Threadripper 2 Retails for $1835?

[Crab Puncher]

Even though the price says $2,400 that is in CAD and that is $1,835USD

Quote

 

AMD is having quite the umm... not losing streak? With Ryzen gen 1 they rose back from Bulldozer past with a punch. But with there desktop Ryzen gen 2 chips looking like a refresh that we are all to familiar with, (cough) Intel. It doesn't look the same for there higher end counter parts. "Threadripper 2990X flagship processor was recently spotted listed at a Canadian retailer" It is said to be a 32 core 64 thread processor with a price tag of $1,835 which is incomparable to anything Intel has to offer, at least when it comes to core count. The nearest Intel chip is the i9 7980XE with only 18 cores and a price tag of $1,879. The new Threadripper 2 chips are cheaper with almost double the cores. But there is a caveat, your going to need one hell of a cooler to tame this 250W beast.

 

 

Source: wccftech.com

 

[schwellmo92]

I honestly don’t think cooling this thing is going to be as bad as people think. For example we’ve already had the FX-9590 which was 220w TDP and that cooled fine, and also people are managing to cool the 7980XE with its shitty TIM. You also have to take in to account that the Threadripper CPU has a lot of surface area to spread its heat over.

[dizmo]

Considering this is a CPU with a very niche market, the price doesn't surprise me at all.

I don't think cooling will be an issue. GPU's have smaller packages, and they're cooled just fine.

 

Personally I hope we see some even more massive TR4 specific air coolers. Something that requires wire supports of some sort.

[Guest]

I can't wait to use this in 5 years when I can afford it. 

[mr moose]

As much fun as this would be, I think my next build is going to be a 2600 anyway.

[Taf the Ghost]

It's probably 1799USD for MSRP.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's probably 1799USD for MSRP.

People were expecting a bit lower price, but 1800$ for a 32 core CPU is a steal.

 

The only question how much IPC loss when two dies are in "leach" mode

[PlayStation 2]

If this drops for $1799, hell, if it drops for $1999, it's going to be THE SHIT when it comes to things like video encoding and video rendering.

[Taf the Ghost]

14 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

People were expecting a bit lower price, but 1800$ for a 32 core CPU is a steal.

 

The only question how much IPC loss when two dies are in "leach" mode

On 6/21/2018 at 8:46 PM, Taf the Ghost said:

Intel went a "Segment for everyone!" approach, which actually opened up a lot of space for AMD, once they got back into the market. 

Then 1999USD, list price, makes sense. Since it's a Leech Mode for 16 cores, 4 channel memory and 64 PCIe. 1799USD would be the most aggressive I'd expect.

TR has had notably "seller friendly" pricing from AMD. 650USD is probably the price Microcenter actually pays for the product. This is part of the reason even AMD is quite surprised by how well the 1950X has sold. I get the feeling the 24c part probably sells best in the next round, rather than the 32c, but we'll see. We'll also see how aggressively AMD prices these.

 

Depending on what AMD knows they're bringing out next, they may just go hard and drop 16c at 899USD / 12c at 1299 USD / 32c at 1599USD. HEDT has suddenly gotten amazing.

!!!

 

[S w a t s o n]

Never forget, 2 years ago Intel wanted this much money for 10 cores

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Never forget, 2 years ago Intel wanted this much money for 10 cores

There was an interview with Mark Papermaster, AMD's CTO, about TR2 stuff. While he was dodging the "how many did you sell?" questions, he got really wide-eyed around the 1950X. Apparently it sold more than the other two combined. AMD very much appreciates the adoption of the ~500USD Margin products into the Workstation market.

[suicidalfranco]

well already have 32GB of RAM, now i just need the core count. 

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

!!!

 

 

How's the fit?

[PlayStation 2]

13 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There was an interview with Mark Papermaster, AMD's CTO, about TR2 stuff. While he was dodging the "how many did you sell?" questions, he got really wide-eyed around the 1950X. Apparently it sold more than the other two combined. AMD very much appreciates the adoption of the ~500USD Margin products into the Workstation market.

That wouldn't even shock me, because even at its MSRP it offered a lot to its target market, and even if it couldn't surpass a comparable Xeon in straight performance, it most certainly had the price tag to negate that to many.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

That wouldn't even shock me, because even at its MSRP it offered a lot to its target market, and even if it couldn't surpass a comparable Xeon in straight performance, it most certainly had the price tag to negate that to many.

The 1950X and i9-7900X run pretty close in AVX workloads, with the 1950X normally winning in the really well multi-threaded applications. Both were actually well-priced products, but it's hard to look beyond "16 cores is more than 10 cores". Especially when it actually worked with Bulldozer...somehow.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

That wouldn't even shock me, because even at its MSRP it offered a lot to its target market, and even if it couldn't surpass a comparable Xeon in straight performance, it most certainly had the price tag to negate that to many.

I think because of the high memory & board costs, the 8c SKU was probably DOA. When you're already in for ~1400USD just for the lowest cost entry point (1900X + Mobo + 4x RAM), the 300-400USD extra to go from 8c to 16c (Especially on the 800USD Black Friday sales) is just the proper economic choice.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The 1950X and i9-7900X run pretty close in AVX workloads, with the 1950X normally winning in the really well multi-threaded applications. Both were actually well-priced products, but it's hard to look beyond "16 cores is more than 10 cores". Especially when it actually worked with Bulldozer...somehow.

Hang on I have to do the updated Bulldozer math conversion (Zen math), 16 cores / number of CCX / number of dies = 2. 1950X has 2 real cores unless I did the math wrong .

[PlayStation 2]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The 1950X and i9-7900X run pretty close in AVX workloads, with the 1950X normally winning in the really well multi-threaded applications. Both were actually well-priced products, but it's hard to look beyond "16 cores is more than 10 cores". Especially when it actually worked with Bulldozer...somehow.

 

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I think because of the high memory & board costs, the 8c SKU was probably DOA. When you're already in for ~1400USD just for the lowest cost entry point (1900X + Mobo + 4x RAM), the 300-400USD extra to go from 8c to 16c (Especially on the 800USD Black Friday sales) is just the proper economic choice.

Gonna nail both posts here.

Bulldozer would've worked had its future made sense. But well, it didn't, and rather than shooting for the stars it shot its foot instead.

 

Yeah, by the entry point of Threadripper, there's no reason to get the 8 core CPU unless the lanes are REEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLYYYYYY necessary. Unless you needed that, and I mean needed that, the 1700(X) was the better choice at that price point.

Kinda reminds me of an jet, the Lockheed L-1011, where the DC-10 was significantly cheaper and performed similarly but wasn't as advanced and the 747 wasn't that much more expensive and could carry more.

[Humbug]

Good price for a 32 core CPU.

 

What is the market for this product? 

Maybe people running servers with lots of VMs?

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Good price for a 32 core CPU.

 

What is the market for this product? 

Maybe people running servers with lots of VMs?

Local render box would be my assumption. VMs work as well, though it wouldn't be great for heavy VMs. But if you need a lot of local ones, that's pretty dang cheap way to do it. Though it's whatever you can use 16c for, 32c should work "better". 

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

I honestly don’t think cooling this thing is going to be as bad as people think. For example we’ve already had the FX-9590 which was 220w TDP and that cooled fine, and also people are managing to cool the 7980XE with its shitty TIM. You also have to take in to account that the Threadripper CPU has a lot of surface area to spread its heat over.

Plus dat solder.

[Bananasplit_00]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

Considering this is a CPU with a very niche market, the price doesn't surprise me at all.

I don't think cooling will be an issue. GPU's have smaller packages, and they're cooled just fine.

 

Personally I hope we see some even more massive TR4 specific air coolers. Something that requires wire supports of some sort.

that i can then procede to strap to some I7 or something  dont think i can really return to air after having gone to water now tho

[AlTech]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Hang on I have to do the updated Bulldozer math conversion (Zen math), 16 cores / number of CCX / number of dies = 2. 1950X has 2 real cores unless I did the math wrong .

Can't tell if joking or not.

[leadeater]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

Can't tell if joking or not.

Did I forget to carry the 1?

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Did I forget to carry the 1?

Threadripper2 has Up To 32 real cores