AMD THREADRIPPER Officially Announced.

1.jpg
 
You realize that the 7820x is effectively twice the cost as an R7? No doubt it will be a decent chip, but it's also a bit more spendy than a few dollars more as well.
 
You realize that you can buy the new Intel 299 series motherboard and put a quad core in it on a budget, and in 4 years, when you need more cores, and the one of the higher core chips has dropped in price to half (AND when maybe by that time we are using more than 4 cores in real world applications) - you can upgrade your system to one of those big core count CPUs that Intel offers on the same platform --- and effectively have a brand new system again - without changing out motherboard/ram.

With all of these core options -- and high thread count processor options, the used upgrade opportunities 5 years down the road are pretty amazing!

Unless AMD releases threadripper/naples - on the same AM4 chipset as Ryzen --- that consideration is not comparable for AMD. Is Naples releasing on the same socket chipset as Ryzen? I was under the impression no...

I was really truly interested in Ryzen, but this Intel press release is pretty tough on my optimism.
 
Unless AMD releases threadripper/naples - on the same AM4 chipset as Ryzen --- that consideration is not comparable for AMD. Is Naples releasing on the same socket chipset as Ryzen? I was under the impression no...
Click to expand...

No. There is speculation about 10 and 12 core threadripper offerings on X399 though. We don't know platform prices yet. Likely it will be $300 at the minimum to buy into a X299 or X399 mainboard.

Keep in mind AM4 offers 20 lanes to Intel's 16 at a far smaller price point. We don't know yet what threadripper will cost, and that detail is important since it gets you all the way to 64 lanes.

AM4 will be supported for at least 5 years. Something Intel has never done. Good luck thinking i9 88xx will run on X299.
 
Archaea said:
Intel prices released.

https://www.hardocp.com/image/MTQ5NjE0NDMwMzhka21lcWYwY2FfMV8xX2wuZ2lm
14961443038dkmeqf0ca_1_1_l.gif


Ryzen 1800x has some competition in the I7-7820x.

Yes Ryzen 1700, 1700x, and 1800x will be cheaper - but you can pretty much bet that Intel part will hit 4.5Ghz across all 8 cores with decent cooling on an overclock, and with IPC's being 20-30% faster on Intel, and with a 10% + overclock advantage -- that's 30-40% faster for a couple hundred more bucks. Probably worth it to most people.

I'm tuned in to what threadripper brings to the table for the price, but Intel, as expected, isn't just going to let AMD have a free and clear win. Unfortunately AMD's position is still limited to "for the price"
Click to expand...
So, no TDP for the 12c or more chips and turbo is not the all core turbo speed. I sense either stupid tdp or low clock speeds coming our way
 
dook43 said:
AM4 will be supported for at least 5 years. Something Intel has never done. Good luck thinking i9 88xx will run on X299.
Click to expand...


It might be possible.

We had an X79 Sabertooth motherboard at work. At the time of purchase we bought, IIRC, a Intel I7 3820.
Just this year we upgraded the CPU in that board to a Intel I7 4960x because that particular hex core was sourced reasonably priced used.

So there was a generation jump in that particular CPU generation using the same motherboard.

Skylake and Kaby Lake have done it recently with the Intel 170 motherboards. They were released for Skylake, but with a bios update they work with Kaby Lake.

But despite that, the fact you can have CPU options from 4 core all the way to 18 core on the same x299 motherboard gives a lot of options even if future Intel CPUs (8xxx) don't' work with the x299 chipset/motherboard.
 
Word is that AMD's Threadripper lineup has 44 PCIe lanes across the board. If that's the case, they've already eaten up Intel's HEDT lunch in my book, because most people who need the lanes aren't gonna blow $1,000 on just the CPU.

NVMe SSDs galore, 10-Gigabit Ethernet NICs, multi-controller USB 3.0 cards, perhaps even Thunderbolt 3.0 controller cards, video capture/framegrabber cards that can handle high refresh rates - there are a whole lot of things that are not GPUs which warrant more PCIe lanes, particularly with the rise of NVMe, and the more of them you have, the readier your system can be for future expansion.

I'm hoping AMD capitalizes on that.
 
NamelessPFG said:
Word is that AMD's Threadripper lineup has 44 PCIe lanes across the board. If that's the case, they've already eaten up Intel's HEDT lunch in my book, because most people who need the lanes aren't gonna blow $1,000 on just the CPU.

NVMe SSDs galore, 10-Gigabit Ethernet NICs, multi-controller USB 3.0 cards, perhaps even Thunderbolt 3.0 controller cards, video capture/framegrabber cards that can handle high refresh rates - there are a whole lot of things that are not GPUs which warrant more PCIe lanes, particularly with the rise of NVMe, and the more of them you have, the readier your system can be for future expansion.

I'm hoping AMD capitalizes on that.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY this. I've got 2-3 m.2 pci-e x4 (I can drop them in a $20 pci-e adapter IF the lanes/slots exist), 10gigabit network card, a 1070 (but may pick up a second), extra sata controlller, extra intel nic..

I really need the slots/pci-e lanes.

It's not just "only 16 pci-e lanes" it's the fact that it is split into x8/x8 slot & the rest are via DMI3 (ugh). When I have 64 pcie lanes, I can get something like 5 x16 (physical slots) split to (x16/x16/x8/x/x8). Even though the graphics card doesn't NEED x16, it's there and I still have lanes for x16 physical x8 electrical for raid controllers, 10gig nics, etc...

Who the heck buys a $500+ cpu and wants to have a tiny number of pci-e lanes? More pci-e lanes are better for virtualization as well to drop multiple graphics cards in. My biggest disappointment with Ryzen is the tiny number of pci-e lanes. Intels newly announced cpus, on the lower end, have the same issue.
 
dook43 said:
16/32 Threadripper is probably going to be $1000
Click to expand...

Or more.

If I was AMD I would gift some machines to twitch streamers. It's a good application if it. Most of them process video and threadripper would be a nice fit.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
Part of the cost of the X299 and X399 motherboards will derive from the structural reinforcement they have to keep from warping under a five pound heatsink!
Click to expand...

There's nothing worse than a screaming fan next to your ear because of flaky heatsinks. These look fantastic for keeping the chips nice and cool and doing so quietly.
 
NamelessPFG said:
Word is that AMD's Threadripper lineup has 44 PCIe lanes across the board. If that's the case, they've already eaten up Intel's HEDT lunch in my book, because most people who need the lanes aren't gonna blow $1,000 on just the CPU.

NVMe SSDs galore, 10-Gigabit Ethernet NICs, multi-controller USB 3.0 cards, perhaps even Thunderbolt 3.0 controller cards, video capture/framegrabber cards that can handle high refresh rates - there are a whole lot of things that are not GPUs which warrant more PCIe lanes, particularly with the rise of NVMe, and the more of them you have, the readier your system can be for future expansion.

I'm hoping AMD capitalizes on that.
Click to expand...

Threadripper will have 64 pcie lanes across the board.
 
Whoa, so when they were saying "48 PCIe lanes" earlier, that's still leaving another 16 lanes free for NVMe drives and other motherboard components?

Threadripper sounds more and more enticing as time goes on. I may not upgrade immediately (my 4770K/Z87 build still suffices for now), but this is the first time I've contemplated buying AMD in over a decade!
 
Nathan_P said:
So, no TDP for the 12c or more chips and turbo is not the all core turbo speed. I sense either stupid tdp or low clock speeds coming our way
Click to expand...

Stupid TDP is my guess, 200W incoming, you will need a platinum 500W PSU just to power your CPU, I thought we were beyond those days. I am actually upset about two things with Intel

1) I5 X and 7740X with gimped I/O have no place on X branded boards, slap in the face of the mainstream buyer. 330USD i5 is beyond stupid.

2) TIM which already has been reported to be bad, 85+ degrees under stock loads is just ridiculous, shortcutting the process gets you nowhere.
 
I love me some good old fashioned CPU wars!!

Bring on threadripper! Bring on i9!

Fir the first time in 10 years, we have CPU manufacturers actually breaking a sweat to earn our dollars!

AMD will price their 10-core RTR chip to compete with Intel's 8-core offerings. So yeah, the new i9 8-core chip is good, but I prophecize that AMD will bring out their 10-core RTR within $20 of the i9; with 64 lanes PCI-E and a soldered IHS.

The fact that AMD is using MCM may actually be a help to them, as it is a lot easier to source two high-clocking 8-core dies then to source one high-clocking 16-core die. While I don't think AMD will have a clockspeed advantage, they certainly won't be far behind: I could imagine the 10-core RTR will easily hit 1800X speeds. Not bad across 10 cores. If AMD nails the per-core pricing, we'll have QUITE the selection of chips this summer...


Hooo boy am I excited.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Stupid TDP is my guess, 200W incoming, you will need a platinum 500W PSU just to power your CPU, I thought we were beyond those days. I am actually upset about two things with Intel.
Click to expand...

You can keep making up as much FUD as you want, doesn't make it right. And as I recall someone else sells 220W consumer CPUs.
 
Shintai said:
You can keep making up as much FUD as you want, doesn't make it right. And as I recall someone else sells 220W consumer CPUs.
Click to expand...

sarcasm is not the strong point but either way we know it is likely going to be higher than 165W also, maybe if we take the difference between the two will be the likely TDP
 
OrangeKhrush said:
sarcasm is not the strong point but either way we know it is likely going to be higher than 165W also, maybe if we take the difference between the two will be the likely TDP
Click to expand...

No we dont. We know the platform supports 3 TDP families. 165W, 140W and 112W.
 
Factum said:
Rysen is currently a flop in datacenters.
We have 3 server vendors...none of them has any servers on their roadmap.
A product needs to be purchasable in order to get any "success"...and again, I am talking about vendor roadmaps...forget about actual products.
Click to expand...

You realize Ryzen isn't even a server class CPU right? Those are coming. And in 3 years when I'm due another refresh I hope to have AMD cpu's in the running!
 
Current Ryzen dropping in price to make way for TR! I love competition, the way this is going im gonna look into a 12/24 rig this fall. Love that monster socket. gonna make Intel sweat for sure. Here comes that marketshare back!
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Stupid TDP is my guess, 200W incoming, you will need a platinum 500W PSU just to power your CPU, I thought we were beyond those days.
Click to expand...

Official rating is 180W for current Threadripper samples, which equates to >200W real.
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
AMD will price their 10-core RTR chip to compete with Intel's 8-core offerings. So yeah, the new i9 8-core chip is good, but I prophecize that AMD will bring out their 10-core RTR within $20 of the i9; with 64 lanes PCI-E and a soldered IHS.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the TR mobos are expensive and quad-channel high-speed memory is not so cheap; the overall system price difference will be smaller than for the CPUs alone. Soldered IHS didn't help RyZen to break the 4GHz barrier with easiness, and why the new motto seems to be "moar lanes"? Has it definitively replaced the "moar cores"?
 
juanrga said:
Maybe, but the TR mobos are expensive and quad-channel high-speed memory is not so cheap; the overall system price difference will be smaller than for the CPUs alone. Soldered IHS didn't help RyZen to break the 4GHz barrier with easiness, and why the new motto seems to be "moar lanes"? Has it definitively replaced the "moar cores"?
Click to expand...

Intel fanboys used lanes to sell themselves on X79 and X99, but once AMD has the advantage, suddenly they aren't important: brilliant irony.

And to answer your question: 2 GPUs at 16x bandwidth uses 32 lanes: already more than the intel solution's capabilities. And we are seeing modern engines capable of saturating 8X PCI-E 3.0, so running two GPUs at 8x is not ideal. Add in two NVM-Express drives, a nice AC wireless card or video capture card, maybe a SAS raid card with BBU... the poor little intel 8-core cant handle all that, meanwhile the AMD is barely half full.
 
KazeoHin said:
Intel fanboys used lanes to sell themselves on X79 and X99, but once AMD has the advantage, suddenly they aren't important: brilliant irony.

And to answer your question: 2 GPUs at 16x bandwidth uses 32 lanes: already more than the intel solution's capabilities. And we are seeing modern engines capable of saturating 8X PCI-E 3.0, so running two GPUs at 8x is not ideal. Add in two NVM-Express drives, a nice AC wireless card or video capture card, maybe a SAS raid card with BBU... the poor little intel 8-core cant handle all that, meanwhile the AMD is barely half full.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they aren't important. Simply stating my surprise on how suddenly number of cores, stock clocks, OC capabilities, IPC,... lost importance. All what matters now is the number of PCI lanes.

About ironies I know some of them, such as certain people dismissing efficiency in the Builldozer/Piledriver era, "it is not important" they said, "nobody cares" they said, and then forgetting all what they said whereas repetitively mentioning "95W vs 140W" and pretending that RyZen was going to be much more efficient than competence. Or what to say about all the emphasis on the classic "moar cores". Moar cores was mentioned by some people when they believed it was going to be a 16C vs 12C fight. Now it is confirmed it is 16C vs 18C, the emphasis has shifted to "moar lanes".
 
juanrga said:
I didn't say they aren't important. Simply stating my surprise on how suddenly number of cores, stock clocks, OC capabilities, IPC,... lost importance. All what matters now is the number of PCI lanes.

About ironies I know some of them, such as certain people dismissing efficiency in the Builldozer/Piledriver era, "it is not important" they said, "nobody cares" they said, and then forgetting all what they said whereas repetitively mentioning "95W vs 140W" and pretending that RyZen was going to be much more efficient than competence. Or what to say about all the emphasis on the classic "moar cores". Moar cores was mentioned by some people when they believed it was going to be a 16C vs 12C fight. Now it is confirmed it is 16C vs 18C, the emphasis has shifted to "moar lanes".
Click to expand...

In a way, Intel's move to an 18-core flagship was brilliant. make no mistake, if the 16-core RTR chip and the 18-core Intel were the same price, the Intel would be unabashedly the superior product in every aspect (excepting PCI-E discrepancy), In the end, AMD's pricing will be the determining factor.

But, when comparing current products dollar for dollar: AMD has more cores AND more PCI-E lanes, I imagine the RTR chips will continue that trend.

AMD fanboys decided efficiency was not important to avoid the fact that Bulldozer nearly killed AMD, their blind faith probably did more harm than good to AMD's reputation.

The moral is to not be a fanboy. Hint Hint.
 
In addition, the reason why the specs for the 12-18-core Skylake-X chips haven't been set yet is very simple...Intel is waiting for the detailed specs on Threadripper before setting them on the HCC Skylake-X chips and will aim to match Threadripper's feature set as much as possible...nothing more...nothing less. If Intel had its way, it would neuter the HCC Skylake-X chips to the ground...:mad:
 
lutjens said:
In addition, the reason why the specs for the 12-18-core Skylake-X chips haven't been set yet is very simple...Intel is waiting for the detailed specs on Threadripper before setting them on the HCC Skylake-X chips and will aim to match Threadripper's feature set as much as possible...nothing more...nothing less. If Intel had its way, it would neuter the HCC Skylake-X chips to the ground...:mad:
Click to expand...

There is no HCC SKL-X chips. There are LCC and MCC.
 
Shintai said:
There is no HCC SKL-X chips. There are LCC and MCC.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your benevolent nitpicking with everyone...you'd better scurry off and correct half the internet, starting with Anandtech...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ng-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999/2

Here's a quote from their opening page:

This strategy from Intel is derived from what they call internally as their ‘LCC’ core, standing for ‘low core count’. The enterprise line from Intel has three designs for their silicon – a low core count, a high core count, and an extreme core count: LCC, HCC, and XCC respectively. All the processors in the enterprise line are typically made from these three silicon maps: a 10-core LCC silicon die, for example, can have two cores disabled to be an 8-core. Or a 22-core XCC die can have all but four cores disabled, but still retain access to all the L3 cache, to have an XCC processor that has a massive cache structure. For the consumer HEDT platform, such as Haswell-E and Broadwell-E, the processors made public were all derived from the LCC silicon.
Click to expand...

So...LCC...HCC...XCC...

Anything else you care to pick at?
 
lutjens said:
Thanks for sharing your benevolent nitpicking with everyone...you'd better scurry off and correct half the internet, starting with Anandtech...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ng-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999/2

Here's a quote from their opening page:



So...LCC...HCC...XCC...

Anything else you care to pick at?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as XCC. There is LCC(10C), MCC(18C) and HCC(28C).

And if you want some article not saying XCC.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/in...by-lake-x-x299-basin-falls-core-i9,34545.html

The new Skylake-X models employ the Skylake Xeon HCC, MCC and LCC die.
Click to expand...

Anand sure sold at the right time.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
There is no such thing as XCC. There is LCC(10C), MCC(18C) and HCC(28C).

And if you want some article not saying XCC.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/in...by-lake-x-x299-basin-falls-core-i9,34545.html



Anand sure sold at the right time.
Click to expand...

When the datasheet with the full specs of the 18, 16, 14 and 12 core chips comes out (once the specs are finalized), I'm sure it'll have the correct information. Until then, go find something a little more substantial to bitch about, k?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
Wow a lot to take in here . Some good & some bad, but all in all good conversation. I think I'm going to get threadripper. Even though i got my the 1800x on launch. I'm going to try and water cool it. And i'm going to try to get Vega to go with it. Very interested in the AMD ecosystem. I just need new hdd and a case to go with it and a pricing plan. Here my thought on a Build. Just a speculation on the things that have no price at the moment

CPU Threadripper 16c/32t at around $1000 -$1200
CPU Cooler Custom watercool block $100
Motherboard ASUS X399 ROG ZENITH EXTREME $600
Memory Dominator Platinum Series 64GB (8 x 8GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C16 Memory Kit $799
Storage SAMSUNG 960 EVO M.2 500GB NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 x4 Internal Solid State Drive $250
Video Card Vega $800
Case Red Harbinger Dopamine Case $350
Power Supply MasterWatt Maker 1200 Digital Power Supply All-Aluminum 80PLUS Titanium $430

This is my base then will build a custom water cool loop with monsoon fitting...

Any thoughts? Also love to hear if anyone else is going to upgrade to Threadripper or Intel new i9.
 
My workstation upgrades are pretty dependent on Dell or Apple configurations because those are the only two vendors that my company deals with (for better or for worse). I can see Apple updating their workstation to include (or be exclusive to) AMD and Dell is apparently offering game desktops with AMD chips in them so I'm hopefully optimistic that I can get a system configured around one of AMD's high-core-count offerings.
 
I kind of want to go with the threadripper, but I need to go with the Intel. My workstation is quite literally my livelihood. I need to upgrade now, but throwing $3k at something as bleeding edge new as Ryzen/TR and running the risk of it not working out just isn't a viable option. I suspect there's a lot of folks in the same position who have to go with the 'safe' option.

I do hope to see Ryzen series perform well as a product, though. The market really needed the competition.
 
vemgeacemind said:
Wow a lot to take in here . Some good & some bad, but all in all good conversation. I think I'm going to get threadripper. Even though i got my the 1800x on launch. I'm going to try and water cool it. And i'm going to try to get Vega to go with it. Very interested in the AMD ecosystem. I just need new hdd and a case to go with it and a pricing plan. Here my thought on a Build. Just a speculation on the things that have no price at the moment

CPU Threadripper 16c/32t at around $1000 -$1200
CPU Cooler Custom watercool block $100
Motherboard ASUS X399 ROG ZENITH EXTREME $600
Memory Dominator Platinum Series 64GB (8 x 8GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C16 Memory Kit $799
Storage SAMSUNG 960 EVO M.2 500GB NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 x4 Internal Solid State Drive $250
Video Card Vega $800
Case Red Harbinger Dopamine Case $350
Power Supply MasterWatt Maker 1200 Digital Power Supply All-Aluminum 80PLUS Titanium $430

This is my base then will build a custom water cool loop with monsoon fitting...

Any thoughts? Also love to hear if anyone else is going to upgrade to Threadripper or Intel new i9.
Click to expand...


Ok clearly this is a top of the line build. I wonder why you're going with the 960 EVO 500GB and not the 1TB. Is the 500GB a better performer? My experience has been higher capacity SSD's are actually better performers. Once of the reasons I went with the 1TB myself, and also that I was having capacity issues with my 500GB SSD I was running on before.

Another note... you're spending the cash on 64 GB on an 600 dollar MB to populate all slots. Why not go for 128? Or is that the limit of the threadripper.. I didn't check so a edit may be forthcoming.

I also wonder what the use case is for this system and what you are running for monitors/connectivity to the rest of the world.

What I mean is, if you're not running at least 1 4k monitor preferably 2 that may be overkill. If you are using this to serve virtualized VDI desktops on thin clients then you would want the additional ram and potentially another VEGA card., and definitly the additional Harddrive capacity. If you're NOT running this as a virtual desktop host then you could scale things back unless you have some truly insane graphic editing or other large format files you need to work with. (Again I would think a faster/higher capacity SSD would be desirable in that configuration.)

What I might lean to in that is a pair of 1 TB 960 pro NVME drives in a raid 1 for your OS and operating drives, then a pair of 2 TB regular SSD's or 10TB storage drives also in raid 1 to store the data you've been creating until you can get it to offline storage.

The build you are looking to do is big and impressive but misses the target for any one solution, you're building out the rest of the components to be impressive. Consider your use case and go to town!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top