Forbes - "AMD Killing Off Threadripper Processors Suddenly Makes Perfect Sense" - ??!?!?

In any event, if AMD is confident enough in Zen2's Ryzen to dispense with TR, I think they could do it if its done right, by granting formerly TR level features to Ryzen mainstream...at least on high end boards. For instance, if the rumor is true of X580 will run on PCI-E 4.0 (or even 5.0?) spec and more lanes (more than earlier Ryzen but less than TR? Plus lanes on the chipset?) that will handle both bandwidth and lanes. Now, what I don't know if they can port is the option for quad channel memory (and possibly full ECC support for those who want it). Ideally it would be neat if they enable quad channel for full power, but also have something equating to a dual channel implementation as well. If the highest Ryzen has 16 cores/ 32 threads and high clocks (made higher by OCing) , with the aforementioned upgrades, then maybe they really don't need a separate HEDT platform?

I'll start by saying that I agree with your post above overall, I just didn't want to quote the whole thing to continue the conversation :).

You've more or less nailed HEDT as it stands- access to more cores with more PCIe lanes and more memory channels. And the weaknesses are there too as well; relative to 'enthusiast' consumer platforms, minimum memory access latency goes up (which can be mitigated), cooling can be difficult, boards can be 'too big' i.e. EATX, power can be picky, you likely want to populate all memory channels for best performance, etc. To that, AMD adds 'unofficial' ECC support.

Relative to an eight-core consumer desktop CPU, there's a lot of flexibility that's gained by HEDT (plus ECC with AMD), however, those benefits are mostly focused on either specific professional workloads or workloads that will just take slightly less time but still take a long time. When time is money that makes sense, but that's in a rare niche where a user desires both desktop functionality and access to significantly more compute (to include needing massive amounts of memory installed) / storage / networking resources.


But back to the 'doing it right' part.

A hypothetical R9 3000 with 16 cores and the X5xx chipset would bring the same number of cores as a 2950X with higher per-core performance in an accessible form-factor (the size of the board / power supply requirements / cooling ergonomics). The new chipset will not allow direct connection of more PCIe lanes, but it in theory would be like a massive PCIe switch, which even at PCIe 3.0 speeds would be a significant improvement.

For 'power users', this will be the same kind of overkill that they'd get from HEDT. The difference would be largely meaningless outside of benchmarks. You want high speed networking? Cool. You want a fistful of NVMe, perhaps with striping for even more bandwidth? Cool. You want to toss in a few GPUs for whichever application? No worries. Got other stuff that benefits from a direct PCIe link? Roll out!

Where you'd really run into limitations is if using such a CPU for work that would better be suited for a server. Sure, HEDT makes for a great cheap server platform, and with AMD you get ECC (and I'm still a bit miffed you can't get a bare AMD APU with ECC support...), but that's really a very narrow market for a product line. It's very hard to suggest that AMD keep doing this when they can put sixteen cores into a consumer socket that can also take ECC, and with a chipset that can support a significant number of connections natively.
 
It's opinion.

Though not an unreasonable one. Threadripper looked great, when it was the cheapest way to get more than 8 cores.

But with 16 core Ryzen coming, Threadripper is likely dead below 24 cores, which might make it too niche to bother with.

The TR extra memory channels will only benefit super niche users once ryzen is 16 core.
They still make TRs either way with Zen2 - they're called Epyc..
All TR is just binning, platform characterisation and support. Good branding though but maybe they'll release one later. Remember TR had practically no leaks and came out of nowhere? It's a tiny team that keeps tight lips.
 
It’s hard for me to think of many scenarios where TR fits in the market. Even with use cases it’s a matter of memory channels and PCIe lanes IIRC.

It’s going to be in that old TR segment with that many cores.

I read through the comments but maybe missed it. What use case would a TR be viable over a Ryzen 9 series given both get generational chipset improvements?

I dunno I think AMD should for now put it on the back burner or remarket the brand over to Ryzen 9. I just do not see a need for it that actually has enough demand to justify its release.

Unless they release a no bs chipset that puts it at EPYC level PCIe lanes and memory support, unlocked, and without the enterprise support features maybe but why?
 
Unless they release a no bs chipset that puts it at EPYC level PCIe lanes and memory support, unlocked, and without the enterprise support features maybe but why?

Well, that's basically what's being suggested above. Assuming AMD does what AMD does, they'll even leave ECC intact, and just switch to a 'looser' spin of Epyc.
 
I am not too sure about AMD killing off threadripper line. I think this more has to do with EPYC demand for the next EPYC Rome 7nm series. It just absolutely makes no sense to push threadripper out on new tech when you are getting companies lining up to get next EPYC processor and all the super computers deals they are winning.

Considering that TR deals with a niche market of a niche market, and that the same 7nm die is used for the higher volume Ryzen line, which launches in Q3. I am pretty sure that Rome demand isn't the reason for TR deassaperating from the roadmap.
 
Back
Top