Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is [H], no such thing as overkill for some of these guys with deep wallets and no regard for value.Overkill for 99% of us, as most desktop apps simply cannot use >64 threads. The 32core is likely the best fit/value for non-server/non-virtual machine work.
64c/128t being stuck with maximum of 256GB of memory really limits the options where 3990x could shine.
Isn't the limit 512GB?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review has it listed as 512GB max. I don't know if you can easily find 64GB modules yet though.
I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I remember X99 had unofficial support for RDIMMS. Depends on a case by case basis though. I remember some posts here of users getting some 64gb dimms and I believe even 128gb dimms working on Asrock boards.Since it doesn't support RDIMM or LRDIMM, 256GB is basically the maximum until 64GB sticks of UDIMM becomes available. But using a workload that demands 512GB or more RAM not using RDIMM is unthinkable.
AMD probably did that so it doesn't eat away potential EPYC sales, but it really limits 3990x on workloads where 64 cores really shine by handicapping maximum memory config.
Nick at Asrock was using lrdimms on their X299 refresh board with a regular chip, I guess it depends on the bios at least for X299.I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I remember X99 had unofficial support for RDIMMS. Depends on a case by case basis though. I remember some posts here of users getting some 64gb dimms and I believe even 128gb dimms working on Asrock boards.
I bet there are some boards that do support greater than 256gb DDR4. Would make for a fun project no doubt
Isn't the limit 512GB?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review has it listed as 512GB max. I don't know if you can easily find 64GB modules yet though.
Apple did it lolI've been wondering this myself. I've seen conflicting numbers in reviews and I noticed that AMD no longer lists the max RAM on their site. Makes me wonder if there's some fudgery going on.
A 256GB limit would be pretty disappointing as that brings it even to Intel. 512GB would be much better, but not if the system starts running into issues managing it (akin to LTT's issues with their 24-drive NVMe array).
Interesting. I'm not super up on RAM compatibility with these.Apple uses a xeon w which supports rd dimms, in this case lr rd dimms.
I've been wondering this myself. I've seen conflicting numbers in reviews and I noticed that AMD no longer lists the max RAM on their site. Makes me wonder if there's some fudgery going on.
A 256GB limit would be pretty disappointing as that brings it even to Intel. 512GB would be much better, but not if the system starts running into issues managing it (akin to LTT's issues with their 24-drive NVMe array).
i'm disappointed in the lack luster review kits for the 3990X. Really weak compared to the 2990WX
Meeho
Rdimm support would cannabalize EPYC space. There's a limited market for $4k processors, even in the enthusiast realm. It exists, to be sure, but it's limited. I don't see wanting to let threadripper get out of its lane - and into EPYC's.
As far as I know, no 64gb udimms exist.
That said the factual limit is 256 (until 64gb udimms are released, if they get released) unless amd releases a bios that changes rd ram support.
According to all the mobo manufacturer's website none of the trx40 mobo's support rd dimms (at least the ones I checked, asrock, asus, gigabyte, msi).
Overkill for 99% of us, as most desktop apps simply cannot use >64 threads. The 32core is likely the best fit/value for non-server/non-virtual machine work.
8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!
8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!
Hothardware got it to pull 953 Watts OC'd!
Full system pulled 416Watts at stock...That's 537 added wattage!
Ah. I thought the "4-cores is enough for anything ever" voice had subsided. I see it lingers.8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users, this obviously has a specific use case and if you are into higher end video editing, this thing will cruise!
Maybe in 2010, but not in 2020.8 Core CPU's are over kill for 99% of users
Maybe in 2010, but not in 2020.
Welcome to the 99,999 percent...just not going to be something I'm interested in.
4 cores are more than enough for anything that doesn't use parallel data processing in an office environment. Photoshop and video editing can benefit from extra cores, but that's only up to a point as well. I'm writing this sitting in an office in front of a i7-4770. And I can tell you that the 4770 doesn't perform any worse running cad software (heck it might even be better thanks to it still running W7) than the 7900x next to me with 2.5x the cores.still true in 2020, tell me how 99% of computer users need more than 8 cores for web browsing, office, and simple day to day usage? You could argue a 4 core is still enough, they do not. We on [H] are not the 99% of computer users out there.
still true in 2020, tell me how 99% of computer users need more than 8 cores for web browsing, office, and simple day to day usage? You could argue a 4 core is still enough, they do not. We on [H] are not the 99% of computer users out there.
I love having that piece of mind...4C/8T is still more than enough for most users. Personally I run 12C/24T and love the fact that I can have a program crash and use up 100% of one core and still run 3 x VM's and don't even notice I'm doing it considering my daily usage tasks.
99% of users hardly need more than 2 cores if we're being honest. It's kind of a moot point.still true in 2020, tell me how 99% of computer users need more than 8 cores for web browsing, office, and simple day to day usage? You could argue a 4 core is still enough, they do not. We on [H] are not the 99% of computer users out there.
99% of users doing 99% of things don't need a computer at all - they can do those things just as well if not better via tablet and phone.
Heck, my machine doesn't even turn on any of the radiator fans if it isn't running a game or a compute. The two case fans will spin up to ~150rpm for about 3 seconds once every hour, but that's about it.
A lot of us don't like phones/tablets because they have tiny screens and crappy input devices. I also don't need to be carrying a phone/tablet everywhere I go. I use a tablet if I'm flying somewhere and use a phone as a phone and not as an access method to social media platforms. Does that put me in the 1%?