EPYC almost runs on X399

[cj09beira]

17 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Generally speaking, servers don't get upgraded in the same way that consumer systems do.  It's not common for server admins to swap out CPUs.

but it depends on why that is the case, maybe its because usually the newer ones dont offer enough power to compensate, maybe they need new features of the new servers, maybe they dont want to spend more money on old hardware.

the utility of having the choice of upgrading cpus really depends on what the server is doing i guess, 

but anyway i think its better to have choices, and with epyc 2 being probably 48c (or more) it might be a useful upgrade.

[Energycore]

6 hours ago, NovaMan01 said:

im not exactly sure who would need an EPYC processor in the consumer marketplace excluding giant server farms. Even for productivity EPYC seems overkill

Not if you're going for 8 Gamers 1 CPU and don't have the massive budget of the original project

 

Well I guess you still have to pay for a 32-core EPYC.

 

Still waiting for a dual socket EPYC board for 16 gamers 1* CPU

 

*actually 2 but one motherboard so bear with us here for the sake of entertainment

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, cj09beira said:

but it depends on why that is the case, maybe its because usually the newer ones dont offer enough power to compensate, maybe they need new features of the new servers, maybe they dont want to spend more money on old hardware.

the utility of having the choice of upgrading cpus really depends on what the server is doing i guess, 

but anyway i think its better to have choices, and with epyc 2 being probably 48c (or more) it might be a useful upgrade.

As I see it, it's because of the cost-risk-reward ratio.  Assuming the server is critical - and any business related one typically would be - any new CPU would (or in any event, should) need to be tested for weeks, maybe even months before it could be used in production.  After all, who wants to install new hardware into a critical component like your server, just to have it crash the machine?  Which means they'd need to have a completely separate server that's identical to the primary, just for testing.  At that point, it's better to just replace the whole server with a faster one than go through the hassle of installing the CPU(s) in a test server, just to remove them and reinstall them into the primary server.

[Kukielka]

12 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

it will not happen, AMD is not stupid enough to make a CPU where dies do not have direct access to ram. AMD already has latency issue no need to make a CPU with worse latency issues 

24 Cores will happen tho!

[8uhbbhu8]

I would love an EPYC system. No Idea what I's do with it other then fold right now but I want it  

[TheRandomness]

That’s pretty epyc 

[BluJay614]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

As I see it, it's because of the cost-risk-reward ratio.  Assuming the server is critical - and any business related one typically would be - any new CPU would (or in any event, should) need to be tested for weeks, maybe even months before it could be used in production.  After all, who wants to install new hardware into a critical component like your server, just to have it crash the machine?  Which means they'd need to have a completely separate server that's identical to the primary, just for testing.  At that point, it's better to just replace the whole server with a faster one than go through the hassle of installing the CPU(s) in a test server, just to remove them and reinstall them into the primary server.

That's not to mention the potential down time.

[Drak3]

5 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

I would love an EPYC system. No Idea what I's do with it other then fold right now but I want it  

NVMe exclusive NAS.

[BluJay614]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

NVMe exclusive NAS.

Expensive as ****. Fast as Hell. Completely un-necessary........ WHERE DO I SIGN? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, BluJay614 said:

Expensive as ****. Fast as Hell. Completely un-necessary........ WHERE DO I SIGN? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!

Nah, just use the 8 core Epyc and a bunch of 960 Evos or 950 Pros if they be on sale.

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

As I see it, it's because of the cost-risk-reward ratio.  Assuming the server is critical - and any business related one typically would be - any new CPU would (or in any event, should) need to be tested for weeks, maybe even months before it could be used in production.  After all, who wants to install new hardware into a critical component like your server, just to have it crash the machine?  Which means they'd need to have a completely separate server that's identical to the primary, just for testing.  At that point, it's better to just replace the whole server with a faster one than go through the hassle of installing the CPU(s) in a test server, just to remove them and reinstall them into the primary server.

the same would be true for any new server they get, except the one you already have has been tested in the real world and the only unknown is the new cpu, so i would say its easier than buying whole new server, plus its also cheaper 

[BluJay614]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nah, just use the 8 core Epyc and a bunch of 960 Evos or 950 Pros if they be on sale.

The 960 EVOs and 950 Pros would still be expensive, especially getting several of them in their large capacity versions.

[cj09beira]

6 minutes ago, BluJay614 said:

The 960 EVOs and 950 Pros would still be expensive, especially getting several of them in their large capacity versions.

how about this:

http://b2b.gigabyte.com/Rack-Server/R271-Z31-rev-100#ov

16 x 2.5 inch ssd bays, a single epyc cpu and but load of pcie 

 

or if you want to go back to the extreme:

http://www.tyan.com/Barebones_TN70AB8026_B8026T70AE24HR

24x U.2 drives on a 2u single socket server 

[BluJay614]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

how about this:

http://b2b.gigabyte.com/Rack-Server/R271-Z31-rev-100#ov

16 x 2.5 inch ssd bays, a single epyc cpu and but load of pcie 

What about people who don't want a rack mount?

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, BluJay614 said:

What about people who don't want a rack mount?

https://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/EPYC7000/H11SSL-i.cfm

atx motherboard, with 16 sata ports, and but load of pcie

[Princess Luna]

18 hours ago, FloRolf said:

Is a 32core SMT Threadripper @4ghz too much to ask? 

Intel Core i11 10990XK Extreme Edition for X499 Chipset?

[FloRolf]

17 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Intel Core i11 10990XK Extreme Edition for X499 Chipset?

I'd rather take the Threadripper 2990X at a third the price

[FloRolf]

17 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Intel Core i11 10990XK Extreme Edition for X499 Chipset?

I'd rather take the Threadripper 2990X at a third the price

[Doobeedoo]

Well yeah there definitely is relation between Epyc and TR for sure. We've seen them without ihs and socket is pretty much the same. TR have 2 dummy dies. So power difference and memory controller are there. 

So yeah you could say they are "blocked" on X399 for reasons. Aside from different memory controller,  mobo power delivery is not built for it. It could probably work if they'd make it so and with lower clock/voltage I guess. 

But would make no sense businesse wise. 

[BluJay614]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

Intel Core i11 10990XK Extreme Edition for X499 Chipset?

That's if AMD doesn't make X499 first

[arnavvr]

Can we please have an overclocking video by Roman on this? I'd love to see a 32 core EPYC run through Cinebench

[AlTech]

22 hours ago, FloRolf said:

Is a 32core SMT Threadripper @4ghz too much to ask? 

Yup. That is totally overkill. Even 3GHz would be asking a bit much for that many cores.

 

Also, that can't happen cos Threadripper uses 2 Ryzen dies. And EPYC uses 2 Threadripper dies iirc.

[skankhunt]

5 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yup. That is totally overkill. Even 3GHz would be asking a bit much for that many cores.

 

Also, that can't happen cos Threadripper uses 2 Ryzen dies. And EPYC uses 2 Threadripper dies iirc.

Technically they all use the same dies - just binned from EPYC -> Threadripper -> Ryzen etc. 

 

And the 32 core EPYCs use 4 CCX's. I.e. 4x two 4 core dies. 

[TopHatProductions115]

21 hours ago, Dragonheart said:

 

You hit agree, I hit funny

I LOVE THIS IDEA! Also, wouldn't allowing EPYC to work with Zen boards possibly hurt AMD's consumer/prosumer market? Seeing that Ryzen 1, +, and 2 (consumer) and Threadripper (prosumer) are already covering these roles? That's product-line cannibalism last time I checked...

Edited January 30, 2018 by TopHatProductions115
Moar details...

[Sauron]

I didn't think there was any doubt of EPYC being very similar to threadripper... the devil is in the details. There may be features that only make sense in a server environment and that x399 motherboards don't support. I don't really see why you'd want an EPYC cpu on an x399 motherboard, if you're in the market for 2000$ server chips then 200$ extra for a server motherboard that supports all the features you're paying for isn't going to make a difference.