AMD processors: Threadripper 3000 and Ryzen 9 3950X in November

TheRookie

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
173
September is nearing its end and the Ryzen 9 3950X is not yet in sight. This is because, as AMD now officially announces, the release has been postponed to November. Then the first models of the third generation Ryzen Threadripper will appear in parallel.

As part of the E3 gaming fair AMD had announced the Ryzen 9 3950X with 16 cores as the new flagship in the mainstream socket AM4 for September. But AMD can not comply with this date. The statement states that AMD is focused on satisfying the strong demand for the Ryzen 3000, indicating a supply shortage. While the models with up to eight cores are readily available, the Ryzen 9 3900X is the hardest model to date with 12 cores at online retailers.

AMD Ryzen processors AMD Ryzen processors and AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and initial members of the 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Thread Ripper processor family in volume this November. We are confident that when they get their hands on the world's first 16-core mainstream desktop processor and our next generation of high-end desktop processors, the wait will be well worth it.

AMD
Both Ryzen 9 3900X and the upcoming Ryzen 9 3950X need two of the CPU chiplets, each with up to eight cores, while the smaller models will be satisfied with one chiplet. However, there is much more "competition" for the chips available through AMD's server processors of the new Epyc generation Rome, which requires up to eight chips per CPU .

The latter are likely to have priority in their more lucrative market segment. A possible bottleneck at chipmaker TSMC has recently been denied at least as far as the Epyc family is concerned . It would also be conceivable, however, that not enough chips are available with the 3900 / 3950X high clock required to be able to offer them in sufficient quantity. Ultimately, the number of chips available also depends on how much AMD has agreed with TSMC.

At some point in November 2019, and thus with up to two months late, the Ryzen 9 3950X should finally be available and offer by far the highest number of CPU cores for a mainstream desktop platform.

Ryzen Threadripper 3000 starts with 24 cores in November

Even more cores will be offered by the new generation of Ryzen Threadripper for the high-end desktop market (HEDT). Expected to be marketed as Ryzen Threadripper 3000 processors for the socket TR4 also in November 2019 on the market. At least, according to AMD's announcement, this is " first-time members " of the series.

A graphic (cover picture) reveals that Threadripper Gen 3 celebrates its debut with 24 cores. Previously, AMD CEO Lisa Su had indicated that the number of cores will rise from the previous generation, so models with more than 32 cores are expected . A new 32-core thread ripper had already appeared in a benchmark database.

Thus, AMD confirms the latest rumors rumors and makes the momentarily frustrated by the changed roadmaps confusion for the appointment to an end.

Not yet confirmed, but due to the growing evidence base , AMD's TRX40, TRX80 and WRX80 will also introduce a number of new thread-spinning chipsets. Whether this also happens in November or later, remains to be seen.

source: https://www.computerbase.de/2019-09/amd-prozessoren-threadripper-3000-ryzen-9-3950x-november/
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,463
Essentially, I want a Threadripper version of the 3950x.

I'm less concerned with core count than I am with maximizing core clocks and getting more PCIe lanes.

Starting at 24 cores is a huge disappointment to me. I want fewer higher clocked cores.
 

M76

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,264
Who didn't see that coming? With 3900x still only available to the very lucky or very patient. I expect it to launch with 10 units available for the whole of Europe.
 

M76

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,264
Essentially, I want a Threadripper version of the 3950x.

I'm less concerned with core count than I am with maximizing core clocks and getting more PCIe lanes.

Starting at 24 cores is a huge disappointment to me. I want fewer higher clocked cores.
I'd not expect higher clocks from threadripper. Just mooar coooores!
 

tunatime

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
3,240
I'd not expect higher clocks from threadripper. Just mooar coooores!
No but with how big the TR package size is and and hopefully savings the best chiplits for TR it just might come colse to the same clock speed. And with that many cores you could possibly turn some off and keep the best clocking ..so who knows
 

motqalden

[H]ard|DCOTM Feb 2018, June 2019
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,374
If you guys are that concerned with a little bit more clock speed just buy an Intel chip... TR is for more cores plain and simple. The idea of buying one to disable cores or to maybe get a slightly faster 3000 series makes no sense to me.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,463
I'd not expect higher clocks from threadripper. Just mooar coooores!
I'm not expecting higher clocks.

I'm thinking the advertised boost clocks of 3950x are probably at the limit of what the process and architectures can handle.

I just don't want to settle for lower clocks than the 3950x.

And I could t give a rats ass about more cores. They are pointless to me. The only reason I am looking at Threadripper as an option instead of Ryzen is for the PCIe lanes.

I'd buy an 8 core Threadripper if it had the same max clocks as the 3950x.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
1,947
So like one of each in November with actual availability some time around April?
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,473
I'm not expecting higher clocks.

I'm thinking the advertised boost clocks of 3950x are probably at the limit of what the process and architectures can handle.

I just don't want to settle for lower clocks than the 3950x.

And I could t give a rats ass about more cores. They are pointless to me. The only reason I am looking at Threadripper as an option instead of Ryzen is for the PCIe lanes.

I'd buy an 8 core Threadripper if it had the same max clocks as the 3950x.
100 MHz is not even noticeable except in a benchmark and even then it's within the margin of error. Ryzen 3000 series do not hold the boost at the max they tend to bounce around in a 200 MHz window. Your also likely to see lower all core clock with that many cores. Seems like a waste of money if you don't want all those cores.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,463
100 MHz is not even noticeable except in a benchmark and even then it's within the margin of error. Ryzen 3000 series do not hold the boost at the max they tend to bounce around in a 200 MHz window. Your also likely to see lower all core clock with that many cores. Seems like a waste of money if you don't want all those cores.
I value PCIe lanes much more than I do cores, as long as I have at least 8 cores. Above that they are pointless for what I do. Heck even 6 would be fine for me today, I'm only shopping for 8+ for future compatibility.

The only reason I was holding out for the 3950x was due to the higher boost clocks. I have absolutely no need for more than 8 cores. The only thing I'd ever do that would benefit would be the occasional transcode using handbrake, and I only do that 2 or 3 times a year, so it's not worth buying extra expensive cores for.

Now PCIe lanes on the other hand. You can never have too many of those.
 

Eickst

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,866
Yea same here on handbrake usage. I typical load it up once or twice a year and run a huge batch, let it run overnight whatever it's not like I'm sitting there waiting on it.

The only reason I would want more cores is for VM host, but I don't do that at home anymore and AMD EPYC chips are already on our radar for next DC refresh.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
1,947
Yea same here on handbrake usage. I typical load it up once or twice a year and run a huge batch, let it run overnight whatever it's not like I'm sitting there waiting on it.

The only reason I would want more cores is for VM host, but I don't do that at home anymore and AMD EPYC chips are already on our radar for next DC refresh.
I am very interested in bringing in one of the Epyc 3451 systems for onsite DHCP/AD/DNS, they should have more than enough to handle 99% of what goes on through my buildings. The Datacenter is running a trio of 7551p's and they are god damned beasts.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,463
The only reason I would want more cores is for VM host, but I don't do that at home anymore and AMD EPYC chips are already on our radar for next DC refresh.
I do do that at home, but not on my Workstation. I run all of my KVM VM's and LXC containers on my dual socket Xeon server with dual 8C/16T Xeon E5-2650 v2's.

I would love to have some AMD in my server at some point, but if I do, it won't be a Threadripper. The server only gets enterprise parts. Xeon's or Epyc's I guess.
 

tangoseal

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,259
Essentially, I want a Threadripper version of the 3950x.

I'm less concerned with core count than I am with maximizing core clocks and getting more PCIe lanes.

Starting at 24 cores is a huge disappointment to me. I want fewer higher clocked cores.
But you/we have no idea what the final clocks will be on those 24 cores. All marketing jizz aside we just dont know. But Epyc 7nm should be a close representative except thise server chips are run more conservatively due to stability and longevity under max load at all times as a server can be used.

I'd rather go for 48 cores so I can run like 8 h265 transcodes at same time. Right now I run 3 on my 3900x and it's still faster than my old 2950x withb16 cores. The additional lay3 cache and design is superior in every way.

The 2950x was starved for cache. The 3900x has far more. Let's hope that TR gen 3 has even more than Ryzen desktop per ccd/x or whatever you want to refer the die as.

I can game with little loss of performance while video encoding whilst the 2950x was always running out of cache and losing 50% fps in games while encoding at same time whether it was 4 cores or al 16. It was the lack of cache. I hope threadripper 3 has 128mb of layer 3 cache instead of 64 as the leaked geekbench slides showed back in Aug.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,463
But you/we have no idea what the final clocks will be on those 24 cores. All marketing jizz aside we just dont know. But Epyc 7nm should be a close representative except thise server chips are run more conservatively due to stability and longevity under max load at all times as a server can be used.

I'd rather go for 48 cores so I can run like 8 h265 transcodes at same time. Right now I run 3 on my 3900x and it's still faster than my old 2950x withb16 cores. The additional lay3 cache and design is superior in every way.

The 2950x was starved for cache. The 3900x has far more. Let's hope that TR gen 3 has even more than Ryzen desktop per ccd/x or whatever you want to refer the die as.

I can game with little loss of performance while video encoding whilst the 2950x was always running out of cache and losing 50% fps in games while encoding at same time whether it was 4 cores or al 16. It was the lack of cache. I hope threadripper 3 has 128mb of layer 3 cache instead of 64 as the leaked geekbench slides showed back in Aug.

That's all good and well, but I transcode maybe 3 video files a year. I usually set up the transcode, click start and go to bed. I'd never sit around waiting for it. Regardless of how many cores I have it would probably be done by the next time I use my computer, after having slept in (if a weekend) or having gone to work and come back home (if a worknight).

I literally would not notice the difference, even if I used a 48 core monster.

And the funny part is, with my limited transcoding, I do so probably more than 99% of people who own computers.

There is simply nothing I - a serious power user - do that justifies more than 6 cores today, and 8 cores at most during the lifetime of my next build.

To your point, if the added cores don't affect max boost clock, then I guess I don't really care, (other than the fact that I'd be paying for cores I don't need, which is annoying. I'm a huge fan of right-sizing builds. Get the right system for the right job. And since I am neither a member of a warez group, working for a media company, a 3d artist, or anything else like that, I simply have no need for this many cores, and I am resentful that the only way I can get more than the wholly inadequate shitty ass 24 lanes the base piece of shit ships with is to buy a boatload of cores I'll never use.
 

tangoseal

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,259
That's all good and well, but I transcode maybe 3 video files a year. I usually set up the transcode, click start and go to bed. I'd never sit around waiting for it. Regardless of how many cores I have it would probably be done by the next time I use my computer, after having slept in (if a weekend) or having gone to work and come back home (if a worknight).

I literally would not notice the difference, even if I used a 48 core monster.

And the funny part is, with my limited transcoding, I do so probably more than 99% of people who own computers.

There is simply nothing I - a serious power user - do that justifies more than 6 cores today, and 8 cores at most during the lifetime of my next build.

To your point, if the added cores don't affect max boost clock, then I guess I don't really care, (other than the fact that I'd be paying for cores I don't need, which is annoying. I'm a huge fan of right-sizing builds. Get the right system for the right job. And since I am neither a member of a warez group, working for a media company, a 3d artist, or anything else like that, I simply have no need for this many cores, and I am resentful that the only way I can get more than the wholly inadequate shitty ass 24 lanes the base piece of shit ships with is to buy a boatload of cores I'll never use.
24 lanes is a lite amount I agree. I dont get why they just cant wire in 32 lanes and call it a day. If I stick my 8 lane 10g card in my board my gpu drops from 16 to 8 lanes. I agree shitty.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,060
That's all good and well, but I transcode maybe 3 video files a year. I usually set up the transcode, click start and go to bed. I'd never sit around waiting for it. Regardless of how many cores I have it would probably be done by the next time I use my computer, after having slept in (if a weekend) or having gone to work and come back home (if a worknight).

I literally would not notice the difference, even if I used a 48 core monster.

And the funny part is, with my limited transcoding, I do so probably more than 99% of people who own computers.

There is simply nothing I - a serious power user - do that justifies more than 6 cores today, and 8 cores at most during the lifetime of my next build.

To your point, if the added cores don't affect max boost clock, then I guess I don't really care, (other than the fact that I'd be paying for cores I don't need, which is annoying. I'm a huge fan of right-sizing builds. Get the right system for the right job. And since I am neither a member of a warez group, working for a media company, a 3d artist, or anything else like that, I simply have no need for this many cores, and I am resentful that the only way I can get more than the wholly inadequate shitty ass 24 lanes the base piece of shit ships with is to buy a boatload of cores I'll never use.
That's all good and well, but I transcode maybe 3 video files a year. I usually set up the transcode, click start and go to bed. I'd never sit around waiting for it. Regardless of how many cores I have it would probably be done by the next time I use my computer, after having slept in (if a weekend) or having gone to work and come back home (if a worknight).

I literally would not notice the difference, even if I used a 48 core monster.

And the funny part is, with my limited transcoding, I do so probably more than 99% of people who own computers.

There is simply nothing I - a serious power user - do that justifies more than 6 cores today, and 8 cores at most during the lifetime of my next build.

To your point, if the added cores don't affect max boost clock, then I guess I don't really care, (other than the fact that I'd be paying for cores I don't need, which is annoying. I'm a huge fan of right-sizing builds. Get the right system for the right job. And since I am neither a member of a warez group, working for a media company, a 3d artist, or anything else like that, I simply have no need for this many cores, and I am resentful that the only way I can get more than the wholly inadequate shitty ass 24 lanes the base piece of shit ships with is to buy a boatload of cores I'll never use.
Here's the irony in your post. You keep talking about PCI-e lanes. You always want more PCI-e lanes as if it's a holy grail. Guess what, probably less than 1% of computer users ever need more than the standard numbers of PCI-e lanes included on CPUs and motherboards.

We get it. Now you just need to build a system based on an HEDT platform so you have all the PCI-e lanes you need. Maybe the vast majority of people are glad they don't have to pay extra for a bunch of PCI-e lanes they'll never need.
 

Red Falcon

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,162
We get it. Now you just need to build a system based on an HEDT platform so you have all the PCI-e lanes you need. Maybe the vast majority of people are glad they don't have to pay extra for a bunch of PCI-e lanes they'll never need.
Maybe we don't need the extra PCI-E lanes, but damn it, we do need those additional memory channels!
 

honegod

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Aug 31, 2000
Messages
6,736
Looks like a focus needs to be on motherboard I O.

32 memory channels implies a need to be able to plug in 32 sticks of ram to use them, yes ?

512 pcie lanes needs some way to plug in 128 M.2 drives.

Yes, this comes from ignorance but that is at least curable.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
1,947
Here's the irony in your post. You keep talking about PCI-e lanes. You always want more PCI-e lanes as if it's a holy grail. Guess what, probably less than 1% of computer users ever need more than the standard numbers of PCI-e lanes included on CPUs and motherboards.

We get it. Now you just need to build a system based on an HEDT platform so you have all the PCI-e lanes you need. Maybe the vast majority of people are glad they don't have to pay extra for a bunch of PCI-e lanes they'll never need.
I am very curious what they have plugged in that chew up all those PCI-E lanes.
 
Top