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

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

Intel's highest base and boost for a 16 core processor is the E5-2697A v4 @ 2.6Ghz/3.6GHz

Scoured Intel's entire ARK for 16C parts, oh well though. Better someone corrects me than a conversation becoming an internet factoid.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

we don't know the limits of that 16 core processor in regards to OC headroom.

With AMD's advencements on Ryzen, and cutting back HPC and AVX, I do expect that AMD's 16C parts will OC as well, if not better, than Intel's could, but hit the hard wall of 4-4.1GHz that we've seen with Ryzen.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Scoured Intel's entire ARK for 16C parts, oh well though. Better someone corrects me than a conversation becoming an internet factoid.

Yea I knew Intel had higher frequency focused Xeons but wasn't sure if that went up to 16 cores or not, went digging .

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

Yea I knew Intel had higher frequency focused Xeons but wasn't sure if that went up to 16 cores or not, went digging .

They should recall them, so I can be right.

[leadeater]

Just now, Drak3 said:

They should recall them, so I can be right.

Well that one is $2891 so we can safely ignore it, you'd have to be a real fool to buy that for home usage new.

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

Well that one is $2891 so we can safely ignore it, you'd have to be a real fool to buy that for home usage new.

Or really dedicated to the optimal porn experience

[Energycore]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

I'm sorry but I completely disagree: it sounds way fucking metal.

 

Imagine "Threadripper" to this soundtrack:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Yeah I wouldn't mind if they marketed these CPUs in a very metal way. With skulls and blood and everything.

 

Actually I would, because I don't want AMD to go under

[Energycore]

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Scoured Intel's entire ARK for 16C parts, oh well though. Better someone corrects me than a conversation becoming an internet factoid.

 

With AMD's advencements on Ryzen, and cutting back HPC and AVX, I do expect that AMD's 16C parts will OC as well, if not better, than Intel's could, but hit the hard wall of 4-4.1GHz that we've seen with Ryzen.

I suppose one advantage of having your 16-core be 4 4-core CCXs is that they may circumvent some limitations that are present when you try to share L3 across that many CPUs. But that's just a hunch.

[Ryujin2003]

34 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that one is $2891 so we can safely ignore it, you'd have to be a real fool to buy that for home usage new.

Uhh.. for Crysis?! Jk... but seriously..

[THE_maverick]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Intel can't push a 12C/24T CPU that can hit 5GHz. Not when their current 8C/16T 5960X struggles with getting 4.5GHz when the averages for the 5930K and 4790K are roughly 4.8GHz. The 6950X, a 10C/20T part, manages 4.3GHz average. All of those numbers, being watercooled, and average overclocks.

 

Hell, if AMD's Threadripper 16C/32T can hit 4GHz, or even 3.5GHz, they've a performer that Intel probably can't match. Not when Intel's current 16C/32T CPUs are base clocked at 2.2-2.5GHz, and the best boosting part is hitting 3.2GHz on a single core. They'll have a disadvantage with IPC, but if Intel can't up the clocks, AMD will make up that roughly 5% difference and then some.

 

Average OC for the 6950X is 4.3GHz, it currently retails for $1575+. Also, ignoring scalling issues of adding cores, a 3GHz 16C/32T Threadripper would outperform a 4.3GHz 6950X in multicore. If we figure in those scaling issues, and the limitation of software parallelization, they're going to trade blows for their intended uses, meaning that the ThreadRipper just needs to be less expensive, or offer more features.

 

Not a surpising outcome seeing as AMD did sell an octocore with SMT with modern IPC and good stock clocks, for the same price as Intel's top dog quadcore with HT. And a Hexacore with SMT for the price of some i5's.

With Intel's 16c 2.1GHz/3GHz Turbo Boost going for $1900, they could probably realistically sell them for $1500-1700 if they ship with a base of 3GHz. If they support ECC RAM, and play nicely with server oriented Linux and BSD distros, AMD could get these on the server scene as well.

 

 

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

Intel doesn't have a 12 core CPU at 5 ghz?

And to all else.  Intel is not going to just sit there and see AMD kick their butts this way!!!  We don't have full specs for Intel's 12 core, but apparently on air they are doing an easy 4.5 OC, which makes me believe by the time they are out on water they'll run at 5. 

[Energycore]

13 minutes ago, THE_maverick said:

 

And to all else.  Intel is not going to just sit there and see AMD kick their butts this way!!!  We don't have full specs for Intel's 12 core, but apparently on air they are doing an easy 4.5 OC, which makes me believe by the time they are out on water they'll run at 5. 

Since this is Skylake I expect 4.6-4.8 to be around normal for these, but that could be different

[captain cactus]

Seeing how the Ryzen 8-cores are priced, I expect some really insane prices for these things.

[Belgarathian]

24 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Seeing how the Ryzen 8-cores are priced, I expect some really insane prices for these things.

$999 for the 16/32?

[rattacko123]

turns out naples is actually 4 dies on an interposer  
I wonder if this means that threadripper is 2 of these dies or something.

[Space Reptile]

5 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Zen-I like

Ryzen-meh, not horrible but not great

Threadripper-

you know whats more stupid? tech sites gobbelig up rumors as Facts ,

 

These Chips will not be called 1955/1956/1977/1998/1999 (and x variants) , that is flatout RETARDED

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, rattacko123 said:

turns out naples is actually 4 dies on an interposer  
I wonder if this means that threadripper is 2 of these dies or something.

Both correct.  We new about the 4 Dies for Naples, as that's the way the CCX system works.  

[Taf the Ghost]

Also, Threadripper is an awesome name.

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Both correct.  We new about the 4 Dies for Naples, as that's the way the CCX system works.  

Actually each die has 2 CCX's in them making 8 cores, then there are 4 dies on the interposer making 32 cores.

 

A single CCX is 4 cores.

[Tam3n]

Need those threads

 

Spoiler

 

 

[DocSwag]

8 hours ago, THE_maverick said:

 

And to all else.  Intel is not going to just sit there and see AMD kick their butts this way!!!  We don't have full specs for Intel's 12 core, but apparently on air they are doing an easy 4.5 OC, which makes me believe by the time they are out on water they'll run at 5. 

When skylake 4 cores are reaching 4.8-4.9, the 12 cores are only gonna reach probably 4.6, max, since larger core count CPUs overclock worse than bigger ones due to more heat output. There's a reason why the 5960x doesn't OC as high as the 4790k.

8 hours ago, Energycore said:

I suppose one advantage of having your 16-core be 4 4-core CCXs is that they may circumvent some limitations that are present when you try to share L3 across that many CPUs. But that's just a hunch.

And that's when Intel's vastly larger R&D budget starts showing through. If I recall correctly, the larger the L3 cache the more complex it gets, so amd did CCXs so that scaling up and down would be much easier and wouldn't require a month or two of research. Intel on the other hand can just do it. It's probably the same reason why amd is using multiple 8 core dies in their Naples CPU.

[Dylanc1500]

5 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

When skylake 4 cores are reaching 4.8-4.9, the 12 cores are only gonna reach probably 4.6, max, since larger core count CPUs overclock worse than bigger ones due to more heat output. There's a reason why the 5960x doesn't OC as high as the 4790k.

And that's when Intel's vastly larger R&D budget starts showing through. If I recall correctly, the larger the L3 cache the more complex it gets, so amd did CCXs so that scaling up and down would be much easier and wouldn't require a month or two of research. Intel on the other hand can just do it. It's probably the same reason why amd is using multiple 8 core dies in their Naples CPU.

Other reasons being that Intel understands that package size is a huge deal in multiple CPU boards. Fitting 4 2011 (or 2066) CPUs is a heck of a lot easier than 4 of those monstrosities.

[David89]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Intel's highest base and boost for a 16 core processor is the E5-2697A v4 @ 2.6Ghz/3.6GHz, only information we can go on in that respect as there is nothing above 10 cores in the Intel product stack that can OC so we don't know the limits of that 16 core processor in regards to OC headroom.

Overclocking on a Workstation is a no-no. Considering what Intel has announced for their i9 Series and what Base-Clocks they are going to run: Intel has not a single chance. Especially considering how extremely power efficient Ryzen can be. I can run my 1600 at 1,2V@3,5 GHz. Wanna know what the whole PC with a RX480 pulls from the wall? 21 Watts at Idle. That's just insanely good and Intel has nothing, that can rival that. Intel's 6-Core is so far beyond "worse" in this case - it's like trying to compare the FX9590 against a i7-7700K at 5 GHz. Oh - wait...at 5 GHz the 7700K does use pretty much the same amount of power than the FX...

[BuckGup]

11 hours ago, DocSwag said:

*$1649

It's $1499 at MicroCenter

[Taf the Ghost]

I'd have to stretch to ever find a use case for a 16c32t system, but that would be fun.

 

I'm just more glad they went full 80s Memelord with "Threadripper". Their current typographic style even goes with it.  That's just fun.

 

People forget that Intel made a HUGE splash with the Pentium 2 by the dancing clean suit guys and Blur's Song 2 playing.  CPUs *can* be fun.

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, DocSwag said:

except that AMD has decided to make their higher end platform only make sense to consumers that need a lot of cores.

it's no different for x99 (or x299), if you don't need the extra cores it's just a waste of money.

[DocSwag]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

it's no different for x99 (or x299), if you don't need the extra cores it's just a waste of money.

It's getting to the point where 6 core is reasonable for gamers.