AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX & 2950X Unboxing @ [H]

Iratus said:
Sadly It's replacing a pretty old box, ddr3 etc. I've just been spending money on cloud workloads to do what I need instead but that is heaps expensive and needing hz and cores made Xeons batshit crazy expensive for the sort of spec I wanted. Like $30k for the machine. Couldn't get a ROI in time for these coming.


At least I do finally get a use for my warranty replacement seasonic 1000 Platinum that's sat shrink wrapped under a desk for a year though. It'll actually need it as I start adding v100s as well.

Now to go do my research that optane as a system/scratch disk works properly on AMD.

And where's the Epycs with these cores AMD, get on with it :D
Click to expand...

This is where upgrading every year pays off:p I can sell my old stuff at practically the new price, so my upgrade to a bleeding edge system isn't that bad of a hit.

Oh, and a blown motherboard where I ended up replacing every piece, hoping it wasn't the motherboard nor CPU.

But I was looking over my old Newegg purchases. Managed to get an ASUS Rampage V Edition 10 + 128 GBs of RAM a couple years ago for $1000. Now I'm looking at RAM prices and the RAM alone would cost me more than that. What did I miss these past couple of years to see such a huge skyrocket in price?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
Grimlaking said:
Do you mean core count? Because Epyc's have had 32 core single socket solutions for a while now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that clock speed tho...

It's quicker to run some of my stuff on less faster cores as there is diminishing returns for concurrency. More, faster cores is goodness, hence my waiting.

If I could get Epyc at these clock speeds, but with the extra memory controller I'd be ecstatic. This will be enough for now though I hope. If my business grows as expected I'll need a bunch anyway.
 
mjz_5 said:
What happens if the motherboard you purchase doesn’t have the new BIOS update for the TR2 chips. How would you update it when you only have a TR2 CPU?
Click to expand...

From what I've seen so far the higher end boards do NOT need a CPU installed to do a BIOS update so you just update the BIOS, then install the CPU
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
If I get one it will be 24/7, 3d, some gaming and then Monero. Would be interesting the hash rate for Monero. It will use all the cores and should be around 2500H/S. More than a Vega 64 and probably less power. Then again just for mining, that would be silly but on the sideline an incentive to go with the 32 core.

Kinda hard to justify the expense unless good use case.

Look forward to the review.
 
Iratus said:
Yeah, that clock speed tho...

It's quicker to run some of my stuff on less faster cores as there is diminishing returns for concurrency. More, faster cores is goodness, hence my waiting.

If I could get Epyc at these clock speeds, but with the extra memory controller I'd be ecstatic. This will be enough for now though I hope. If my business grows as expected I'll need a bunch anyway.
Click to expand...


So you have some single threaded high computation speeds needed. If you needed concurrency like a heavily threaded and tasked SQL server a couple of 32 core RYZEN CPU's would fit the bill nicely. 128 threads thank you very much. But really that would be a massive database to the point that you want every performance benefit and are probably running an Intel system anyway because of current track record.

What people don't get is when your building big DB servers and the like you care more about reliability than cost. Because you're spending easily 10 times then hardware cost on licensing for the software anyway.

If you're running a big business critical highly threaded DB on some freeware or shareware DB then you are far braver than I am.
 
Grimlaking said:
So you have some single threaded high computation speeds needed. If you needed concurrency like a heavily threaded and tasked SQL server a couple of 32 core RYZEN CPU's would fit the bill nicely. 128 threads thank you very much. But really that would be a massive database to the point that you want every performance benefit and are probably running an Intel system anyway because of current track record.

What people don't get is when your building big DB servers and the like you care more about reliability than cost. Because you're spending easily 10 times then hardware cost on licensing for the software anyway.

If you're running a big business critical highly threaded DB on some freeware or shareware DB then you are far braver than I am.
Click to expand...

Our primary database runs in a JVM, freaks the shit out of anyone with a DBA background
:LOL: . It's clustered etc though and all fine. Hopefully at some point AWS's graph DB will be good enough and I can make it all their problem. Ive had enough nosql and Oracle scars over the years.

Our use case for the high cpu is processing point clouds and doing photogrammetry. Either separately or together. It's almost propostrously intensive to process complex scenes.

The software we use has a cap of 32 cores, large scenes need 128gb of ram (which isn't that bad these days in fairness, ddr4 prices aside) and it can use up to 3 GPUs. It doesn't scale properly cpuwise though, less faster cores are better than the max slower ones (I'm guessing because the GPU does most of the linear stuff) but as I say, the max faster ones do help.

If I ran it on my gaming workstation, a single job would take 30 hours+ just by way of illustration.

Still all just pisses me off that we can't do distributed processing, there is software that does it but I've found you can get odd results (yay coherency) but really it's just a usability thing of their editor, I can't pay people enough to sit using it.

At some point we'll have to bite that off and either learn, or optimise something but that's all in the good problems pile that scaling a process brings. It's not worth the effort at the moment.

Acknowledge this is all very very much an edge case
 
chithanh said:
Did you really still doubt that after this:
Click to expand...

Never watched that video. I usually only watch the Nvidia releases. Not so much a fan boy, but that kid in his leather coat is insane. I feel like he's on cocaine 100% of the time.

Even then, I watch them later on and skip around.
 
Is it weird that the one question I have is whether or not amd's storeme technology is going to be free on the new threadripper boards or not?
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Is it weird that the one question I have is whether or not amd's storeme technology is going to be free on the new threadripper boards or not?
Click to expand...
Well, that is actually tied to the chipset, rather than the CPU. AMD StoreMI is available to all X399 board owners.
 
That video made me [H]ard.

I'll ride that 7700K until Zen2 comes out, but that's as far as I can hold out. Although, hmmm, when do we start seeing PCI-E 4.0?
 
Strange that they are not offering the 2900x. The lack of a 2800x is totally understandable, but the 2900x at $450 would be a good way to get people into the platform, but not at ridiculous levels such as the case with the i5-7640x.

The 2900x could also steal sales away from the 9900k for those that want the extra i/o.
 
majic12 said:
I have a question that is not related by nda and was wondering if you can share some light.I saw on a Chinese blog some photos of the press kit where they placed the wraith ripper on the asus zenith extreme and the 4 flare x that were provided.If google translated correctly,it showed me that the wrait ripper is blocking the 2 closes ram slots to the cpu making it impossible to place low profile ram there limiting x399 to only 4 ram slots with this cooler.(and it blocked the first pcie 3.0 slot but that was expected xd)

Coud you confirm the ram hight issue with the cooler or at least take a ruler and see what is the max ram hight for it?
Cheers mate
Click to expand...
Getting there ..
 
I see razors hidden in the design of the package and case. Subliminal messages of razors....


The era of hot rod muscle processors for the masses has arrived.


Congratulations AMD and all the lucky people who will be having fun with these new processors.
 
After all these years, I still think its cool to watch un-boxing of certain items. Thanks Kyle.
 
Yes indeed this is one of those unboxing videos that is definitely worth watching.

The packaging of these is way nicer than that used by the Threadripper 1xxx series. That inner holder is a definite plus missing from the previous release. As it sits now I get to put my 1900x in a plastic anti-static bag and stuffed willy-nilly in my Box o Chips (the place where I retire my more recent CPUs). The Intel chips at least had little black covers that clipped over the contact side of them and those chips that had pins actually got carriers.
 
So, can we expect a raffle or drawing of some sorts for that sexy press kit? :D
 
When are you giving away that sexy 2990WX?
kdubb.gif
 
I just came to a startling realization. It's all good to have more cores, but how do you feed them? Having 32 cores and 64 threads means you'd have to have at least 128GB memory to feed so many parallel processes. And that's still only 2GB / Thread. With the current memory prices, forget that the cpu costs 1800, but you have to spend another 2000 on ram.
 
M76 said:
I just came to a startling realization. It's all good to have more cores, but how do you feed them? Having 32 cores and 64 threads means you'd have to have at least 128GB memory to feed so many parallel processes. And that's still only 2GB / Thread. With the current memory prices, forget that the cpu costs 1800, but you have to spend another 2000 on ram.
Click to expand...


Threads have their own stack, but (usually) share process heap. System memory is not divided across the number of execution threads (again, usually - I've worked on frameworks that operated otherwise).

Processes however, that's another tale
 
rk said:
Threads have their own stack, but (usually) share process heap. System memory is not divided across the number of execution threads (again, usually - I've worked on frameworks that operated otherwise).

Processes however, that's another tale
Click to expand...

It depends on the application, but sadly ram usage scales almost linearly with the number of threads in most of the apps I work with. As parallel operation is achieved by each thread working on different data. Guess I could reduce the size of the dataset for the apps I've written myself, but for third party programs I expect to see a lot of out of memory errors with 64 threads.
 
M76 said:
Having 32 cores and 64 threads means you'd have to have at least 128GB memory to feed so many parallel processes. .
Click to expand...

No.

It sounds like your apps (database?) are really designed for server class systems - i.e. EPYC.

TR is HEDT class, so the typical apps for this class (Blender, Cinema4D, VMs etc) still scale quite happily with cores even with a restricted memory pool. I'm not planning on going beyond 32gb on my 2990wx any time soon.
 
M76 said:
I just came to a startling realization. It's all good to have more cores, but how do you feed them? Having 32 cores and 64 threads means you'd have to have at least 128GB memory to feed so many parallel processes. And that's still only 2GB / Thread. With the current memory prices, forget that the cpu costs 1800, but you have to spend another 2000 on ram.
Click to expand...


Not really. You are making the mistaken assumption that every process in your system needs anywhere near 2GB/thread at the same time. And if they did, there is virtual memory management to deal with the overcommits. But realistically there are very, very few processes that need anywhere near that kind of data space. Both of which make it possible to run applications in far less memory than the entire system needs. As it sits now I can look into task manager, see just under 200 processes and 3000 threads running. Granted I have a 16-core processor / 64GB memory handling them, the old I7-6700 I ran with 16GB memory would have handled them without really getting terribly slow.
 
cyberguyz said:
Not really. You are making the mistaken assumption that every process in your system needs anywhere near 2GB/thread at the same time. And if they did, there is virtual memory management to deal with the overcommits. But realistically there are very, very few processes that need anywhere near that kind of data space. Both of which make it possible to run applications in far less memory than the entire system needs. As it sits now I can look into task manager, see just under 200 processes and 3000 threads running. Granted I have a 16-core processor / 64GB memory handling them, the old I7-6700 I ran with 16GB memory would have handled them without really getting terribly slow.
Click to expand...
Citing basic background and ui updator, and such threads , what do you want with that?
Of course not every freaking thread needs 2GB of ram. I thought that by now people have learned that #notall is implied every time.

Applications that work with big datasets need lots of ram, and if you increase the number of threads it needs even more ram. Some tasks might be able to work on a shared dataset, that don't need to modify the data, or have limited i/o. So yes, rendering is one thing where more threads don't automatically mean more ram. But the reason I'd like to have more threads is to be able to render more complex scenes. and guess what? More complex scenes need more memory to render. Of course I can't render those with less threads either, but I Don't even try because I don't want to wait hours for a single frame. So if I'd buy a 64 thread cpu it would be pretty much useless to me unless I also get at least 64GB of ram, but 128gb would be more ideal.
 
M76 said:
Citing basic background and ui updator, and such threads , what do you want with that?
Of course not every freaking thread needs 2GB of ram. I thought that by now people have learned that #notall is implied every time.

Applications that work with big datasets need lots of ram, and if you increase the number of threads it needs even more ram. Some tasks might be able to work on a shared dataset, that don't need to modify the data, or have limited i/o. So yes, rendering is one thing where more threads don't automatically mean more ram. But the reason I'd like to have more threads is to be able to render more complex scenes. and guess what? More complex scenes need more memory to render. Of course I can't render those with less threads either, but I Don't even try because I don't want to wait hours for a single frame. So if I'd buy a 64 thread cpu it would be pretty much useless to me unless I also get at least 64GB of ram, but 128gb would be more ideal.
Click to expand...

Your initial post of:

M76 said:
I just came to a startling realization. It's all good to have more cores, but how do you feed them? Having 32 cores and 64 threads means you'd have to have at least 128GB memory to feed so many parallel processes. And that's still only 2GB / Thread. With the current memory prices, forget that the cpu costs 1800, but you have to spend another 2000 on ram.
Click to expand...

Implies that you are hard-locked to having 128GB in your system. That is not the case by any stretch of the imagination and you apparently know it. Modern OSes have no problem at all of handling that many cores with far less memory.

But getting back to your second post, you want to do complex renders in as little time as possible. Well then you are needing to put together a professional workstation aren't you. Then why are you whingeing about another 2 grand for memory? Professional workstations cost professional money to build. If of course that is the kind of system you are looking to build. Just be glad you are not doing this 30 years ago when a Silicon Graphics Iris machine would set you back $25K. I would say that building halfassed workstation with 32-core, 128GB woekstation for about 5-6k dirt cheap (that $25k from 30 years ago is about $40k in today's dollars).
 
Last edited:
cyberguyz said:
Your initial post of:



Implies that you are hard-locked to having 128GB in your system. That is not the case by any stretch of the imagination and you apparently know it. Modern OSes have no problem at all of handling that many cores with far less memory.

But getting back to your second post, you want to do complex renders in as little time as possible. Well then you are needing to put together a professional workstation aren't you. Then why are you whingeing about another 2 grand for memory? Professional workstations cost professional money to build. If of course that is the kind of system you are looking to build. Just be glad you are not doing this 30 years ago when a Silicon Graphics Iris machine would set you back $25K. I would say that building halfassed workstation with 32-core, 128GB woekstation for about 5-6k dirt cheap (that $25k from 30 years ago is about $40k in today's dollars).
Click to expand...

So you honestly think, that I was saying that you can't have 32 cores without 128GB of ram? I hate it when people take something you said and automatically assume the stupidest possible interpretation is the intended one.

I'm running into memory walls even at 10 cores and 32GB ram. I was saying that you'd need lots of ram to really be able to push 64 threads and not just a ogle at your cinebench score. And I stand by that statement. Of course there is a possibility that there are a few cases where you don't need more than say 32GB of ram to push 64 threads, I just haven't encountered those yet.

As for rendering, so you think I have disposable money just laying around? The exact reason this cpu is interesting to me because it is finally affordable for the hobbyists. But RAM prices shattered that dream for me. I only have 16GB of ram in my home PC because I can't even justify buying 16GB more at the current prices, let alone 32 more. And I do think getting this CPU without at least 64GB ram would be like fitting a great engine in a car that handles like a turd. It might go fast in a straight line, but in most cases it would be a waste.
 
M76 said:
As for rendering, so you think I have disposable money just laying around? The exact reason this cpu is interesting to me because it is finally affordable for the hobbyists. But RAM prices shattered that dream for me. I only have 16GB of ram in my home PC because I can't even justify buying 16GB more at the current prices, let alone 32 more. And I do think getting this CPU without at least 64GB ram would be like fitting a great engine in a car that handles like a turd. It might go fast in a straight line, but in most cases it would be a waste.
Click to expand...

It seems I am not the only one to have lapses in comprehension :rolleyes: If you are doing that as a profession, then it is a business expense. Hobbyists are not as concerned about memory limitations. Hobbyists pay for the hardware they want because it is ... well... a hobby and you pay what you can afford and be happy or save until you can buy the next big thing.

And what i was saying at the end of it all is that if you are looking to do professional work on a professional level workstation it is gonna cost you big. If you are gonna do professional work on a less than professional workstation you will pay for it with your time.

Let's put it this way: If I am a professional contractor building and flipping houses, am I gonna use crappy Crack & Pecker or Homeworx tools? Hell no, not if I am smart. I am gonna get the best tools I can get because I don't want to waste my time with tools that break or simply don't have enough grunt to handle the work I am gonna do. And I am not going to whinge about those tools costing a couple grand more because they are helping me make my income. I also know that the extra money I am throwing into them will save me money over time in reliability and time - thus paying for themselves. Sure I can get away with the cheap-ass Crack & Pecker tools, but I am just gonna have to live with the expectation that they will let me down and leave me buying the best stuff later. The same analogy applies to professional Workstations. You cheap out and pay for it in time or you can open the wallet and buy the one that is going to do what you want.

At then end of the day it is what you want vs what you need. And if what you need is expensive & it what you use to make your income (the definition of 'professional') then you do what you need to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top