BitsAndChips: entry-level Threadripper 16c/32t to come at the nice low price of $849

[DildorTheDecent]

32 minutes ago, Notional said:

No water cooling setup would have any issue with soldered IHS. Even phase change wouldn't bring down the temps to -55c. Even if it goes to -35 or so, you won't get the CPU to 125c or even anywhere close to that anyways. So delidding makes no sense on soldered CPU's.

 

Again, the only situation where delidding a soldered CPU might make sense, is with LN2, if it even works on an exposed die. 

 

Either way, the point is that a soldered CPU is in no way a problem for anyone using the CPU normally.

I'm well aware don't you worry.

 

I don't know why you're talking about delidding a soldered processor though. Where'd you get that idea? Yeah it's good for chilly but not much point for enthusiast as mentioned. 

 

Mustn't have read this post then: 

2 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

Probably still a lot cooler than the unsoldered 18 core Intel lol...

[TheRandomness]

6 hours ago, marldorthegreat said:

doubt it, the 16 core variant must be atleast £1000

If they did do at least this, why would anyone buy it? They'd just go for what Intel's offering. You're so using to seeing what Intel offers that you're expecting for it to cost that much now

[TOMPPIX]

a nice "low" price. 

[79wjd]

15 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

If they did do at least this, why would anyone buy it? They'd just go for what Intel's offering. You're so using to seeing what Intel offers that you're expecting for it to cost that much now

Well, the 7960x is still going to cost $1700, so $1000 would still be perfectly reasonable. 

 

A 1700 costs $320 and an 1800x costs $470. So I would reasonably expect the base 10 core TR to cost $550 with an overclocked 10c at $600, the base 12c to cost $700 with an overclocked 12c to cost $750, the base 14c to cost $850 with an overclocked 14c to cost $800, and the base 16c to cost $1000 with an overclocked 16c to cost $1100.

 

So, I find $850 to be pretty surprising. Even if AMD barely chargers more for the overclocked versions, I would still expect to see a bit of a premium on the top tier SKU(s) -- so $1000 would still be reasonable. 

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, the 7960x is still going to cost $1700, so $1000 would still be perfectly reasonable. 

 

A 1700 costs $320 and an 1800x costs $470. So I would reasonably expect the base 10 core TR to cost $550 with an overclocked 10c at $600, the base 12c to cost $700 with an overclocked 12c to cost $750, the base 14c to cost $850 with an overclocked 14c to cost $800, and the base 16c to cost $1000 with an overclocked 16c to cost $1100.

Yeah, but with the profits they're apparently making per chip, why would they need to go any higher? They've put themselves into the shoes of the consumer here

[RadiatingLight]

15 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Yeah, but with the profits they're apparently making per chip, why would they need to go any higher?

They need to go higher because they need money.

It's simple optimization -- How high can AMD price their CPUs to earn as much money as possible, while not pricing it too high to make intel a sensible choice.

if a 16 core threadripper is $1000, it really borders on that edge, where a 10-core intel CPU might be a purchase some people would make instead, but anything lower, and AMD is a clear winner. they COULD price it at $500, but that would simply loose them margin, and not really gain them anything.

[AnonymousGuy]

It is going to be interesting to see monolithic vs. multi-die battle it out again.  Haven't seen that since the Core2Quad vs. Phenom days where the situation was reversed with AMD having the monolithic quad core and Intel having dual dual cores.  I'm predicting Skylake-X is going to be a freight train considering it was designed from the beginning as a high core count chip.  It's going to look really bad for AMD if a 10 core Skylake part beats their 16 core.

[TheRandomness]

6 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

They need to go higher because they need money.

It's simple optimization -- How high can AMD price their CPUs to earn as much money as possible, while not pricing it too high to make intel a sensible choice.

if a 16 core threadripper is $1000, it really borders on that edge, where a 10-core intel CPU might be a purchase some people would make instead, but anything lower, and AMD is a clear winner. they COULD price it at $500, but that would simply loose them margin, and not really gain them anything.

Well, if they're currently making a $700 profit per 16 core package, then I think that the currently rumoured pricing gives them plenty of money whilst almost making it seem 'affordable' for the average prosumer.

[Taf the Ghost]

Pricing will be optimized for, hopefully, AMD's long-term benefit.  Without going all "ultra-marketing", AMD needs profit, market share & momentum in the sections.

 

Also, the fact that high-core counts could suddenly be available for a fairly reasonable price (and still work really well for general tasks) is really tempting. I won't be on an upgrade cycle until next year, but I'm really tempted to go all-out on a Hypervisor-based approach. The reality is that the setup could come in around 1/2 the price of a similar core-count Intel system. 

[MoonlightSylv]

Something nobody seems to be talking about is cooling, having four Ryzen cores on a single chip might get a little hot.

[JoeCoke]

Actually seems plausible. It might sound crazy right now, but think about it, a year ago if you told me that AMD would release a 8/16 for 320$ with similar performance to Intel's 1100$ equivalent, I would have said that was crazy bullshit too. Also seems extra plausible when you factor in the high cost of these motherboards.

[Taf the Ghost]

23 minutes ago, ShadowTechXTS said:

Something nobody seems to be talking about is cooling, having four Ryzen cores on a single chip might get a little hot.

If you're talking Epyc, a little, but those are mostly for servers and should run below 3.2 Ghz where Ryzen is both extremely power efficient and much lower heat output. (The reason Ryzens don't clock a lot higher is the process they're on, which is much better for lower voltage/clock speed efficiency.)  If you mean Threadripper, if you're not OC'ing the chip, the two packages should come in pretty cool with a proper headsink for a 4k pin CPU.  The Ryzen 7 1700 has a 65w TDP and most of the Threadripper chips should be clocked around the same level.

 

Analysis of the demonstrations were putting the clock on the chip shown at Computex at between 3.3 Ghz & 3.5 Ghz all-cores.  Ryzen rapidly scales up in heat over 3.3 Ghz, so below that on all-cores it should fit into its TDP pretty easily.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, TheRandomness said:

If they did do at least this, why would anyone buy it? They'd just go for what Intel's offering. You're so using to seeing what Intel offers that you're expecting for it to cost that much now

Nonsense. The NEW 10 core Intel will cost the same or there about, and the AMD part has 20 PCI lanes more than that. At this point Intel's pricing scheme is so far out, people would have to be idiots to buy into their HEDT platform (once threadripper is actually available).

[cj09beira]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

That is so far from the truth it's not even funny. 

It's dual Ryzen dies, which are already dual dies. So, Threadripper would be a quad die as it uses four CCXs.

again, ryzen 7 is a single die 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

again, ryzen 7 is a single die 

Great, it's a single die that still has all the problems of a dual die. That's much better! 

[cj09beira]

42 minutes ago, ShadowTechXTS said:

Something nobody seems to be talking about is cooling, having four Ryzen cores on a single chip might get a little hot.

its the opposite as you have the heat spread across a much bigger area than in a monolithic die

[cj09beira]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Great, it's a single die that still has all the problems of a dual die. That's much better! 

intel also has that through the ring bus on their higher core count cpus.

all we have seen is a added latency that only shows up between ccx's, with a upgrade to the windows scheduler that problem can almost go way by putting threads in the same ccx

[Prysin]

7 hours ago, laminutederire said:

8Intel keeps the performance edge with their 18 core but they overpriced as usual, either because they gauge prices with the Intel tax or because they can't produce them cheaply enough, which can explain why amd price so low in comparison.

X299 won't be cheap either anyway!

We could very well have the choice between dual socket motherboard +RAM + 2× 16 cores/32 threads amd chip at the same cost as one X299+RAM + Intel 18 cores chip.

That probably won't fare well for Intel even if they keep the best chip of the market

Intel, unlike AMD, has to shoulder ALL the production, node RnD,  and tooling costs. AMD isnt the only ones using GLOFO, so they dont have to shoulder the whole brunt of the cost of production RnD.

[THE_maverick]

9 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Only source I have is BitsAndChips' Twitter:

 

 

 

He adds in one of the comments:

 

That's pretty damn low if you ask me. Then again, it is multiple smaller dies making up the CPU unlike Intel who goes for one massive chip. And with yields of the 8-core Ryzen CPU apparently at 80% for all 8-core SKUs (meaning 6- and 4-core CPUs are perfectly functioning 8-core dies with functioning cores cut off) this allows AMD to be very, very aggressive with pricing.

 

All good stuff. But then again, one massive bastard of a rumour. Nothing concrete at all.

Can I get credit for having been calling this for MONTHS now???  And to all the h8rs in the thread that claim it has to be more expensive: after the 18 core at 4Ghz from Intel, AMDs only way to be competitive in a market where they have ZERO shares in the past 5 years or so, is some ridiculous pricing.  I don't even doubt they'll lower the price to 799 (so as to make two processors better than a single 16 core intel).

[THE_maverick]

8 hours ago, laminutederire said:

8Intel keeps the performance edge with their 18 core but they overpriced as usual, either because they gauge prices with the Intel tax or because they can't produce them cheaply enough, which can explain why amd price so low in comparison.

X299 won't be cheap either anyway!

We could very well have the choice between dual socket motherboard +RAM + 2× 16 cores/32 threads amd chip at the same cost as one X299+RAM + Intel 18 cores chip.

That probably won't fare well for Intel even if they keep the best chip of the market

Sadly, for some stupid reason AMD decided to block dual socket capabilities in the threadripper lineup.  I don't know if it is some simple bios change to fix that and get manufacturers on board would be hard still, but one can dream they'll be smart about it.

[THE_maverick]

6 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

Agree motherboard pricing is irrelevant because it won't be more than X299 which is also expensive. If that pricing is true then Intel will need any of the following:

 

- Dumb blind loyalty

- Contracts tying business to Intel products (though I don't think they are allowed to do this anymore since being caught and taken to court)

- Severe price drops

- Massive performance gains (>50%)

The massive performance gains are not entirely out of the question.  And I have a hard time believing what certain benchmarks spit out, but regardless taking a decision is going to be hard.  

[laminutederire]

8 hours ago, Prysin said:

Intel, unlike AMD, has to shoulder ALL the production, node RnD,  and tooling costs. AMD isnt the only ones using GLOFO, so they dont have to shoulder the whole brunt of the cost of production RnD.

That falls into them not being able to produce cheaper

7 hours ago, THE_maverick said:

Sadly, for some stupid reason AMD decided to block dual socket capabilities in the threadripper lineup.  I don't know if it is some simple bios change to fix that and get manufacturers on board would be hard still, but one can dream they'll be smart about it.

It's a new platform so you never know! Of we ask for it we may have it. 

[AlwaysFSX]

14 hours ago, DildorTheDecent said:

The package is crap though. 4 dies under one IHS. 

 

Intel hasn't done dual die let alone quad die in years. Don't think Intel ever done quad die. 

 

AMD pls. 

It's great for heat management, not so much for performance.

14 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

CCX latency has a very small effect on performance so if enough performance is there then it will be very hard to justify paying double for the Intel. Price is key here.

140ns vs 14 ns, yeah, small effect alright.

[Notional]

8 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

It's great for heat management, not so much for performance.

140ns vs 14 ns, yeah, small effect alright.

Where did you get 14ns from? According to pcper it's just over 40ns on core to core on same CCX on AMD and just under 80ns for Intel CPU's.

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

It is going to be interesting to see monolithic vs. multi-die battle it out again.  Haven't seen that since the Core2Quad vs. Phenom days where the situation was reversed with AMD having the monolithic quad core and Intel having dual dual cores.  I'm predicting Skylake-X is going to be a freight train considering it was designed from the beginning as a high core count chip.  It's going to look really bad for AMD if a 10 core Skylake part beats their 16 core.

Most of Intel's architecture has been designed for high core counts for years. Skylake-X isn't bringing anything new to the table for that so don't expect much. Also for a truly parallel compute task there isn't any magic you can do to make the same 10 cores any faster i.e CB scores won't change.

 

Really it's just down to how much stronger are Intel cores than AMD's and is that combined 10 equate to 16 of AMD, likely not. Intel does have application optimization on it's side as well so that is a big factor, raw performance doesn't mean much if you can't use it for example.