Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Corsair 2000D RGB Airflow Mini-ITX - PC chassis review
ASUS PG27AQDM Review - 240Hz 1440p OLED monitor
MSI MAG X670E Tomahawk WiFi review
Mountain Makalu Max mouse review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper Does Have Four 8-Core Dies (32-cores)
Remember that a while ago we mentioned that Threadripper basically is the 32-core processor, yet with four Dies on it? AMD at the time specified that two out of the four dies are dummies, basically blanks for for structural support under that heat-spreader. Well, there are four dies under there really.
Overclocker der8auer a while ago tried to de-lid a Threadripper, but with the heatspreader soldered to the dies he broke that CPU (of course). In his latest video he takes it a step further and check out the dummy dies. When he pealed them loose ...
Now if you can remember it, Threadripper really is based on the EPYC platform and processor, and EPYC offers up-to 32-core processors. When we looked at the early photos, you could clearly see 4 dies. Each Die basically is one Ryzen 1800 8-core unit. So many expected that two out of the four dies would be disabled. When we asked AMD about this at a recent summit they claimed that Threadripper has two working sies and two dummies to get you to the 16-cores. The two dummies would be in place for better structural support.
Well, these dummies seem to be 8-core dies (these are called Zeppeling dies). I personally think that AMD simply might be is re-using failed dies here and simply called them dummies as in non-working dies. No-body really knows except AMD of course. The reality remains to be that in the future AMD certainly can scale upwards towards 24-core or 32-core Threadrippers for X399. But the find by itself is rather interesting. Check out the photos below, courtesy of der8auer . .
Nobody should really care about all this as it is just not relevant, but the photos are fun and actually fascinating to see alright :-) Check the photos. His video can be spotted here.
AMD Ryzen PRO Desktop Processors Available Worldwide - 08/31/2017 05:41 PM
AMD today announced broad adoption of enterprise solutions featuring AMD Ryzen PRO desktop processors. Designed for business, Ryzen PRO processors bring reliability, security, and performance to addre...
G.SKILL Announces New DDR4 Specifications for AMD Ryzen Threadripper Processors - 08/10/2017 06:05 PM
G.SKILL are excited to announce all-new DDR4 specifications and expanding the Flare X series, designed for AMD processors and platforms. ...
Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - 08/10/2017 03:01 PM
In this article we review the sixteen core and 32 threaded Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. It is the flagship processor and product that will get a 3.4 GHz base frequency with the ability to precision boost...
Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 08/10/2017 03:01 PM
AMD also releases their Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, which we review and test. This this is the 12-core part, the base clock is a notch higher at 3.5 GHz and the precision boost is also 4.0 GHz. With 24 ...
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Reaches 4.1 GHz With Liquid Cooling - 08/09/2017 09:11 AM
And that is on all sixteen cores. As it seems a user on redddit called "callingthewolf" is showing off an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X tweaked towards 4.1 GHz. The proc normally has a...
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 8408
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 8408
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5472786 Posted on: 09/17/2017 02:45 PM
Most of your arguments are invalid.The Memory lines and the PCI-E are just unused if what you are saying was a problem then the MiniITX form factors would require special CPUs for them or any dual/quad chanel modern CPU would be unable to post with only one DIMM installed
That's not correct. Those motherboards know both how to tell the the CPU how to handle them as well as the CPU knows how to handle less due to both the CPU and Motherboard being designed to work with eachother. So your idea doesn't hold ground.
By that i mean, if i were to release a chipset with less features then the CPU can provide, or allow manufacturers to decide that fact with said chipset (for miniITX and etc.) then obviously i would be designing both the CPU and chipset to work with eachother on that. That fact does not state that if you did NOT design a chipset and/or CPU to work with eachother, that either part will understand how to handle more then what it was designed to understand is even possible.
To the more cores question , the mobo is not interested how many cores the cpu has on a hardware level it is all on BIOS level just a reminder of almost a decade ago the AM3 Phenom II X6 worked fine on the old AM2+ mobos that were manufactured in the Quad Core era and they didn't knew about a 6 core part until the X6 came along and BIOS update was provided.
That depends on if all 4094 pins are actually effectively being used, or if only half of them are being used. Quite frankly, it doesn't make much sense to use all pins if all CCX's aren't being used. The pins could be dummy pins, inactive, and go nowhere, on both the CPU and the motherboard. But we do not know how it is set up fully.
The only real problem will be the power delivery you will need to downclock the CPU in order not to fry the mobo power delivery.
I didn't even think of that.
Overall, my point is it's not really worth trying to figure out if it's possible due to the fact that there's too many factors, too many things the motherboard specifically was never designed to understand or handle, too many unknowns to think that what happened in "the old days" would even be possible now.
Most of your arguments are invalid.The Memory lines and the PCI-E are just unused if what you are saying was a problem then the MiniITX form factors would require special CPUs for them or any dual/quad chanel modern CPU would be unable to post with only one DIMM installed
That's not correct. Those motherboards know both how to tell the the CPU how to handle them as well as the CPU knows how to handle less due to both the CPU and Motherboard being designed to work with eachother. So your idea doesn't hold ground.
By that i mean, if i were to release a chipset with less features then the CPU can provide, or allow manufacturers to decide that fact with said chipset (for miniITX and etc.) then obviously i would be designing both the CPU and chipset to work with eachother on that. That fact does not state that if you did NOT design a chipset and/or CPU to work with eachother, that either part will understand how to handle more then what it was designed to understand is even possible.
To the more cores question , the mobo is not interested how many cores the cpu has on a hardware level it is all on BIOS level just a reminder of almost a decade ago the AM3 Phenom II X6 worked fine on the old AM2+ mobos that were manufactured in the Quad Core era and they didn't knew about a 6 core part until the X6 came along and BIOS update was provided.
That depends on if all 4094 pins are actually effectively being used, or if only half of them are being used. Quite frankly, it doesn't make much sense to use all pins if all CCX's aren't being used. The pins could be dummy pins, inactive, and go nowhere, on both the CPU and the motherboard. But we do not know how it is set up fully.
The only real problem will be the power delivery you will need to downclock the CPU in order not to fry the mobo power delivery.
I didn't even think of that.
Overall, my point is it's not really worth trying to figure out if it's possible due to the fact that there's too many factors, too many things the motherboard specifically was never designed to understand or handle, too many unknowns to think that what happened in "the old days" would even be possible now.
Neo Cyrus
Senior Member
Posts: 10558
Joined: 2006-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 10558
Joined: 2006-02-14
#5472934 Posted on: 09/18/2017 06:28 AM
Are we talking about the same thing? Either I'm thinking of something else or they're enormous for something that lacks an integrated GPU. And I have a hard time believing that 70%, is AMD on a larger process?
The Zeppelin dies aren't that big, and they announced 70% yield quite a while ago. 
Are we talking about the same thing? Either I'm thinking of something else or they're enormous for something that lacks an integrated GPU. And I have a hard time believing that 70%, is AMD on a larger process?
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5472964 Posted on: 09/18/2017 10:40 AM
213mm² isn't that big, for an 8c/16t chip.
Intels 8-core (based on the 10 core chips) is 308mm².
It has more memory channels etc, but its still much bigger.
AMD is on a larger process than Intel currently, yes.
I think its 14nm for AMD, and 14 or 12/10nm for Intel.
It might change for AMD's 7nm vs Intels 10nm next year, since I don't beleive Intel will be running to 7nm or below just yet...
Are we talking about the same thing? Either I'm thinking of something else or they're enormous for something that lacks an integrated GPU. And I have a hard time believing that 70%, is AMD on a larger process?
213mm² isn't that big, for an 8c/16t chip.
Intels 8-core (based on the 10 core chips) is 308mm².
It has more memory channels etc, but its still much bigger.
AMD is on a larger process than Intel currently, yes.
I think its 14nm for AMD, and 14 or 12/10nm for Intel.
It might change for AMD's 7nm vs Intels 10nm next year, since I don't beleive Intel will be running to 7nm or below just yet...
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 2005-03-08
I'd say put this idea to bed.
There's too many factors that would change to unlock the additional cores. A 12 core to 16 core, sure. But you'd be asking a motherboard and bios and possibly the CPU itself to work in a way it was never designed to. For instance, EPYC CPUs will not work on threadripper motherboards, even though they are physically the same. Why is that? Is it because the EPYC CPUs have additional DIMM slots it expects? Additional PCI-Express lanes that they expect? If a motherboard tells the CPU it has less of either of those, does the motherboard tell the EPYC CPU that they same way that a threadripper motherboard would?
This isn't like the old days where you could "unlock" CPU cores on a CPU. Those motherboards understood the additional cores and information to control them, because they supported the CPUs they had essentially become, already. AKA if a 6 core unlocked to an 8 core, that motherboard already knew how to handle an 8 core.
This is not like that. Threadripper motherboards only understand up to 16 cores, not 32. Not 17. As well as only understands how to utilize up to what a 16 core processor can give it, PCI-E lanes and such.
Not to mention the fact that you'd be trying to unlock 16 additional cores and you would have no idea how badly they failed. If they are BOTH failed chips, you're essentially doubling the risk, if not much much more, compared to how it was done before. "back in the day" unlocks were cores PART of the CPU package. This is entirely different, and would be essentially "waking up" 2 full CPU packages that are deemed non-working, to the point that they didn't even want to use them as 4-core Ryzen r3 chips.
Most of your arguments are invalid.The Memory lines and the PCI-E are just unused if what you are saying was a problem then the MiniITX form factors would require special CPUs for them or any dual/quad chanel modern CPU would be unable to post with only one DIMM installed
To the more cores question , the mobo is not interested how many cores the cpu has on a hardware level it is all on BIOS level just a reminder of almost a decade ago the AM3 Phenom II X6 worked fine on the old AM2+ mobos that were manufactured in the Quad Core era and they didn't knew about a 6 core part until the X6 came along and BIOS update was provided.
About the package it is again a CPU packadge the CPUs don't comunicate around the mobo with each other but with the Infinity Fabric on the CPU packadge.
About the bad silicon well here i agree but no catastrophic failure will happen.The machine won't POST because of CPU errors with the faulty areas activated like it always did with the older architectures.
The only real problem will be the power delivery you will need to downclock the CPU in order not to fry the mobo power delivery.