AMD Ryzen CPU with 12 Cores and 24 Threads Spotted

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Following rumors of a 16-core Ryzen CPU, evidence is mounting that a 12-core processor is also on the way. Apparently, it is not a server chip, and the CPU features a new socket and turbo clock at 3.2 GHz. Thanks to cageymaru for this one.

Another day, another Ryzen leak. Today we share the details of yet unannounced Ryzen CPU with 12 cores, which is most likely being prepared for AMD’s HEDT X390 platform. I will start by saying that the machine detected with this CPU is Alienware Area-51 R3. The R2 ships with Broadwell i7-6800/6850K processors. We already heard that AMD is working on a 16-core chip, but this processor has ‘only’ 12 cores. This means that we are no longer looking at one product, but a whole new series.
 
Imagine Beowulf cluster of those running Crysis.

So, there is a HEDT platform after all
 
Not everyone has the cash to spend so much on two computers. Most people don't upgrade their core2duos . 99% don't need a workstation anyway.

It's still nice that AMD is competing in some way though.
 
Fair enough. Ryzen sure as heck blows the value proposition of old Xeon setups out of the water though.
A single 8c/16t OCed owning a dual X5690 12c/24t? Yes please :)
 
they may have already burned out most of their potential buyers on the current lineup. I could see this line being a game changer in 3-5 years when they are in the 150-250 price range with better clocks.
 
Jim Kim said:
Nope
Build 8 systems for the price of 6 boxes.

Email server
PF Sense
Game Server
Media Server
HTPC
Work Station
Gaming Box
Web Surfer

The more you spend the more you save.
Click to expand...
I think more than a few of us [ H ]ere are guilty of that :oops:
 
Jailer said:
And can run ESXi without falling over.
Click to expand...

It would be the other way around actually.

Software is designed to run on hardware.

Hardware is not designed to ensure compatibility with software.

So VMWare needs to fix ESXi to run on Ryzen. (Which of course they will)
 
I still don't feel like I need more than 6 cores on the desktop.

I'm not a huge rendering/encoding guy. I'd rather have fewer higher clocked cores.

I'm not sure if the rumors yesterday about AMD's AM44 workstation class chips are accurate, but if they are, I'd take a high clocked 6 or 8 core AM44 chip with it's quad channel RAM, and 44 PCIe lanes, over one of these many core, low clocked models.

I just hope they don't restrict the workstation high PCIe lane and quad channel CPU's to only high core count CPU's. That's not what I'm interested in.
 
More cores ore die!
And now, you will be able to play crysis better than ever before!
C7yU8ZoXwAAusYl.jpg
 
I imagine this release will see an even bigger disaster for motherboard releases then the x370.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Agreed.

You have to have a little wishful thinking that stepping improvements and process maturity might help though :p
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking is always nice, but looking at what we know so far; I think it's prudent to assume that R5 will just be a weaker version of R7. Just looking at the vcore AMD pushes on the 1800X to achieve stock clocks and bringing it to its limits (leaving no headroom for overclocking) plus the tests others have done by disabling 4 cores and not getting any additional headroom says a lot.

AMD just doesn't have the magic it once held. Long gone are the days where an enthusiast could buy an AMD or ATI product and go to town tweaking. It feels like AMD pushes their products to their limit just to stay a few paces behind its competitors, and that's just sad.

Let's see where Ryzen ends up though. It has potential, let's hope AMD doesn't screw the pooch anymore than they already have and squander the potential away.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
AMD just doesn't have the magic it once held. Long gone are the days where an enthusiast could buy an AMD or ATI product and go to town tweaking. It feels like AMD pushes their products to their limit just to stay a few paces behind its competitors, and that's just sad.
Click to expand...
While it wouldn't do AMD any good, unlockable Ryzens could be very interesting, ala X3 -> X4, 960T -> X6, etc.
 
WhoBeDaPlaya said:
Fair enough. Ryzen sure as heck blows the value proposition of old Xeon setups out of the water though.
A single 8c/16t OCed owning a dual X5690 12c/24t? Yes please :)
Click to expand...

You can pick up E5-2660s for $100 a pair last I checked...
 
/dev/null said:
You can pick up E5-2660s for $100 a pair last I checked...
Click to expand...
True enough, but the mobos start to get pricey.
Unless you get one of those 2x E5-2670 + mobo + 128GB ECC bundles from Natex.us.

Even then, Ryzen would be better from a power efficiency + platform standpoint.

What's probably most impressive is that AMD has finally caught up to Intel for SATA, PCI-E, etc. performance :
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...nd-Zen/Ryzen-Chipsets-and-Storage-Performance
 
WhoBeDaPlaya said:
True enough, but the mobos start to get pricey.
Unless you get one of those 2x E5-2670 + mobo + 128GB ECC bundles from Natex.us.

Even then, Ryzen would be better from a power efficiency + platform standpoint.
Click to expand...
Ryzen is definately more modern & better IPC.....

for $400'ish you can get zomething like a z620 with 2 processors/heatsinks & then upgrade to 2 x 8 core. Of course you are back to Sandy Bridge...
 
/dev/null said:
Ryzen is definately more modern & better IPC.....
for $400'ish you can get zomething like a z620 with 2 processors/heatsinks & then upgrade to 2 x 8 core. Of course you are back to Sandy Bridge...
Click to expand...
True, although that would be a more enterprise grade setup (proper WS mobo, ECC, etc.) compared to slapping say an OCed R7-1700 on a B350.
Love the Z6xx and Z8xx - nicely built, reliable and just works without any muss or fuss.
 
/dev/null said:
Ryzen is definately more modern & better IPC.....

for $400'ish you can get zomething like a z620 with 2 processors/heatsinks & then upgrade to 2 x 8 core. Of course you are back to Sandy Bridge...
Click to expand...

Yeah, each generation has had small improvements, but add them up ant it starts becoming significant.

As Albert Einstein once said:
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."

I have a generation before the E5's in my server. Dual Westmere-EP L5640's, and they are outperformed by current Atom chips for crying out loud.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, each generation has had small improvements, but add them up ant it starts becoming significant.

As Albert Einstein once said:
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."

I have a generation before the E5's in my server. Dual Westmere-EP L5640's, and they are outperformed by current Atom chips for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

My two X5675's seem to be holding their own, I use this Dell T5500 every day and it struggles with nothing:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5675-vs-Intel-Atom-C2750
 
BulletDust said:
My two X5675's seem to be holding their own, I use this Dell T5500 every day and it struggles with nothing:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5675-vs-Intel-Atom-C2750
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that they aren't good enough.

I have yet to throw anything at my server that it can't handle.

If you look at comparative benchmarks though, new Goldmont Atom "small" cores are faster than old Westmere-EP Xeon "large" cores.

If anything it has me thinking "hmm, I wonder if I can get away with an Atom C3xxx based server next upgrade", not "OMG my server is too slow, must upgrade".
 
Don't get me wrong, I love my two HP Z800s w/ dual X5690s and they chomp through MT workloads like demons.
Price was right too (practically free except the CPUs).

Sure would be nice to get something newer, more power efficient and with better ST perf though.
Two R7-1700s @ ~4GHz would give me about the same MT performance, while using ~1/3 the power.

Here's hoping for Naples/Ryzen-X and Skylake-X :)
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not arguing that they aren't good enough.

I have yet to throw anything at my server that it can't handle.

If you look at comparative benchmarks though, new Goldmont Atom "small" cores are faster than old Westmere-EP Xeon "large" cores.

If anything it has me thinking "hmm, I wonder if I can get away with an Atom C3xxx based server next upgrade", not "OMG my server is too slow, must upgrade".
Click to expand...

I have to say, I don't totally understand what you're claiming. I see an increase in efficiency, but as far as outright processing power is concerned the Westmere Xeon's are still powerhouses.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not attacking and this is all respectful, I'm simply curious - Have you got any specific benchmarks highlighting your claim?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not arguing that they aren't good enough.

I have yet to throw anything at my server that it can't handle.

If you look at comparative benchmarks though, new Goldmont Atom "small" cores are faster than old Westmere-EP Xeon "large" cores.

If anything it has me thinking "hmm, I wonder if I can get away with an Atom C3xxx based server next upgrade", not "OMG my server is too slow, must upgrade".
Click to expand...
This is probably going to be my next server as well.
 
BulletDust said:
I have to say, I don't totally understand what you're claiming. I see an increase in efficiency, but as far as outright processing power is concerned the Westmere Xeon's are still powerhouses.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not attacking and this is all respectful, I'm simply curious - Have you got any specific benchmarks highlighting your claim?
Click to expand...

No direct comparisons of Westmere EP vs Goldmont, but I did look at ServeTheHome's Atom Cxxx benchmarks, and linearly interpolated for Westmere EP based on IPC changes since then to find that the Goldmont Denverton cores were actually outperforming my Westmere EP cores.

Now, granted, my Westmere EP L5640 cores are lower clocked than some of the X variants that others are using, with a base clock of 2.26Ghz and a max turbo of 2.8Ghz. This may make a bit of a difference.

Also, never feel bashful about disagreeing with me. I may post news, but that doesn't mean that:

a.) I have any particular power around here at all; and
b.) that even if I did, I would freak out at people I disagree with.

I'm not always right. I've learned more from people in these forums setting me straight than most places in my life, and I don't want that to change.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
No direct comparisons of Westmere EP vs Goldmont, but I did look at ServeTheHome's Atom Cxxx benchmarks, and linearly interpolated for Westmere EP based on IPC changes since then to find that eh Goldmont Denverton cores were actually outperforming my Westmere EP cores.

Now, granted, my Westmere EP L5640 cores are lower clocked than some of the X variants that others are using, with a base clock of 2.26Ghz and a max turbo of 2.8Ghz. This may make a bit of a difference.

Also, never feel bashful about disagreeing with me. I may post news, but that doesn't mean that:

a.) I have any particular power around here at all; and
b.) that even if I did, I would freak out at people I disagree with.

I'm not always right. I've learned more from people in these forums setting me straight than most places in my life, and I don't want that to change.
Click to expand...

Not bashful, respect where it's deserved. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top