AMD ThreadRipper Prices [Rumor]

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,080
The Rumor Mill is heating up that AMD will launch the entry level ThreadRipper 12C/24T @ about 500$. The 16C/32T version could retail around the $849 mark, but the motherboards and memory might be expensive. Even if they are expensive, that's a lot of cores, threads, and PCIe lanes for a lot less than the Intel offerings. Of course this is all rumor so take it with a grain of salt. Thanks to Hothardware for the chart.

At AMD HQ are still talking about the prices, however this should be the final price (AMD is lowering the 1800X price in order to sell an entry level ThreadRipper 12C/24T @ about 500$). The main problems of this platform are the mainboards (Very expensive) and the RAMs (Also very expensive ... 4 channels).
 
KazeoHin said:
Listen, if I can grab a new unlocked 16-core chip for UNDER $900 US, I'll have to get medical attention for my 4+ hour erection.

I also make a point to not believe anything too good to be true.
Click to expand...

That's why it's a rumor. Don't believe it, but still cool to debate. ;) If it does work out to be somewhat close in the end, then more power to the guy that said it first.
 
Sounds too good to be true. What about the 10-core? Is that going to be the same cost as the 1800X?
 
Man that's tempting. I'll need to start looking at itx MBs if anyone makes any.
 
This is almost server class of a CPU with that many cores/threads. I could replace my main workstation, a full time NAS system, and a backup system with these CPU's and gain tremendous amount of performance while dropping power, cooling, and size.
 
Spire3660 said:
I doubt you will see this in ITX. Too many memory channels.
Click to expand...


How are you going to fit 4 memory slots in ITX? I can see microatx at the minimum.

Is AMD going to allow dual TR cpu's or is dual cpu reserved for Epyc?
 
Could be AMD responding to Intel's prices. Intel will need to slash their prices big time to compete.
 
Bigdady92 said:
How are you going to fit 4 memory slots in ITX? I can see microatx at the minimum.

Is AMD going to allow dual TR cpu's or is dual cpu reserved for Epyc?
Click to expand...

X99 ITX boards just go dual channel. When you want to go that small for a mainboard but with such a large socket you need to sacrifice features.
 
If those are real numbers, it might be worth going back to full ATX.
 
Teenyman45 said:
X99 ITX boards just go dual channel. When you want to go that small for a mainboard but with such a large socket you need to sacrifice features.
Click to expand...

THINK AGAIN! (cartoonish evil laugh)

ASRock%20X299E-ITX.jpg
 
Threadripper gonna tear Intel a new one! we shall see how it shakes out though. I was expecting $1250-1500 at the top
 
Curious how "very expensive" is defined for this sort of board. Look at the prices for Intel's X79, X99, and the expected prices for X299; basic boards for about $200-250, feature boards for $300-$350, and fully loaded board for $449-$600+.

RAM is going to be a little less than the same price as a fully populated 4 dimm dual channel board due to what I expect would be lower top-end RAM speed. Or, double that if you want to populate all eight dimms.

KazeoHin said:
THINK AGAIN! (cartoonish evil laugh)

ASRock%20X299E-ITX.jpg
Click to expand...

But those are mere so dimms...

ASRock's X99 board was dual channel.
 
500 is too low, imho, but, if thats the case, i will like to see the local intel fanbois explain how it is still better to buy intel for almost or double the price and maybe 10% higher overall performance.

And before you start, these cpus are not gaming ones.
 
I don't care, I have a 2600k, and frankly, I am amazed and HAPPY that I waited until now... I finally see something that really might make it finally worthwhile to jump into. I just didn't expect it to be AMD again... I haven't used their chips since my 486/100. Heck, I had a CYRIX P166... and in a way, both of those were better than the Intel chips at the time. I don't miss the 300 Celeron of the p2 series I had, but I am sure going to feel like I am ahead of the game again and saving a lot of $ to get the performance of what would have cost me over $1000 a month or 2 ago for much less than that now. I was looking hard at the 1700s today, but maybe just wait a smidgen longer...
 
Cantroy said:
I don't care, I have a 2600k, and frankly, I am amazed and HAPPY that I waited until now... I finally see something that really might make it finally worthwhile to jump into. I just didn't expect it to be AMD again... I haven't used their chips since my 486/100. Heck, I had a CYRIX P166... and in a way, both of those were better than the Intel chips at the time. I don't miss the 300 Celeron of the p2 series I had, but I am sure going to feel like I am ahead of the game again and saving a lot of $ to get the performance of what would have cost me over $1000 a month or 2 ago for much less than that now. I was looking hard at the 1700s today, but maybe just wait a smidgen longer...
Click to expand...
Feel the same way with my 3570k and my last amd was an Athlon 64 X2-3800, but looks like my next upgrade will be a 1700x, especially with the recent price cut.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
Sounds too good to be true. What about the 10-core? Is that going to be the same cost as the 1800X?
Click to expand...

probably 480 or something since the 1800x is down to 460 right now but i'd guess they'll release later so they're not having to cut perfectly good 8 core die's down to 5 cores each for minimal profit.
 
Nihilus1 said:
Intel will look rather silly when they are forced to cut their prices in half or more to compete. A lack of competition is no justification for price gouging. F*** Intel.
Click to expand...
Being agnostic, I'll wait to see how it shakes out. Fanboi much?

I'm constantly amazed how supposed rational people are so emotional about computer parts. :confused:
 
If these prices are within $100 of retail I think we're back to the days of socket 939. Just my opinion but Intel took a big shart with their new i9 lineup, it's cool and all but just way WAY too expensive for a consumer product. It feels like they're just re-badging some xeon stock and saying "Hey guys we have more than 6 cores too..." Considering how well the 1800x did compared to a 5960x, I think these 12c chips are going to decimate intel in both the "prosumer" and enthusiast market unless the prices I've seen for the upcoming intel chips are way off. If Intel expects us to pay enterprise prices x299 really should offer enterprise features.
 
To be honest, historically, it's not far from where AMD was pricing e.g. the past equivalents of this chip - the dual core opterons e.g. 165, 180 etc. I got the air WR on a 165 back in the days haha [email protected].

Oppy 165 was 300-400 USD and the value/best bang for buck. TBH they usually clocked just as high as the higher priced oppy 180 - we are seeing similar here with Ryzen and I would not be unsurprised to see this occuring too with Threadripper. For reference, oppy 180 was $800USD



capt_cope said:
If these prices are within $100 of retail I think we're back to the days of socket 939. Just my opinion but Intel took a big shart with their new i9 lineup, it's cool and all but just way WAY too expensive for a consumer product. It feels like they're just re-badging some xeon stock and saying "Hey guys we have more than 6 cores too..." Considering how well the 1800x did compared to a 5960x, I think these 12c chips are going to decimate intel in both the "prosumer" and enthusiast market unless the prices I've seen for the upcoming intel chips are way off. If Intel expects us to pay enterprise prices x299 really should offer enterprise features.
Click to expand...

This lol. The money grubbing side of Intel has been exposed to a level I never expected this round.
>w...w...wait guyz we got 12.. no.. uhh.. 18 CORES! It's really cheap! You're not a research scientist, you don't need ECC!
And the stock price hardware forum shills rejoiced! (It'll be hilarious watching the kvetching if these AMD prices are close).


Calling it already;
Amd will use like 5W more and of course be labled 'literally the furnaces of Auschwitz'
Could be just 100mb/sec slower in IMC 'literally a turd'
It may just do better in core scaling which will be waved off as 'an AMD bias benchmark'
Gets a 15% OC vs Intels 18% (Of course no mention of de-lidding I9 needed and the rest) = 'can't OC for shit total let down AMD SUXX GUYZ'
Is 10% slower at 480p gaming 'FUCK GUYS IT CANT GAME FOR SHIT WHAT A CRAP CHIP YA BETTER OFF WITH AN i4 GUYZ'

Meanwhile we're all enjoying the similar performance or I bet better in most cases where core counts make a difference for end user, at a much lower price.
Can spend more sheckels on RAM, GPU or SSDs. What a shitty deal!
 
This is way too cheap. What's the catch? Crappy overclocker? :(
 
I have to say that the clock speeds that AMD are getting on these CPU's are the same as what they are getting with the lower core count Ryzen CPUs - This makes me think that AMD is artificially capping the core speeds on those parts.
 
Nebell said:
This is way too cheap. What's the catch? Crappy overclocker? :(
Click to expand...

I would guess that it will be the same 3.8 to 4.2Ghz as the smaller CPUs. I think they must be capped by AMD. Unless these are actually not based on the same core design as the previous Ryzens.
 
Last edited:
You know what, I would like to get 1S workstation with ThreadRipper and a 2S server with EPYC. Then some multinode parallel software and I will have an erection forever. Viagra? bullshit! Ryzen!

The fact they can sustain the clock frequency thanks to modularity is great. The only detail is the NUMA design but should not be too much of a problem. Instead of a 1 level crossbar, I can see 2 level crossbar, but that does not equal to 2x latency. If I am correct, they are using the I/O Hub of each Ryzen die to communicate between them, as they use PCIe lanes to run InifinityFabric protocol over them. It is still a P2P protocol, like CrossFireX.
 
Stimpy88 said:
I have to say that the clock speeds that AMD are getting on these CPU's are the same as what they are getting with the lower core count Ryzen CPUs - This makes me think that AMD is artificially capping the core speeds on those parts.
Click to expand...

Or it could be the process that they are using does not allow more headroom. Since there are no other x86 cpu to compare it with means that Intel fab is just "better" suited for higher clocks, a 1st generation 14nm FinFet vs a 3rd or 4th generation 14nm FinFet prolly makes the difference ....
 
Cantroy said:
I don't care, I have a 2600k, and frankly, I am amazed and HAPPY that I waited until now... I finally see something that really might make it finally worthwhile to jump into. I just didn't expect it to be AMD again... I haven't used their chips since my 486/100. Heck, I had a CYRIX P166... and in a way, both of those were better than the Intel chips at the time. I don't miss the 300 Celeron of the p2 series I had, but I am sure going to feel like I am ahead of the game again and saving a lot of $ to get the performance of what would have cost me over $1000 a month or 2 ago for much less than that now. I was looking hard at the 1700s today, but maybe just wait a smidgen longer...
Click to expand...

I just jumped off my 2600k for a Ryzen 1700. The 2600k lost its ability to hold its overclock (relatively mild 4.4GHz/1.34v/Hyper 212+) and based on responses I got here on this very forum, it's just due to component aging as it was "Sandy Stable" over at Overclock.net when I first applied it. If the chip were holding steady at 4.6 or so, I would have kept it.

Either way, competition is good. I'm a performance-value fan if anything. Keep this up and it's back to the 939 days when Intel actually had to fight for dollars. Let's just hope they don't go for some other sleazy tactic like the rebates they used last time.
 
Filiprino said:
It is still a P2P protocol, like CrossFireX.
Click to expand...
Infinity Fabric is a mash up of PCIe and HT3.x so it'll use the packet based MOESI based protocol or at least something very much like it. There haven't been very many details released on IF yet other than bandwidth I believe. Bandwidth sounds fine to me but the bigger issue will be with latency.

They're only putting up to 4 dies so far on each MCM it seems so its not like the packets will have too many hops to make but average round trip packet latencies have to be at least as good as main system DRAM otherwise performance will take a big hit. Not a ccNUMA expert here so YMMV, (edit) just what I remember from Hammer Opteron days.

Keeping everything on package rather than having to out of package, through a socket, through the mobo, into another socket, and then another package should a help a whole lot with off die CPU latency no matter what at least. I'd be surprised if the latency isn't much lower than main system DRAM between each die.

That and AMD has plans to use IF for Navi to join multiple GPU's together to work as one big one. Latency will have to be low no matter what to make that strategy work.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but isn't intel's i9 line basically a direct rip off from their xeon lines? Even the prices seem consistent.
Since amd is putting out that 12/16 core chip, assuming each core is comparible to ryzen cores, how does it stack up again it's xeon counterparts in terms of price and performance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top