GALAX GeForce RTX 4070 Ti EX White review
Cougar Terminator gaming chair review
G.Skill TridentZ5 RGB DDR5 7200 CL34 2x16 GB review
ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
AMD James Prior Sheds Light on Threadripper Dummy Dies
AMD's Senior Product Manager, James Prior talked a bit about the story that broke earlier on last week related to the fact that Threadripper is fitted with four AMD Zepplin dies. He mentions that the two extra dies have "no path to operation".
That also means you cannot activate 32-cores of course and that EPYC is a different processor (but sharing the same design). Prior outted his remarks on twitter:
Threadripper is not a Epyc processor. Different substrate, different dies. 2 dies work, other 2 have no path to operation. Basically rocks.
Prior also added that AMD decided to use the term "dummy" instead of "inactive" to describe Threadripper's additional dies as there is no way of utilizing/activating these additional CPU dies.
Yes, exactly why they're not described as inactive, but dummy. Doesn't matter if they were dead, or active, they're not going to work.
Earlier on overclocker der8auer tried to de-lid a Threadripper, but with the heatspreader soldered to the dies he broke that CPU (of course). In his video he took it a step further and check out the dummy dies. When he pealed them loose, the four dies revealed themselves, opposed to some sort of two die / two dummy configuration. James Prior however still has not mentioned as to why exactly they are using two extra dies? But likely, the ones used did not pass wafer inspections, e.g. they are non working dead and thus re-used
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7261
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7261
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5473346 Posted on: 09/19/2017 03:58 PM
Just as I said before: they're functionally dummies or blanks. I really don't understand why everyone got their panties caught up in a knot about something so petty. James didn't need to come out and state something so obvious. It really makes no difference if they use defective dies or legitimately transistor-less dies.
But hypothetically, let's say these dies were in fact wired in a way where you could in theory unlock them and use them. Do people really have no clue how improbable that is? To my knowledge, you can't stick an Epyc in a TR motherboard, so even if it had core unlocking, the additional cores couldn't be used anyway. Remember, the BIOS needs to be able to know how to use whatever CPU you put in it. I'm not sure Epyc boards support TR either, but for argument's sake let's say they can. We all know Epyc is for servers and heavy-duty workstations, where motherboard manufacturers (regardless of permission) would never offer core unlocking; you're lucky to find such a board that offers overclocking. But assuming one did, these boards are even more expensive than the already pricey TR boards. You really want to pay hundreds of dollars extra for such a gamble? Meanwhile, even if none of the above situations were a problem, keep in mind that AMD's CCX system appears to need symmetrical functioning cores. Remember - these dies were used as dummies because they were deemed too dysfunctional for use. What this means is if you bought the 16-core TR, you would be required to have all disabled cores fully operational. Depending how many (or maybe which) cores are dysfunctional, you might actually end up losing cores that were enabled out-of-the-box. And then you have to deal with whatever complicated mess is involved with the memory controllers and PCIe lanes, since each CCX appears to supply their own.
It boggles my mind why anyone has the slightest glimpse of hope that they could ever unlock these two dies, or feels that they're being wasted.
Just as I said before: they're functionally dummies or blanks. I really don't understand why everyone got their panties caught up in a knot about something so petty. James didn't need to come out and state something so obvious. It really makes no difference if they use defective dies or legitimately transistor-less dies.
But hypothetically, let's say these dies were in fact wired in a way where you could in theory unlock them and use them. Do people really have no clue how improbable that is? To my knowledge, you can't stick an Epyc in a TR motherboard, so even if it had core unlocking, the additional cores couldn't be used anyway. Remember, the BIOS needs to be able to know how to use whatever CPU you put in it. I'm not sure Epyc boards support TR either, but for argument's sake let's say they can. We all know Epyc is for servers and heavy-duty workstations, where motherboard manufacturers (regardless of permission) would never offer core unlocking; you're lucky to find such a board that offers overclocking. But assuming one did, these boards are even more expensive than the already pricey TR boards. You really want to pay hundreds of dollars extra for such a gamble? Meanwhile, even if none of the above situations were a problem, keep in mind that AMD's CCX system appears to need symmetrical functioning cores. Remember - these dies were used as dummies because they were deemed too dysfunctional for use. What this means is if you bought the 16-core TR, you would be required to have all disabled cores fully operational. Depending how many (or maybe which) cores are dysfunctional, you might actually end up losing cores that were enabled out-of-the-box. And then you have to deal with whatever complicated mess is involved with the memory controllers and PCIe lanes, since each CCX appears to supply their own.
It boggles my mind why anyone has the slightest glimpse of hope that they could ever unlock these two dies, or feels that they're being wasted.
vonSternberg
Senior Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 2017-09-12
Senior Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 2017-09-12
#5473351 Posted on: 09/19/2017 04:05 PM
So what's the point of having those two there, then? Heat dispersion?
So what's the point of having those two there, then? Heat dispersion?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7261
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7261
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5473352 Posted on: 09/19/2017 04:08 PM
Physical balance, so when installing the heatsinks you don't bend the integrated heatsink and break anything. Something needs to go there to protect the functioning dies, AMD has defective dies they can't use, and those dies just happen to be the exact right depth.
So what's the point of having those two there, then? Heat dispersion?
Physical balance, so when installing the heatsinks you don't bend the integrated heatsink and break anything. Something needs to go there to protect the functioning dies, AMD has defective dies they can't use, and those dies just happen to be the exact right depth.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 15142
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 15142
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5473355 Posted on: 09/19/2017 04:14 PM
So the threadripper-dummy is dead?
RIP
Honestly, this is the best post in this thread so far.
So the threadripper-dummy is dead?
RIP
Honestly, this is the best post in this thread so far.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 7835
Joined: 2011-07-20
I think I just shed a tear...all those cores will never have a future...sad