new threadrippers announced

Jandor said:
The WRX 90 boards will be plenty of PCI slots but mind that to fill all of them you'll need slim GPU cards.
Best value will be the TRX50.
And the Asrock TRX 50 board has a bad distribution of PCI slots. No way to put 4 double slot GPU in a EATX case. The position of the 3rd slot should be one step down.
Click to expand...
Conversely, I am hoping for another mini-ITX (or DTX.... something smaller than an ATX) threadripper board. I don't need more than a PCI slot or two and would rather build a workhorse to put into a rack and offload work to.
 
nifisher said:
Conversely, I am hoping for another mini-ITX (or DTX.... something smaller than an ATX) threadripper board. I don't need more than a PCI slot or two and would rather build a workhorse to put into a rack and offload work to.
Click to expand...
Then why are you buying threadripper? If it's RAM or cores, buy a small server board and an Epyc/Xeon. Generally if you're building with current gen HEDT, you're doing it for expansion too...
 
sram said:
Hmmmm. Do you guys believe we will see 9000 series non-pro threadrippers or HEDT will die again? Any AMD engineers here ^_^ ?

I would love to see new threadrippers with new cool features.
Click to expand...

Non-Pro as in using unbuffered memory and a cheaper socket/board with less memory channels?

I don't think so. There is a huge market for workstations with lots of RAM right now. A new design with limited RAM capacity makes little sense. And if it does by a miracle then it would eat into the Pro sales.

It's a shame. Some time ago I was thinking that maybe Ryzen 9xxx would go to 24 cores, but alas it was not to be. So you can as well throw single-core speed into the wind and get used EPYC gear.
 
lopoetve said:
Then why are you buying threadripper? If it's RAM or cores, buy a small server board and an Epyc/Xeon. Generally if you're building with current gen HEDT, you're doing it for expansion too...
Click to expand...
Mostly because I don't look into Epyc much and the few times I have it didn't seem to line up as well to my intended workloads; I'm not running a data center and don't need that much computational power. But having a overpowered workstation that I can offload to and/or run VM's on while I keep something more lightweight at my desk is far more reasonable. Threadripper fits that middle ground well/
 
Developer workstations need both high per-core speed and many cores. Single core dictates how fast linking goes, and an incremental build of a single source file and linking is also on a single core. Let's not even talk about Python programs.

RAM isn't a big factor, 8x UDIMM would be entirely sufficient. More than 4 PCIe lanes for SSDs would be nice.

It's a shame that this need isn't met by the market right now.
 
uOpt said:
Non-Pro as in using unbuffered memory and a cheaper socket/board with less memory channels?

I don't think so. There is a huge market for workstations with lots of RAM right now. A new design with limited RAM capacity makes little sense. And if it does by a miracle then it would eat into the Pro sales.

It's a shame. Some time ago I was thinking that maybe Ryzen 9xxx would go to 24 cores, but alas it was not to be. So you can as well throw single-core speed into the wind and get used EPYC gear.
Click to expand...
This was all true for zen4 threadripper and they did launch a 4 memory channel non-pro version for that one.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/amd-trx50-vs-wrx90/
the non-pro vs pro was last time
pci lane: 48 vs 128
memory channel: 4 x 8
max ram (RDIMMS): 1TB vs 2 TB
 
uOpt said:
Well, that doesn't really count as non-Pro compared to previous Threadripper gens.
Click to expand...
Do you mean by entry price point or specs ?

a 3960x had 4 memory channel, 64 pcie, versus 8/128 for the 3000 series Threadripper pro seem quite similar.

The original threadripper had 4 memory channel, 66 pci lane, what would be the main difference, the 48 pci lane are the 5.0 one, there is many others slower available I think.
 
uOpt said:
Developer workstations need both high per-core speed and many cores. Single core dictates how fast linking goes, and an incremental build of a single source file and linking is also on a single core. Let's not even talk about Python programs.

RAM isn't a big factor, 8x UDIMM would be entirely sufficient. More than 4 PCIe lanes for SSDs would be nice.

It's a shame that this need isn't met by the market right now.
Click to expand...
It is - there are epyc and Xeon CPUs designed for that; I'd have to go check but generally if you're looking for high per-core speed you're looking at the database chips, since SQL and Oracle are licensed per core (so you pick the exact number of cores you need, and then want them as fast as humanly possible for transaction rates). In prior gens, before I left the server space, you were looking for the 8-16 core setups, or near the end with scalable, the ones up to about 22-24 cores. Anything past that you start losing core speeds significantly.

As for the motherboard - Generally ASRock Rack makes some mATX server boards (ITX is rare for full fat; hard to power and cool), which should do the job.
 
lopoetve said:
It is - there are epyc and Xeon CPUs designed for that; I'd have to go check but generally if you're looking for high per-core speed you're looking at the database chips, since SQL and Oracle are licensed per core (so you pick the exact number of cores you need, and then want them as fast as humanly possible for transaction rates). In prior gens, before I left the server space, you were looking for the 8-16 core setups, or near the end with scalable, the ones up to about 22-24 cores. Anything past that you start losing core speeds significantly.

As for the motherboard - Generally ASRock Rack makes some mATX server boards (ITX is rare for full fat; hard to power and cool), which should do the job.
Click to expand...

Threadripper generally has faster per-core speed than even the low core count EPYC.

8-16 cores is not the right CPU for this. More cores required and I/O is not as much.
 
Expecting AMD to cut the market even more narrowly is kind of ridiculous tbh. There is desktop (am5), HEDT (TR), workstation (TR Pro) and server (Epyc). The one miss there is lack of an x3d part in HEDT or workstation. That looks to be coming.

If there were a market for an mATX TR (non pro) board, I'm sure somebody would make one like Asrock did with gen1 TR. That they haven't made another may indicate how well that sold, relatively.
 
bobzdar said:
Expecting AMD to cut the market even more narrowly is kind of ridiculous tbh. There is desktop (am5), HEDT (TR), workstation (TR Pro) and server (Epyc). The one miss there is lack of an x3d part in HEDT or workstation. That looks to be coming.

If there were a market for an mATX TR (non pro) board, I'm sure somebody would make one like Asrock did with gen1 TR. That they haven't made another may indicate how well that sold, relatively.
Click to expand...
Hell, ASrock made an ITX one - clearly didn't sell.
 
uOpt said:
Threadripper generally has faster per-core speed than even the low core count EPYC.

8-16 cores is not the right CPU for this. More cores required and I/O is not as much.
Click to expand...
Then you're really looking at Xeon, which has that subdivision and more options since Intel is trying to hit niche markets. Or just dealing with a larger platform, since there's very little reason to limit a CPU with that many lanes by not providing ways to use those lanes. It's a niche product anyway.
 
In The Premier League, they sometimes show match statistics. Like Corners 2-1.

Then, they add: Powered by Oracle Cloud.

Maybe. With this CPU, they don't need an entire cloud to keep track of the number of corners?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top