AMD's EPYC CPU'S with Benchmarks & Pricing!

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, DXMember said:

aww....  I was hoping for a 24 NVMe Raid 0 native and still have enough PCI-E for Crossfire at full double x16 =(

Hey at least you could do 12 NVME Raid 0 with double x8 Crossfire

[DXMember]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

Hey at least you could do 12 NVME Raid 0 with double x8 Crossfire

but it's not the same...

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, DXMember said:

aww....  I was hoping for a 24 NVMe Raid 0 native and still have enough PCI-E for Crossfire at full double x16 =(

There's 60 PCIe 3.0 lanes coming off the Threadripper CPUs. You can still do that.  16 + 16 + 24 = 56.  

[DXMember]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There's 60 PCIe 3.0 lanes coming off the Threadripper CPUs. You can still do that.  16 + 16 + 24 = 56.  

With 24 NVMe I meant like 24 Samsung 960Pro running off x4 each

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, DXMember said:

but it's not the same...

The Theoretical speed of 24 NVME drives in raid 0 would almost be as fast as quad channel DDR4. imaging opening GTA V and it opening in 2 seconds not 5 min.

[DXMember]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The Theoretical speed of 24 NVME drives in raid 0 would almost be as fast as quad channel DDR4. imaging opening GTA V and it opening in 2 seconds not 5 min.

well it loads Story Mode up in under 20 sec (that's from desktop to spawning in Story Mode) on a single 950 Pro...

but the online... omg the GTA Online... wtf is that bullshit

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, DXMember said:

With 24 NVMe I meant like 24 Samsung 960Pro running off x4 each

There are single CPU Epyc systems that should cover you.

[Jahramika]

On 6/21/2017 at 9:44 AM, PCGuy_5960 said:

If price performance is their number one priority, then why don't they just buy used E5-2670s for $70? Because performance and performance/watt are more important.  Yes, I know EPYC will probably get very close to the Skylake Xeons in terms of performance and it will probably draw slightly less power (at least when using AVX), but those Xeons haven't even been announced yet, so we don't know how much they will cost, we don't know how many cores the highest end one will have etc.

 

All that aside though, the fact that AMD competes in the server market is very important to Intel, because most of their revenue comes from server CPUs so they can't afford to lose their server market share 

Just imagine what their Desktop CPUs would cost if the loose Server money.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 hours ago, DXMember said:

I found out that Threadripper and EPYC will be sharing the socket

Threadripper uses a modified version of the EPYC socket, but EPYC isn't compatible with the Threadripper socket

[The Benjamins]

39 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Threadripper uses a modified version of the EPYC socket, but EPYC isn't compatible with the Threadripper socket

since they are so close we could see a motherboard manufacture go crazy and make a board that takes both, but maybe gimp the Epyc CPU to quad channel ram and PCIe or something.

 

we will not now for sure if anything like that is possible until both have been out a bit. we technically don't even know for sure how much the sockets differ.

 

also think if we could put a Epyc in a X399 board and then we might be able to OC it.

 

we can dream.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

since they are so close we could see a motherboard manufacture go crazy and make a board that takes both, but maybe gimp the Epyc CPU to quad channel ram and PCIe or something.

AsRock? 

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

AsRock? 

ya, if anyone is going to pull off a ITX x399 or a X399 with Epyc compatibility it would be them.

 

The idea of overclocking a 32c CPU makes me so excited. ahh the dream.

 

OCed 1700 gets over 1800 in CB 15 the 32 core would hit over 7200 if it could clock as high. that would just blow past any record.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

ya, if anyone is going to pull off a ITX x399 or a X399 with Epyc compatibility it would be them.

 

The idea of overclocking a 32c CPU makes me so excited. ahh the dream.

Yeah, even more exciting is the fact that you will be able to get them for less than $1000 on ebay in a few years

[Taf the Ghost]

There are 1U chips in the Epyc stack, so there's really no reason for there to be a Threadripper + Epyc single device. There's also the issue that the sockets are actually technically separate. 

 

Threadripper, as a HEDT CPU, is a really late edition for AMD.  It was never on the roadmaps.  The CPU design is "Snowy Owl", which isn't the Epyc configuration, but a semi-custom communications & embedded workload chip.  Think communications & military tech stuff. (And on BGA.)  We haven't heard much about those products lately, but then X399 dropped. They've basically taken the physical package from Epyc and the CPU Design from "Snowy Owl" and made Threadripper out of it.

 

So, no, they might even share the same package, but the pin-outs are different.

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

ya, if anyone is going to pull off a ITX x399 or a X399 with Epyc compatibility it would be them.

 

The idea of overclocking a 32c CPU makes me so excited. ahh the dream.

 

You and anyone with a pulse.  

 

Quote

OCed 1700 gets over 1800 in CB 15 the 32 core would hit over 7200 if it could clock as high. that would just blow past any record.

 

That level of power, we'd blow through tasks at speeds that wouldn't even make sense to us.  We'd be asking ourselves, "what just happened."

 

It would be nice to see them bring it over to the consumer level, but I doubt it will.  It's in their best interest to ensure segregation of those two lines.  

 

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So, no, they might even share the same package, but the pin-outs are different.

 

They'd hurt themselves by not doing so.  

[The Benjamins]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

You and anyone with a pulse.  

 

 

That level of power, we'd blow through tasks at speeds that wouldn't even make sense to us.  We'd be asking ourselves, "what just happened."

 

It would be nice to see them bring it over to the consumer level, but I doubt it will.  It's in their best interest to ensure segregation of those two lines.  

go to render a 3D model, progress box never pops up. "wait I just clicked it, it can't be done."

[Flavio hc 16]

14 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

ya, if anyone is going to pull off a ITX x399 or a X399 with Epyc compatibility it would be them.

 

 

You can't  make a x399 mini itx board: the socket alone is the mini itx board

[PCGuy_5960]

5 minutes ago, Flavio hc 16 said:

You can't  make a x399 mini itx board: the socket alone is the mini itx board

Not much larger than an LGA 2011-3 socket with the narrow ILM

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, Flavio hc 16 said:

You can't  make a x399 mini itx board: the socket alone is the mini itx board

The socket is not wider the x99/299 and only a bit taller. it looks bigger because it is a solid square when x99/299 has its mounting holes stick out.

 

I keep forgetting to try and measure it but it seems doable if x99/299 is possible.

 

it will not be easy.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

The socket is not wider the x99/299 and only a bit taller. it looks bigger because it is a solid square when x99/299 has its mounting holes stick out.

The socket itself is larger, but if you take into account the ILM size, the Threadripper socket isn't much larger than a 2011-3 socket

[The Benjamins]

19 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The socket itself is larger, but if you take into account the ILM size, the Threadripper socket isn't much larger than a 2011-3 socket

@Flavio hc 16

I did some mesuring in auto cad with scaled images of motherboards based on known ATX hole measurements

 

allow for a 5mm tolerance due to scaling and using images. note I rounded up to the nearest 5mm inc

 

I got TR4 is 80mm x 120mm

X99/299 is 90mm x 90mm 

x99/299 ILM is 80mm x 110mm 

 

so their we go TR4 socket is only ~10mm taller then X99/299 ILM which was used on the x99 mITX board

[WereCat]

2 hours ago, DXMember said:

well it loads Story Mode up in under 20 sec (that's from desktop to spawning in Story Mode) on a single 950 Pro...

but the online... omg the GTA Online... wtf is that bullshit

That's why this exists

[cj09beira]

they would need to use a vertical board for the vrm, and probably other stuff too

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

they would need to use a vertical board for the vrm, and probably other stuff too

ASUS has done that on some ITX boards in the past.

and AsRocks x299 ITX board does that too.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Motherboards/Computex-2017-ASRock-Shows-Mini-ITX-Intel-X299-X299E-ITX-Motherboard

[Spannerhands]