AMD Officially Announces AMD Ryzen Threadripper CPUs For Consumers, Up to 16 Cores and 32 Threads

[DocSwag]

3 hours ago, MoonSpot said:

The CCXs were the whole point if the design not some deficiency in it.  Its because of the CCX route we are getting 8, 10, 12+ multithreded core CPUs at vastly lower prices than intel. 

And yes, there's more stuff to do, sure.  But that's also been the case for intel for their last several generations.  AMD is only going to manage iterative improvements in IPC going forward if we're being realistic in the slightest.

As for being on a time budget...I don't know if I'd say that at all.  It been 5 or 6 years between architectures from them.  The real enticing improvements AMD can and, in my opinion, should make; are in making significant improvements to their chipsets capabilities/features.

 

3 hours ago, Dogeystyle said:

The CCX is a deliberate design feature. Instead of making 8C/16T  chips which are physically massive and will have shite yields, they can just make 4C chips at a fraction of the cost and stick them together using their "Infinity Fabric". The CCX and the 8 Fabric is the reason why AMD is selling very competitive 16 thread chips such as the 1700 for KFC bargain bucket money. A chip like that manufactured the Intel way of actually fabbing a physical 8 core chip would cost double the money otherwise. 

 

Obviously the big drawback is that software such as games were not ready to take advantage of this design, and is also a big reason why RAM speeds affect the perf the way they do, since RAM speeds are tied to the performance of the 8 Fabric. Hopefully by Zen 2 everything would be refined enough for this design to be fully exploited, and AMD delivers on their shareholder promise of higher clocks and IPC.

I know it was, but a unified design is definitively better than a dual CCX design. It would just take more R&D due to it being more complicated.

 

At the very least, amd could, with zen2, make the infinity fabric wider or delink it from the memory frequency and run it at a higher clock speed.

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I know it was, but a unified design is definitively better than a dual CCX design. It would just take more R&D due to it being more complicated.

I'm not sure a unified design is actually better but I think the current implementation of the idea is technology limited. Unified has the problem of high probability of defects. If the Infinity Fabric had for arguments sake infinite bandwidth and no latency there is effectively no difference between unified or not.

 

If we really are going to enter a world of computing where the common person has 8+ cores, all the way up to 32 or even more, unified is not the cost effective way to do it.

 

I think if the CCX design is really going to make sense they need to be independent dies on an interposer and the full chip needs to be more like a build out design i.e. Lego.  

[Nikkolai Ulyanov Ali Reza]

13 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

 

You literally did though.  Quote below:

 

 

"Ryzen wasn't good enough to be compared to Intel"

 

Hell yes it was.  It's comparable to Haswell/Broadwell in IPC and peaks out around 4GHz.  Sky/Kabylake are only 10-ish percent faster in single threaded workloads.  Those benchmarks that show a 7700k blowing away R7's are usually overclocked like crazy.  Ryzen has made locked i5's and i7's completely pointless, as the architecture's capability to hit 4.8GHz is moot when you are unable to OC.

I told Ryzen wasn't good enough COMPARED TO INTEL, that's my opinion based on singe-thread performance

But I didn't say Ryzen has BAD performance for daily use

These two sentences have different meaning

Even the smallest difference still have meaning in consumer's heart lol

Of course Ryzen is able to hit such a high performance, knowing the number of cores, so the every task distribute evenly among the used cores, making the temperature stable while intel has less cores have to distribute the task to every cores it has which later make the temperature increase, plus it still has some unused core to support. When temperature increase, cpu can't take more task that make it limited to do multi task on cores and thread.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Nikkolai Ulyanov Ali Reza said:

I told Ryzen wasn't good enough COMPARED TO INTEL, that's my opinion based on singe-thread performance

But I didn't say Ryzen has BAD performance for daily use

These two sentences have different meaning

Even the smallest difference still have meaning in consumer's heart lol

Of course Ryzen is able to hit such a high performance, knowing the number of cores, so the every task distribute evenly among the used cores, making the temperature stable while intel has less cores have to distribute the task to every cores it has which later make the temperature increase, plus it still has some unused core to support. When temperature increase, cpu can't take more task that make it limited to do multi task on cores and thread.

Actually, you didn't say it wasn't good enough compared to Intel, you said it wasn't good enough TO BE compared to Intel.  Those two words alter the meaning significantly.

 

The first way means that Ryzen falls short of Intel.  The second means it's not even worth comparing the two.

[Nikkolai Ulyanov Ali Reza]

36 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Actually, you didn't say it wasn't good enough compared to Intel, you said it wasn't good enough TO BE compared to Intel.  Those two words alter the meaning significantly.

 

The first way means that Ryzen falls short of Intel.  The second means it's not even worth comparing the two.

Okay, I admit I forgot to put "to be" in my comment,

But still it's my opinion that it really is not good enough yet because I was hoping something more from Ryzen, especially when Linus come the demo-try in amd I think (?)

Dude I don't hate Ryzen or amd, I was hoping for it to be something better than intel in every aspects because they are not winning the market yet.

In fact, you can say that I am kind of a fan of amd.

Being a fan doesn't mean we have to say every good about it, I admit it was a huge comeback from amd when Ryzen was released but most people still choose intel over amd (as far as I know in my surrounding)

Why people are so triggered? lol

[Phate.exe]

4 hours ago, Nikkolai Ulyanov Ali Reza said:

Okay, I admit I forgot to put "to be" in my comment,

But still it's my opinion that it really is not good enough yet because I was hoping something more from Ryzen, especially when Linus come the demo-try in amd I think (?)

Dude I don't hate Ryzen or amd, I was hoping for it to be something better than intel in every aspects because they are not winning the market yet.

In fact, you can say that I am kind of a fan of amd.

Being a fan doesn't mean we have to say every good about it, I admit it was a huge comeback from amd when Ryzen was released but most people still choose intel over amd (as far as I know in my surrounding)

Why people are so triggered? lol

Words mean things.  "Good enough compared to intel" just means "it's still a bit behind intel".  "Good enough to be compared to intel" meand "it's such a pile of fail that it isn't even worth comparing them at all".  Basically whether you meant to or not, your initial comment just wrote them off as junk not worth considering.

They're more than competitive in single-thread performance, especially compared to any of Intel's locked SKU's, at similar prices, while offering more threads.  There is literally ZERO reason to buy a locked i5 now that Ryzen 5 exists.  The days of a 60% performance gap are long gone.

 

This isn't a matter of anyone being a triggered fanboy, you were talking shit with no basis in fact.