AMD Ryzen 16 Core “Whitehaven” Enthusiast CPUs Leaked – 3.6GHz Clock Speed, Boatloads of Cache & Qua

drescherjm said:
I think he was commenting about the TDP difference. Although it does not make sense to have all 3 models with the same TDP. With that said I don't trust AMD's TDP ratings at all.
Click to expand...

TDP for AMD is based on what you need to cool it with, so you need a heatsink rated to 180 watts. But yeah I would expect the 16 core to draw the most and the 8 core to draw the least.
 
drescherjm said:
I think he was commenting about the TDP difference. Although it does not make sense to have all 3 models with the same TDP. With that said I don't trust AMD's TDP ratings at all.
Click to expand...
Actually in these cases I think it has more to do with socket and being the size of this chip prob easier to make them all the same. I doubt the 8 core will pull anywhere near the 16 core allbeing said.
 
Yeah, AMD TDP is just about meaningless if you're actually concerned with power draw and heat output, what TDP is actually supposed to mean.

Though real TDP shouldn't be too hard to extrapolate once some real numbers become available.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Yeah, AMD TDP is just about meaningless if you're actually concerned with power draw and heat output, what TDP is actually supposed to mean.

Though real TDP shouldn't be too hard to extrapolate once some real numbers become available.
Click to expand...

It's usually pretty close to the number and even Intel is struggling to keep to their TDP on the 7900X.
 
Gideon said:
It's usually pretty close to the number and even Intel is struggling to keep to their TDP on the 7900X.
Click to expand...

Let's scroll back to AMD's chart above: so you're going to claim that 8C AMD-TDP of 180W and 16C of AMD-TDP of 180W are both 'pretty close'?

Okay.
 
Gideon said:
Yep who knew they would hit even higher speeds, much higher then what you said either. But I dont make a blog about predicting things right either. But thanks for pointing out things turned out even better then that list I posted minus the 14 cores.
Click to expand...

Even higher speeds? 3.4GHz base for the top 180W chip is lower than the "3.5GHz" for 155W on the list you posted. 3.5/4.0GHz for the top 12-core model is lower than the "3.6/4.1GHz" on the list you posted. The only higher speed is the boost for the top model 4.0GHz vs 3.9GHz, but also it is 4.0GHz at 180W and your listing was 3.9GHz at 155W.

If you are going to evaluate how accurate or wrong were my claims about Threadripper, then please be accurate and mention that my clock predictions are for real TDPs not for marketing values.

In the end, official specs confirm I was right when I stated that clocks, TDP, L3 amount, and 10-core and 14-core models in the slides you and other spend repeating were fake. And people disagreeing with me was wrong.
 
Gideon said:
It's usually pretty close to the number and even Intel is struggling to keep to their TDP on the 7900X.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating the same will not make it true. The 7900X is within the official TDP (plus-minus measurement errors). But the same cannot be said about AMD because the 95W RyZen has a real TDP of 128W and the 65W RyZen has a real TDP of 90W. Paraphrasing Canard: "AMD bullshit its TDP."


The known Threadripper sample with 3.1GHz clocks already had a real TDP of about 20W above the marketing value. I wouldn't be surprised if reviews find the real TDP for the top ThreadRipper model is ~240W.
 
juanrga said:
Keep repeating the same will not make it true. The 7900X is within the official TDP (plus-minus measurement errors). But the same cannot be said about AMD because the 95W RyZen has a real TDP of 128W and the 65W RyZen has a real TDP of 90W. Paraphrasing Canard: "AMD bullshit its TDP."


The known Threadripper sample with 3.1GHz clocks already had a real TDP of about 20W above the marketing value. I wouldn't be surprised if reviews find the real TDP for the top ThreadRipper model is ~240W.
Click to expand...

TDP and power draw are not the same but hey, why confuse facts.........
 
TDP means thermal design point/power. It's just a number that is used to design a cooling system that can dissipate the heat generated from use cases determined by the manufacturer. It is not necessarily a measurement of the peak power a CPU can consume, especially since the proliferation of thermal protection mechanisms being built in.

Using it to compare the power consumption of CPUs is like comparing the range of cars by the size of their gas tanks.
 
It might have been "marketingspeak'ed" to mean thermal design power , but that's BS.

TDP actually stands for Total Dissapated Power.
You know , back from the transistor days...
.
 
BrainEater said:
It might have been "marketingspeak'ed" to mean thermal design power , but that's BS.

TDP actually stands for Total Dissapated Power.
You know , back from the transistor days...
.
Click to expand...

A quick search online says you are not correct.
 
ManofGod said:
A quick search online says you are not correct.
Click to expand...

ryan_975 said:
It's been Thermal design point since at least the 1990's.
Click to expand...

I guess all my engineering textbooks are wrong then eh ?

-----

Go here :
http://www.wakefield-vette.com/company/contact/build-your-own-air-cooled-heat-sink.aspx

Wakefield is a world leader in thermal design.
You will notice on that form it specifies "Power Dissapation" not 'power design'.

This is simple: TDP is total dissipated power.It is an absolute measurable value.
tdp (thermal design point or whatever you wanna call it) is marketing speak. It's an irrelevant value that can be made anything.

.
 
The ego in here is strong. The mental jostling for moral high ground knows no bounds.

I suppose i can sleep easy at night know the worlds geniuses are here solving the worlds problems.

Tech forums are not enjoyable, the same personalities that feel compelled to make the experience as insufferable as possible.


Posting off-topic bitching isn't exactly helping either. Given the considerable number of times we've had to address your posts this year I'm giving you some time off. If I see any more of this crap when you get back you won't get another chance. -Oldie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OrangeKhrush said:
The ego in here is strong. The mental jostling for moral high ground knows no bounds.

I suppose i can sleep easy at night know the worlds geniuses are here solving the worlds problems.

Tech forums are not enjoyable, the same personalities that feel compelled to make the experience as insufferable as possible.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it.

This guy gets a break too. -Oldie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ManofGod said:
TDP and power draw are not the same but hey, why confuse facts.........
Click to expand...

The standard definition of TDP has been given a dozen of times. It has been also demonstrated another number of times that the 125W FX-8350 pulls 125W from the socket whereas the '95W' RyZen pulls 129W, because the real TDP of the 1800X is 128W, and '95W' is just a marketing label to make some people believe that RyZen is more efficient.

Indeed, with consumption measured on the ATX12 at 128.9 watts, it is clear that the consumption of the Ryzen 7 1800X exceeds the 95 watts announced on the TDP (Thermal Design Power) side.
Click to expand...

What are the TDPs, within the meaning of the consumption limit and therefore the maximum number of watts to be dissipated, of the Ryzen? AMD also communicates this value, less markedly: 128 watts for the 1800X / 1700X, and 90 watts for the 1700. These are the values that are most comparable with the TDP communicated by Intel.
Click to expand...

But hey, some people insists today that the Earth is flat and no amount of evidence changes their mind.


ManofGod said:
BrainEater said:
It might have been "marketingspeak'ed" to mean thermal design power , but that's BS.

TDP actually stands for Total Dissapated Power.
You know , back from the transistor days...
.
Click to expand...
A quick search online says you are not correct.
Click to expand...

Sure

http://www.acronymfinder.com/Total-Dissipated-Power-(TDP).html
 
Charlie conforms that ThreadRipper has only two dies.

There are only 2 dies and the package is electrically different from Naples/Epyc, it isn't a salvage part. I will write it up in a bit but the 'rumors' are BS and based on both ignorance and, well, not asking the source.

-Charlie
Click to expand...

PCWorld and ExtremeTech confirmed this as well: there are two ZP dies plus two spacers in the TR package.

On the other hand, 'smart' people with actual 'sources' continues to claim that ThreadRipper has four functional dies and is identical to EPYC. Warning: the level of BS in the next link is insane

http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-engli...y-chain-threadripper-has-4-die-just-like-epyc

The funny or nasty part (it depends) is that certain people in forums is buying the BS from Fottemberg and then spreading hype about getting 32-cores for home:

A lot of people will now try to hack their way into a fully functional 32-core Threadripper. Some will work, some won't, a lot will try, anyway. And I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has orchestrated it all along.
Click to expand...

Warning: TR cannot be hacked to get 32-cores. Don't buy the BS!
 
juanrga said:
The standard definition of TDP has been given a dozen of times. It has been also demonstrated another number of times that the 125W FX-8350 pulls 125W from the socket whereas the '95W' RyZen pulls 129W, because the real TDP of the 1800X is 128W, and '95W' is just a marketing label to make some people believe that RyZen is more efficient.
Click to expand...

Hehe......we can actually Blame Intel for this.They started the TDP shenanigans back with 'Conroe' I believe.
----
The bottom line is this: If you are designing thermal solutions, or specifying PSU's , you want to use 'Total Dissapated Power', not the values of tdp that Intel and AMD use.

:D
 
juanrga said:
The standard definition of TDP has been given a dozen of times. It has been also demonstrated another number of times that the 125W FX-8350 pulls 125W from the socket whereas the '95W' RyZen pulls 129W, because the real TDP of the 1800X is 128W, and '95W' is just a marketing label to make some people believe that RyZen is more efficient.





But hey, some people insists today that the Earth is flat and no amount of evidence changes their mind.




Sure

http://www.acronymfinder.com/Total-Dissipated-Power-(TDP).html
Click to expand...

I can play the link game too.

https://www.acronymfinder.com/Thermal-Design-Power-(CPU-design)-(TDP).html

Can it mean Total Dissipated Power, sure. But that definition is used by neither Intel nor AMD.

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/white-paper/resources-xeon-measuring-processor-power-paper.pdf
 
BrainEater said:
Hehe......we can actually Blame Intel for this.They started the TDP shenanigans back with 'Conroe' I believe.
----
The bottom line is this: If you are designing thermal solutions, or specifying PSU's , you want to use 'Total Dissapated Power', not the values of tdp that Intel and AMD use.

:D
Click to expand...

And still Intel chips total dissipated power agree with the official values.

It should be noted, however, that the 7900X consumes a lot of charge. The use of AVX units on x264 plays a role here. In spite of everything, the 7900X remains in its TDP announced what is appreciable (as a reminder the 1800X unnecessarily maltreats the notion of TDP not to respect it in practice according to our criteria).
Click to expand...

It is AMD marketing values such as "95W" which are off from real-life measurements by 35%.
 
juanrga said:
And still Intel chips total dissipated power agree with the official values.



It is AMD marketing values such as "95W" which are off from real-life measurements by 35%.
Click to expand...

Such a scientific number, i mean it could be 17% or 23% maybe 47% but anything that is assumes mid range is normally a thumb suck.

You can solve this problem which is now a protracted issue over just about every thread on every forum you have drifted upon upsetting the communities along the way. You can solve this great problem by buying or requesition to AMD to provide you a review setup so you can run testings. At least that way we would only have to worry about you being objective...oi vey
 
juanrga said:
Charlie conforms that ThreadRipper has only two dies.



PCWorld and ExtremeTech confirmed this as well: there are two ZP dies plus two spacers in the TR package.

On the other hand, 'smart' people with actual 'sources' continues to claim that ThreadRipper has four functional dies and is identical to EPYC. Warning: the level of BS in the next link is insane

http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-engli...y-chain-threadripper-has-4-die-just-like-epyc

The funny or nasty part (it depends) is that certain people in forums is buying the BS from Fottemberg and then spreading hype about getting 32-cores for home:



Warning: TR cannot be hacked to get 32-cores. Don't buy the BS!
Click to expand...
now I have to be you for a moment...

"JUST AS I PREDICTED".

We already knew this.
 
drescherjm said:
I think he was commenting about the TDP difference. Although it does not make sense to have all 3 models with the same TDP. With that said I don't trust AMD's TDP ratings at all.
Click to expand...
I don't find it odd. Even Intel does this. You also have to look at the base clock. It's not just the number of cores.
 
juanrga said:
And still Intel chips total dissipated power agree with the official values.
Click to expand...

Sure they do... as long as you run integer to do your power test. Otherwise it looks like this...
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9ML1IvNjk1NDM5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAxLnBuZw==
 
kac77 said:
Sure they do... as long as you run integer to do your power test. Otherwise it looks like this...
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9ML1IvNjk1NDM5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAxLnBuZw==
Click to expand...

Nope. Tomshardware measurements in that graph are incorrect, disagree with rest of reviews, and even disagree with another article they published.

87080.png
 
Arguing over what TDP means...

Intel (re)defined it as Thermal Design Power/Point, but what it means in either case is directly related to the law of conservation of energy. Energy input must equal energy output.

The point is that AMD's perversion of TDP means that one cannot take their numbers directly and remotely hope to determine how much power the CPU will actually draw, nor how much heat it must produce at that level.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Arguing over what TDP means...

Intel (re)defined it as Thermal Design Power/Point, but what it means in either case is directly related to the law of conservation of energy. Energy input must equal energy output.

The point is that AMD's perversion of TDP means that one cannot take their numbers directly and remotely hope to determine how much power the CPU will actually draw, nor how much heat it must produce at that level.
Click to expand...
First, it isn't a perversion as that has been AMDs stance for at minimum 5 years. I will tell you the same thing I told the other naysayers: Prove a 95W cooler can not maintain Ryzens clocks with normal usage (prime and IBT runs do not count) and then you can bitch all you want. Till then you can stop insinuating nefarious intent and just accept AMDs TDP ONLY speaks to required cooler and in no way speaks to max wattage used.
 
Ok...
It's not AMD's perversion of anything.Intel started this bullshit.
Intel redesignated it to mean 'nominal power dissapation' which is what is uses viewing effing emails.
--------
You guys are all [h]ard , and do shit like benchmarking...that's not nominal.
Benchmarking routines are designed to stress a CPU to as close to 100% as possible.That's called Pmax now.

I apologize in advance , I know this is a threadripper topic,I'm having problems finding the relevant AMD datasheets.
I will give you the following example though, from the only datasheet on my desktop.

Xeon Gold 6144 8c/16t
tdp(thermal design power) = 150 watts
TDP(total dissipated power) ((called Pmax-package now )) = 363 watts
 
-Strelok- said:
You know you've lost the argument when you complain about something as pointless as how TDP is defined...in every single thread (n)
Click to expand...

Well, AMD is faster, cheaper, and uses less power. The Intel shills have to cling to SOMETHING.
 
I hope you don't mean me....I've got too many AMD rigs beside me for that !!

Don't take my word for it.
Find the relevant data sheet for the threadripper in question.
Compare the tdp listed in ads , to the Pmax listed in the electrical specifications of the chip.
 
BrainEater said:
Ok...
It's not AMD's perversion of anything.Intel started this bullshit.
Intel redesignated it to mean 'nominal power dissapation' which is what is uses viewing effing emails.
--------
You guys are all [h]ard , and do shit like benchmarking...that's not nominal.
Benchmarking routines are designed to stress a CPU to as close to 100% as possible.That's called Pmax now.

I apologize in advance , I know this is a threadripper topic,I'm having problems finding the relevant AMD datasheets.
I will give you the following example though, from the only datasheet on my desktop.

Xeon Gold 6144 8c/16t
tdp(thermal design power) = 150 watts
TDP(total dissipated power) ((called Pmax-package now )) = 363 watts
Click to expand...
Look I get what you're saying and I understand but (and not directed at you) this has been the case for so long now that seeing some come and gripe about it like they are shocked when in ALL cases they claim to be the end-all-be-all in knowledge as far as PCs go and yet don't know this simple well-debated fact spanning years. Honestly I don't judge power usage by TDP, haven't ever really. I wait for reviews and see what it does. Hell my 8350 can easily hit well into the 300s for watts, add to that a R9-290 and , well you can see TDP/wattage/heat mean absolutely nothing to me.

And I am sure no one here thinks it will never use more than TDP, you are right about the true max. Seriously don't get too caught up in the BS some anti-AMDers spread.
 
KazeoHin said:
Well, AMD is faster, cheaper, and uses less power. The Intel shills have to cling to SOMETHING.
Click to expand...

Cheaper? Sure, but this is of little technical merit on the AMD side, because performance is not a linear function of cost (for instance increasing IPC by 10% doesn't cost 10% more but much more). Moreover, AMD is using multidie solutions to further reduce costs, but this multidie approach comes with both performance and power penalties.

Faster? No. Some examples of 8-core SKL beating or just destroying 8-core RyZen, and 6-core SKL doing the same to 6-core RyZen

Cinebench.png


7zip.png


Blender.png

Handbrake.png

Ashes.png

Hitman.png


Consuming less power? Sure, that extra performance in SKL-X comes at a cost. There is no free lunch!

Power2.png
 
juanrga said:
Cheaper? Sure, but this is of little technical merit on the AMD side, because performance is not a linear function of cost (for instance increasing IPC by 10% doesn't cost 10% more but much more). Moreover, AMD is using multidie solutions to further reduce costs, but this multidie approach comes with both performance and power penalties.

Faster? No. Some examples of 8-core SKL beating or just destroying 8-core RyZen, and 6-core SKL doing the same to 6-core RyZen

Cinebench.png


7zip.png


Blender.png

Handbrake.png

Ashes.png

Hitman.png


Consuming less power? Sure, that extra performance in SKL-X comes at a cost. There is no free lunch!

Power2.png
Click to expand...


Aw, poor fella, forgot to mention that Intel parts cost twice as much and use more power than AMD parts. You have to resort to comparing core versus core, which not only is comparing a product to something 2x as expensive, but actually shows a WASH between the two when you look at ALL benchmarks, not just your favourites.

It must be tiring to be an Intel loyalist right now...
 
KazeoHin said:
Aw, poor fella, forgot to mention that Intel parts cost twice as much and use more power than AMD parts. You have to resort to comparing core versus core, which not only is comparing a product to something 2x as expensive, but actually shows a WASH between the two when you look at ALL benchmarks, not just your favourites.

It must be tiring to be an Intel loyalist right now...
Click to expand...
Hey its hard work repeating the same tired crap everyday. :p

Pricewise AMD certainly looks good. And X399 with 64PCI-e lanes is making waves across many forums. The real battle seems to be HEDT and it is looking real good for AMD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top