AMD reports Threadripper 2990 is upto 50% faster than the Intel 7980

[S w a t s o n]

14 minutes ago, WereCat said:

The core feature of AMD CPUs is the amount of cores.

 

 

Remember this meme in 2019

[Stefan Payne]

Yeah, but that's what Graphics cards do  like 10 Years or so

So why is it wrong, when the "IPC" Route is used and higher clockrates aren't really possible either.

While you could build a 7GHz CPU today, if you use AMDs Bulldozer design with modern manufacturing technologys. Remember that one reached 5GHz while being manufactured in 32nm - right now we have 14nm...

 

Though the power consumption would probably be not any better than back in the day. But we would have had 6-7GHz Core Clock!!111

[AnonymousGuy]

1 hour ago, Swatson said:

Uh just because it had 32 phases doesnt mean it's gonna be fine. Quad socket systems dont usually hit 1kw of power consumption (250w per chip), that single 28 core at 5ghz was pulling over 1000 watts

It's covered here: 

 

The 7980XE is about 1000W under LN2, so 55% more is about 1600W which means the VRMs are dumping "only" 125W of heat.  That heatsink can easily cover that given its size and 4x fans.  

 

So...point being that 5.1Ghz with Ln2 for threadripper is pretty piss poor and the 28C Intel part should be able to blow past that without exploding a motherboard...under LN2.

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

It's covered here: 

 

The 7980XE is about 1000W under LN2, so 55% more is about 1600W which means the VRMs are dumping "only" 125W of heat.  That heatsink can easily cover that given its size and 4x fans.  

 

So...point being that 5.1Ghz with Ln2 for threadripper is pretty piss poor and the 28C Intel part should be able to blow past that without exploding a motherboard...under LN2.

A 32 core cpu selling for 1800 that can reach 5.1 ghz on ln2 is not piss poor. A 10 core was selling for around that price just a few years ago. 

[AnonymousGuy]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

A 32 core cpu selling for 1800 that can reach 5.1 ghz on ln2 is not piss poor. A 10 core was selling for around that price just a few years ago. 

They're trying to show "oh look at us we have the highest score in Cinebench on this bar graph".  Well...yeah...because they're putting LN2 up against a chilled water setup.  If you go apples to apples and put that 28C part on LN2 then it'll by far be top dog, with 4 fewer cores.

 

The previous comments were basically "yeah but you'll explode a VRM putting 28C on LN2" and my replies are to explain that no, you won't.

[MMKing]

14 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

They're trying to show "oh look at us we have the highest score in Cinebench on this bar graph".  Well...yeah...because they're putting LN2 up against a chilled water setup.  If you go apples to apples and put that 28C part on LN2 then it'll by far be top dog, with 4 fewer cores.

 

The previous comments were basically "yeah but you'll explode a VRM putting 28C on LN2" and my replies are to explain that no, you won't.

Shame on AMD. Trying to trick the consumers, LN2 overclocking their CPU at a press only event.

 

I mean come on! look at this man! How the hell are we supposed to see that he is LN2 overclocking?

 

 

How is poor Intel supposed to hide a setup like that in that desk of theirs?

[WereCat]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

They're trying to show "oh look at us we have the highest score in Cinebench on this bar graph".  Well...yeah...because they're putting LN2 up against a chilled water setup.  If you go apples to apples and put that 28C part on LN2 then it'll by far be top dog, with 4 fewer cores.

 

Yes, LN2 vs LN2 would be definitely interesting except that there is a big catch. 

Ryzen/TR can be run with a full pot.

SkylakeX behaves absolutely terrible with its almost inexhaustible supply of cold bugs. 

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

They're trying to show "oh look at us we have the highest score in Cinebench on this bar graph".  Well...yeah...because they're putting LN2 up against a chilled water setup.  If you go apples to apples and put that 28C part on LN2 then it'll by far be top dog, with 4 fewer cores.

 

The previous comments were basically "yeah but you'll explode a VRM putting 28C on LN2" and my replies are to explain that no, you won't.

I'm really curious now. I wonder how much the 16 phase (via doublers?) VRM of my P5Q Deluxe can output before its heatsink setup can no longer dissipate the heat fast enough (some of the problem with it is the Northbridge running extremely hot and sharing half of the VRM's heatsinks).

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Man, AMD is on point recently. Ryzen 5 and 3 melt the face off Intel's mid range/budget offerings, and now this

[PlayStation 2]

I gotta give it to AMD for going all-fucking-out on the box for it.

It's larger than most GPU boxes, for god's sake.

[Stefan Payne]

32 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Yes, LN2 vs LN2 would be definitely interesting except that there is a big catch. 

Ryzen/TR can be run with a full pot.

SkylakeX behaves absolutely terrible with its almost inexhaustible supply of cold bugs. 

There are two things to consider:

 

a) not all CPUs react (well) to LN2

b) traditionally AMD CPU have less problems with "Cold Bug" issues than Intel.

c) it might not be possible to use LN2 on Intel at all or its very complicated.

 

But you already mentioned that it might not be possible to do LN2 on Intel right now...

[Jito463]

18 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

32 cores vs 18 with similar clockspeeds and maybe 10% in IPC between them (or less)?  Sounds about right to me.  Not shocking in the least really.

That was my first impression, too.  It's like saying that the 18-core i9 is over 50% faster than the 8-core Ryzen 7 in multi-threading.  Kind of a 'no duh' moment, in my opinion.

[S w a t s o n]

4 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

So...point being that 5.1Ghz with Ln2 for threadripper is pretty piss poor and the 28C Intel part should be able to blow past that without exploding a motherboard...under LN2.

lmao piss poor. Enjoy your 1 in a million binned, $4k MSRP 28 core that runs on 1 of 2 motherboards and pulls 1.6kw. Now that sounds piss poor to me

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, Swatson said:

lmao piss poor. Enjoy your 1 in a million binned, $4k MSRP 28 core that runs on 1 of 2 motherboards and pulls 1.6kw. Now that sounds piss poor to me

I mean, the fact that a CPU with an insane core count even reached 5GHz at all is something. 

 

Remember that Intel's XE chips and ThreadRipper have different designs. 

[Master Disaster]

8 hours ago, Swatson said:

 

 

Remember this meme in 2019

I guess you could say Moore's Law has been replaced by Cores Law?

[yian88]

On 8/6/2018 at 10:11 AM, Master Disaster said:

Keller is a CPU architect, he's the best in the business but anything he can do is literally years away.

 

Intel are stuck at a higher node than AMD and that's going to be the case for a good few years.

 

I'm struggling to see how Intel can respond to this.

They can, even on 14nm.

They have to get rid of expensive monolithic die, hence copy AMD infinityfabric scalability with high yield dies for HEDT/Server, and get rid of the iGPU which takes 1/3 of the silicon mainstream chips, instead make more cores for that 1/3rd of wasted silicon on high end chips for Desktop/Workstation, they already have the capacity to respons to AMD this year and next year. Simply removing iGPU in high end chips will allow them to add at least 2 extra cores. Which is exactly what they might do with new i7/i9 series 8 core but if they make 8 cores i7/i9 1151 socket without removing iGPU those will be some hell expensive chips and AMD will still have better offerring, not to mention next year they will have the node advantage and 12-16 core CPU's on AM4 wtf intel.

 

Altough the situation flipped in favor of AMD very fast, way too fast, in less than 2 years AMD is looking at intel in their backmirror? like wtf, they were trailing miles behind them. Maybe intel thought sandbagging performance and "riding in 5th gear at 2000rpm" will keep them ahead of AMD forever lol.

[Princess Luna]

So a 32 cores processor outperforms in multi-threded synthetic benchmark a 18 cores cpu? ohh ohhh miind bloownn ohh... seriously...

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

So a 32 cores processor outperforms in multi-threded synthetic benchmark a 18 cores cpu? ohh ohhh miind bloownn ohh... seriously...

People are more freaking out that the 32c is beating the 18c by as much as expect but at a price point that is far better then ever before seen. to get this level of performance is about the same as 2 x 24c epycs or 2 equivalent xeons, the cost would be 2-4 times as much. how is that not impressive?

[Deli]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

So a 32 cores processor outperforms in multi-threded synthetic benchmark a 18 cores cpu? ohh ohhh miind bloownn ohh... seriously...

If you don't think in terms of a 32 vs 18 cores match. Instead two CPUs with similar MSRP, then yes.

[cj09beira]

57 minutes ago, yian88 said:

They can, even on 14nm.

They have to get rid of expensive monolithic die, hence copy AMD infinityfabric scalability with high yield dies for HEDT/Server, and get rid of the iGPU which takes 1/3 of the silicon mainstream chips, instead make more cores for that 1/3rd of wasted silicon on high end chips for Desktop/Workstation, they already have the capacity to respons to AMD this year and next year. Simply removing iGPU in high end chips will allow them to add at least 2 extra cores. Which is exactly what they might do with new i7/i9 series 8 core but if they make 8 cores i7/i9 1151 socket without removing iGPU those will be some hell expensive chips and AMD will still have better offerring, not to mention next year they will have the node advantage and 12-16 core CPU's on AM4 wtf intel.

 

Altough the situation flipped in favor of AMD very fast, way too fast, in less than 2 years AMD is looking at intel in their backmirror? like wtf, they were trailing miles behind them. Maybe intel thought sandbagging performance and "riding in 5th gear at 2000rpm" will keep them ahead of AMD forever lol.

intel is probably already working on something like that but it takes years apon years to develop such tech, amd for now has an advantage but intel is probably going to fightback soon enough 

[pas008]

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

intel is probably already working on something like that but it takes years apon years to develop such tech, amd for now has an advantage but intel is probably going to fightback soon enough 

thing I dont understand why people use monolithic die argument at all when intel is currently showing its making more per chip by far in low end up especially cuz they have their own fab and we dont even know the success rates of those higher core cpus

and I bet their 10nm problems are because they require certain success rate on nodes before going full production

 

and on that note intel is spending fab time on quantum chips right now(5 per week according to this article https://www.techspot.com/news/75020-intel-now-capable-producing-full-silicon-wafers-quantum.html),

 

[PlayStation 2]

53 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

People are more freaking out that the 32c is beating the 18c by as much as expect but at a price point that is far better then ever before seen. to get this level of performance is about the same as 2 x 24c epycs or 2 equivalent xeons, the cost would be 2-4 times as much. how is that not impressive?

Because they have a bad taste of Ryzen in their mouth.

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

Altough the situation flipped in favor of AMD very fast, way too fast, in less than 2 years AMD is looking at intel in their backmirror? like wtf, they were trailing miles behind them. 

Lots of people are posting this but in reality it was not fast. AMD started working on Zen cores on 2012. If you only look at the period after the final products hit the market it seems like a sudden comeback. In reality they were slaving away for years, while the company was making losses they focused their R&D on Zen and just tried to survive until it was ready...

[Deli]

12 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Lots of people are posting this but in reality it was not fast. AMD started working on Zen cores on 2012. If you only look at the period after the final products hit the market it seems like a sudden comeback. In reality they were slaving away for years, while the company was making losses they focused their R&D on Zen and just tried to survive until it was ready...

You can also think in this way. Intel knew at least since 2012 that AMD will have an all new architecture coming. Why Intel doesn't do enough to prevent AMD from leap ahead? With the resources Intel has, they can stay in front by bring out more cores CPUs with lower price. But they choose not to.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

People are more freaking out that the 32c is beating the 18c by as much as expect but at a price point that is far better then ever before seen. to get this level of performance is about the same as 2 x 24c epycs or 2 equivalent xeons, the cost would be 2-4 times as much. how is that not impressive?

And if you want multi thread performance why would you buy the Intel 7980XE over the AMD 2990WX. Does the number of cores really matter in this situation where we know the performance and the price? Not really. Only thing left to check is application performance then make a decision based on that.

 

People are freaking out due to the price, that's basically it. If the 2990WX was $10k no one would care, but it's not $10k.