AMD ThreadRipper/Ryzen-9 info



price just announced

$799 for 12 core
$999 for 16 core
both boosts to 4ghz
 
that auto 4ghz boost is actually a nice surprise, tells me their fab is getting more consistent since not even all ryzen 5/7 can hit 4.0. boo-yah! #competition

plus the Ryzen 3 seems like it may be awesome for budget builds, like the budget gamer I want to build for my wife...
 
I mean, they hit their 4Ghz with bullshit voltages so 4Ghz single core turbo does not exactly translate into safe 4Ghz all core OC.

It's a nice little dual socket system though, i must say.
 
lolfail9001 said:
I mean, they hit their 4Ghz with bullshit voltages so 4Ghz single core turbo does not exactly translate into safe 4Ghz all core OC.

It's a nice little dual socket system though, i must say.
Click to expand...

You dont get a all core boost on Intel as well. You get 1 or 2 cores at the highest speed. Who really cares what voltage they use to get there, they have to warranty it so I figure they know it will last. You take that 7900x to all core at 4.7 and your in to a meltdown situation unless you have a extreme cooling solution. Even 4.6 is difficult and is just a fact of having lots of cores at high speeds and as the core count goes up the speed disparity starts to disappear between Intel and AMD.
 
Gideon said:
You dont get a all core boost on Intel as well. You get 1 or 2 cores at the highest speed. Who really cares what voltage they use to get there, they have to warranty it so I figure they know it will last. You take that 7900x to all core at 4.7 and your in to a meltdown situation unless you have a extreme cooling solution. Even 4.6 is difficult and is just a fact of having lots of cores at high speeds and as the core count goes up the speed disparity starts to disappear between Intel and AMD.
Click to expand...
7900X with Non-AVX loads get full 10 core boosted to 4.0Ghz, FYI. :)

If AMD can make the 12/16 cores Ryzen boosted to 4.0Ghz with at least 4 cores then I'll be returning my 7900X soon.
 
David-Duc said:
7900X with Non-AVX loads get full 10 core boosted to 4.0Ghz, FYI. :)

If AMD can make the 12/16 cores Ryzen boosted to 4.0Ghz with at least 4 cores then I'll be returning my 7900X soon.
Click to expand...


4.0Ghz is not the max speed of the 7900X and in theory Threadripper can hit 4.0Ghz on all cores but I am not sure if the thermals will allow that, plus the more cores you have the more likely you are to have weak ones. We should know soon at least on threadripper how hard it can be pushed.
 
Gideon said:
4.0Ghz is not the max speed of the 7900X and in theory Threadripper can hit 4.0Ghz on all cores but I am not sure if the thermals will allow that, plus the more cores you have the more likely you are to have weak ones. We should know soon at least on threadripper how hard it can be pushed.
Click to expand...
some of the talk is that AMDs design seems to have a very stable wafer production as far as performance. So likely the higher core counts will just be virtually multiples of the lower and behave the same. Thermals didn't seem to be the limiting factor so much as a virtual wall limit they hit for clocks.
 
JustReason said:
some of the talk is that AMDs design seems to have a very stable wafer production as far as performance. So likely the higher core counts will just be virtually multiples of the lower and behave the same. Thermals didn't seem to be the limiting factor so much as a virtual wall limit they hit for clocks.
Click to expand...

That may be true, will see when they come out if they can hit that 4.0Ghz but I have my doubts, but if they do then that will be awesome.
 
The advertised core clock plus the extra 4c/8t is already a significant upgrade for my two workstations. Consider me very interested.
 
Now I just have to wait until August to get a 1950X 16 core. Here's to waiting 2-3 more weeks woot woot!

I mean 16 physical cores @ 3.4ghz is just plain NICE! I probably will not overclock this CPU as to me it is sufficiently powerful as it stands.

Intel is probably choking on their own worries now. (Competition is great) The only thing that can really turn my attention back to them is release of their 16 and 18 core parts and if priced righ
 
Last edited:
Gideon said:
4.0Ghz is not the max speed of the 7900X and in theory Threadripper can hit 4.0Ghz on all cores but I am not sure if the thermals will allow that, plus the more cores you have the more likely you are to have weak ones. We should know soon at least on threadripper how hard it can be pushed.
Click to expand...

Intel-Core-i9-7900X-Power-Consumption-Bittech.png


8 RyZen cores pull 260W at 4GHz, double the cores implies double that, i.e. or 518 Watt.

16-core --> ~500W
12-core --> ~390W
 
juanrga said:
Intel-Core-i9-7900X-Power-Consumption-Bittech.png


8 RyZen cores pull 260W at 4GHz, double the cores implies double that, i.e. or 518 Watt.

16-core --> ~500W
12-core --> ~390W
Click to expand...
What is your infatuation with wattage/TDP/power? He talks of clocks and thermals (which I have already stated the process limits the clocks not the thermals) and you speak only of wattage as if it correlates.
 
Sorry for cell errors.

JustReason said:
What is your infatuation with wattage/TDP/power? He talks of clocks and thermals (which I have already stated the process limits the clocks not the thermals) and you speak only of wattage as if it correlates.
Click to expand...

I think he was just trying to share his calculation of an overclocked power draw for general understanding. But there are some who are overly concerned I agree.


If you can afford a chip of this caliber you can certainly afford the motherboard that it requires then you can certainly afford a big enough power supply and the power bill that goes with it because you do not care about power usage on this monster cpu.

I do not understand the infatuation with trying to save 13 watts of power or 5 watts or 50 for that matter on a chip designed with this much performance. I am not trying to cause strife. Just I do not comprehend the way some people think. At minimum the cooling solution for this has got to be very active and quite large or full water loop that can handle 500.plus watts dissipation. A 3x120 with an external pump will do it without flinching. Even a 2x thick 2x120 rad will do a kw of cooling capacity.

If we were talking about Epyc then power really should be a concern considering a stack of servers running 60 plus Epyc chips top to bottom is 20 plus KW yt? Thats in a datacenter. With these your only going to run ONE chip at home unless you.need two machines with them. To my k owledge SMP is only on the epycs so your single socket limited anyways. Plus AMD said its like 180 watts TDP or something anyways. OCd expect min 500 watts. If that's a problem dont OC. They already slam out 3K plus score on cinebench these chips are going to be stupid powerful at stock clocks.

If your going to complain about single thread performance for a video game then dont buy this for just gaming. But someone will and that somebody will say the chip is junk because it doesnt compare to 7700k. I'm not holding my breath its going to happen. And kind of already is.
 
Last edited:
Gideon said:
You dont get a all core boost on Intel as well. You get 1 or 2 cores at the highest speed. Who really cares what voltage they use to get there, they have to warranty it so I figure they know it will last. You take that 7900x to all core at 4.7 and your in to a meltdown situation unless you have a extreme cooling solution. Even 4.6 is difficult and is just a fact of having lots of cores at high speeds and as the core count goes up the speed disparity starts to disappear between Intel and AMD.
Click to expand...
You take Ryzen to 4.3Ghz all core without a meltdown, will you? It is the same 200Mhz above single core turbo of 1800X as 4.7 is above 4.5 single core turbo of 7900X.

As for who really cares about voltage... Well, in stock nobody does. When it comes to OC knowing that 4.0Ghz turbo clock does not translate into safe 4Ghz OC is kinda funny.

Not that it matters in my opinion, taking Ryzen past 3.7Ghz on any core count is just wasting money on electricity bill for a bigger e-peen.
 
JustReason said:
What is your infatuation with wattage/TDP/power? He talks of clocks and thermals (which I have already stated the process limits the clocks not the thermals) and you speak only of wattage as if it correlates.
Click to expand...

How do you think will be thermals of that hypothetic 500W chip he is predicting (16 Zen cores @4GHz) and how you/him plan to cool that nuclear unit? With a continuous supply of LN2?
 
juanrga said:
How do you think will be thermals of that hypothetic 500W chip he is predicting (16 Zen cores @4GHz) and how you/him plan to cool that nuclear unit? With a continuous supply of LN2?
Click to expand...
I cooled over 300W with a crappy 120MM AIO on my 8350. See I am not a moron nor do I whine when things don't go my way. I see an issue I find a way around it. I created an air-conditioned case and laugh at all the self-proclaimed geniuses that act like there is absolutely no way to handle the Watts. How do you feel about Intels absolute nuclear power usage in their >8 cores? So AMD pulls a hypothetical 500W with a 16core, what the hell will Intels 14core pull, 16core pull, 18core pull? Just curious why I haven't seen you in the news threads covering Intels absolute crap TIM and astronomical power and temps with only the 10core.
 
JustReason said:
So AMD pulls a hypothetical 500W with a 16core, what the hell will Intels 14core pull, 16core pull, 18core pull? Just curious why I haven't seen you in the news threads covering Intels absolute crap TIM and astronomical power and temps with only the 10core.
Click to expand...

I already answered the FUD about TIM in two or three ocassions. It is not how if I would be checking each new thread to correct the FUD was corrected before. 14--16 core Intel chips will continue being more efficient than Zen-based chips on non AVX512 workloads, as it has been demonstrated in multiple occasions. Of course, when using AVX512 units (lacking on Zen core) the power consumption will skyrocket just as performance does.

FYI Intel is selling up to 28-core Xeons with AVX512 units and power is well under control. In fact customers are very happy with the huge performance that bring the new 512bit units.
 
juanrga said:
I already answered the FUD about TIM in two or three ocassions. It is not how if I would be checking each new thread to correct the FUD was corrected before. 14--16 core Intel chips will continue being more efficient than Zen-based chips on non AVX512 workloads, as it has been demonstrated in multiple occasions. Of course, when using AVX512 units (lacking on Zen core) the power consumption will skyrocket just as performance does.

FYI Intel is selling up to 28-core Xeons with AVX512 units and power is well under control. In fact customers are very happy with the huge performance that bring the new 512bit units.
Click to expand...
LOL and I mean Loud. You said absolutely nothing. a few questions:

What TIM FUD? I have seen no conspiracy here. Plain and simple they aren't soldered. Clocks aren't going anywhere near the expected clocks the Intel elite wanted. The 10core suffers a temp limit by 4.4Ghz on conventional means, whereas only costly cooling setups will allow higher. None of which is a positive. But wait with a little hand waving and a little slight of hand we can say how efficient it is with code and say in reality absolutely nothing.

Fact is the Intel 10 core already shows VERY high power usage, that 18 core will not fair any better.

So what are these magic clocks on the 18core going to be? Sure as hell wont be 4.0Ghz. We already know TR pricing, and many including those in the know within the general population and those running tech sites, look quite favorably upon TR over Intels release. We are talking a huge price premium in the HEDT CPU core count comparisons GREATLY favoring TR. Add in board features AND TR only gets more attractive. If EPYC is any sign then TR will be very competitive in both performance and watts and probably MORE efficient than Intel, so much so that it may lead in both performance per Watt and per dollar ( last one is obvious).
 
JustReason said:
I cooled over 300W with a crappy 120MM AIO on my 8350. See I am not a moron nor do I whine when things don't go my way. I see an issue I find a way around it. I created an air-conditioned case and laugh at all the self-proclaimed geniuses that act like there is absolutely no way to handle the Watts. How do you feel about Intels absolute nuclear power usage in their >8 cores? So AMD pulls a hypothetical 500W with a 16core, what the hell will Intels 14core pull, 16core pull, 18core pull? Just curious why I haven't seen you in the news threads covering Intels absolute crap TIM and astronomical power and temps with only the 10core.
Click to expand...
Bud, can you share how you created the AC case.
 
bezant said:
Bud, can you share how you created the AC case.
Click to expand...

Its not hard. I did it before. Run a darn AC duct into the Case... done.

I used a portable AC on wheels for mine.

Don't need it anymore. Been years since. I now just have huge radiators and a powerful pump. AIO is junk compared to a true water loop. And AC is icing on the cake if you want to pay the bill.
 
bezant said:
Bud, can you share how you created the AC case.
Click to expand...
The short version is it is a case that holds both my and my wife's computers. Cant see either nor hear any fans within the case so 100% fans are no bother although the Delta MegaFast fan I have to run on 5V instead of 12V because it is loud at 12V. Anyway I use a window unit air-conditioner in the bottom. There are holes on both sides that allow air in thru the AC (the part outside the window). During winter I exhaust the heat into the room, summer thru a hole in the floor leading under the house. The cooling part blows thru the rear and pulls the warmer thru the front to be cooled. I run it at 75F (mobo shows between 28-30C) so it only cools in intervals so not on much when idle and during gaming every 3-5 min or so (not sure at the moment could be more/longer intervals). When benching crank it to max with mobo showing 17-20C. Best part is NO DUST EVER. And as you can guess I am one of those that said they don't care about Watts in the video card forum section. lol.
 
JustReason said:
The short version is it is a case that holds both my and my wife's computers. Cant see either nor hear any fans within the case so 100% fans are no bother although the Delta MegaFast fan I have to run on 5V instead of 12V because it is loud at 12V. Anyway I use a window unit air-conditioner in the bottom. There are holes on both sides that allow air in thru the AC (the part outside the window). During winter I exhaust the heat into the room, summer thru a hole in the floor leading under the house. The cooling part blows thru the rear and pulls the warmer thru the front to be cooled. I run it at 75F (mobo shows between 28-30C) so it only cools in intervals so not on much when idle and during gaming every 3-5 min or so (not sure at the moment could be more/longer intervals). When benching crank it to max with mobo showing 17-20C. Best part is NO DUST EVER. And as you can guess I am one of those that said they don't care about Watts in the video card forum section. lol.
Click to expand...
any pics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top