the Pentium with a pillow earlier this week. It was too good value for money, which is against Intel's code of conduct.

I don't understand. So 1100 doesn't have to beat Pentium because they are more expensive?

[XenosTech]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

to be fair, it's not like the price is unreasonable.

The 12 core is $1400 minus shipping and import taxes lol

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

 

Well there's still supposed to be some none X variants, and the 10 core model as well. The latter should be great bang for buck if it's actually coming.

Totally forgot about the 10 cores  I'll wait and see but those will cost me a kidney or two

[Valentyn]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

The 12 core is $1400 minus shipping and import taxes lol

Totally forgot about the 10 cores  I'll wait and see but those will cost me a kidney or two

 

Looking at the price scaling per cores, they should be just above the 1800X.

Then we also have the possible non X 1950s, and 1920s as well.

 

So if XFR boosting on a single core aren't essential they could be a smidge less as well.

[Coaxialgamer]

1 minute ago, DrMikeNZ said:

7900X at stock isn't impressive, but has a massive overclocking headroom if you have the fire brigade on call.

Threadripper is clocked much closer to its limit, but still has a little more to give.

Cinebench really favours Ryzen for some reason, I get much higher scores with my R7 1700 than my 6900K, but everything else my 6900K walks all over it.

even overclocked though , you're only reaching ~2400 CB 

 

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Where did you get this score...?

It's arstechnica .

bitech.net and techspot also found similar scores , looking at reviews , so it's likely the variability between the test numbers is because of boosting . 

[DrMikeNZ]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Where did you get this score...? 

Just run it 20 times until you get the number you want. Cinebench can be a pretty good random number generator.

Which is why I always run it a minimum of 4 times and take the average.

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

I don't understand. So 1100 doesn't have to beat Pentium because they are more expensive?

The Pentium was so popular for budget gamers that it was killing i3 sales. Intel severely ramped down Pentium production so that you can't buy one BUT technically its not discontinued. It's basically a sneaky way of forcing you toward an i3. Which is a silly move overall as R3's should be rolling in to cripple i3s any time now. 

[tom_w141]

Just now, Valentyn said:

Then we also have the possible non X 1950s, and 1920s as well.

There definitely is. The previously announced product stack had none X 16 cores just no prices.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

even overclocked though , you're only reaching ~2400 CB 

WRONG. @done12many2 Cinebench Screenshot please

[DrMikeNZ]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

even overclocked though , you're only reaching ~2400 CB 

Closer to 2700-2800 if done right.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

 

Looking at the price scaling per cores, they should be just above the 1800X.

Then we also have the possible non X 1950s, and 1920s as well.

 

So if XFR boosting on a single core aren't essential they could be a smidge less as well.

XFR wouldn't be important for running vms to simulate an enterprise environment with a couple servers and a couple clients.

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Basically confirms my assessment of what TR will be based off of Ryzen.

Adequate, cheap cores for some HEDT use cases, and massive PCIe I/O. But fucking worthless for AVX loads compared to an Intel CPU of half the cores, and of lower cost.

Not a great position for a HEDT platform. Too many compromises between Ryzen and 6/8c SLX.

Quote

Floating Point: NAMD

Developed by the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, NAMD is a set of parallel molecular dynamics codes for extreme parallelization on thousands of cores. NAMD is also part of SPEC CPU2006 FP. In contrast with previous FP benchmarks, the NAMD binary is compiled with Intel ICC and optimized for AVX.

 

First, we used the "NAMD_2.10_Linux-x86_64-multicore" binary. We used the most popular benchmark load, apoa1 (Apolipoprotein A1). The results are expressed in simulated nanoseconds per wall-clock day. We measure at 500 steps.

 

Quote

Again, the EPYC 7601 simply crushes the competition with 41% better performance than Intel's 28-core. Heavily vectorized code (like Linpack) might run much faster on Intel, but other FP code seems to run faster on AMD's newest FPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/21

 

Quote

All in all, it must be said that AMD executed very well and delivered a new server CPU that can offer competitive performance for a lower price point in some key markets. Server customers with non-scalar sparse matrix HPC and Big Data applications should especially take notice.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/23

 

Non AVX512 says hi 

[Coaxialgamer]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

WRONG. @done12many2 Cinebench Screenshot please

even looking at what linus got , you can see that's about what it scores . Looking at a typical 4.5ghz overclock ,which most should be able to achieve with an aio , you get around 2146 at stock and 2438 oc

 

[Coaxialgamer]

2 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

Closer to 2700-2800 if done right.

what clock speeds are we talking about here  ? I'm aware 5.7ghz scores around 3200CB , but with most typical overclocks toping at ~4.6ghz due to heat , we're talking about 2400 . Linus got 2438 at 4.5ghz in his review.

[Sauron]

I was sort of hoping there would be an 8 core variant for those who want the advanced features but don't need more cores. Oh well.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Looking at a typical 4.5ghz overclock ,which most should be able to achieve with an aio

4.5GHz is too low for the 7900X though. If you get it you should try to hit 4.6-4.8GHz (Possible with 1.25V) and at that frequency you are getting 2500-2600 points

[sazrocks]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I was sort of hoping there would be an 8 core variant for those who want the advanced features but don't need more cores. Oh well.

Won’t epyc have an 8 core?

[leadeater]

Just now, sazrocks said:

Won’t epyc have an 8 core?

It does yes, 7251