3rd Gen Ryzen based Threadripper could be released in October - up-to 64 cores
Click here to post a comment for 3rd Gen Ryzen based Threadripper could be released in October - up-to 64 cores on our message forum
Clawedge
Intels reactionhttps://i.ibb.co/Lzz7jpp/a49qx9-JG-700w-0.jpg
sverek
Amateur. Real men create meme during the process.
alanm
I'll bet quite a few people who dont need it will buy it (gamers).
mohiuddin
Waiting for it.
HWgeek
AMD already hinted that 3rd gen Threadripper going up-to 64C, listen Lisa Su and other AMD stuff - they all use : "....Move Up, Up" this refers that this Gen will move 2 steps above current 32C limit on TR, thus there will be 48C and 64C.
The interesting part will be the Chiplet/Cache config for 16c~32C parts:
16C 64MB or 128MB with 4 chiplets
32C 128MB or 256MB with 8 chiplets
In Epyc lineup they offer all the configs with diff cach sized due to num of chiplets used.
Also- looks like the Chipset will use the large I/O die from Rome- how they gonna cool 25~50W chipset?
P.S: Intel is already reacting in secter to upcoming EPYC/TR with "new" 240W TDP parts for extra 50% price increase:
[URL unfurl="true"]https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193956/intel-xeon-platinum-8284-processor-38-5m-cache-3-00-ghz.html[/URL]
[URL unfurl="true"]https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/192487/intel-xeon-platinum-8274-processor-35-75m-cache-3-10-ghz.html[/URL]
[URL unfurl="true"]https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/192458/intel-xeon-gold-6269y-processor-30-25m-cache-3-20-ghz.html[/URL]
moo100times
*Does the happy dance*
lmimmfn
Imagining how wonderful those cores would look in taskmanager
schmidtbag
If AMD wants to battle Intel in HEDT, they just have to keep doing what they've been doing with AM4: disintegrate the HEDT market by making many-core CPUs affordable on mainstream platforms. As long as Intel uses a monolithic die, they can't really do this. Besides, with the rate AMD is going, there's hardly any incentive to go for TR anymore, since whatever you get will become obsolete in a couple of years.
D3M1G0D
I'd say that's the way it should be. As an enthusiast, I despaired when I saw the poor upgrade options three years after buying a 4790K (the 7700K, which was about as mediocre an upgrade as one can imagine). It's this frustration which ultimately led me to abandon Intel for AMD, and I do not want AMD going the same route. Like Matisse, I expect a major jump in performance with third-gen TR and a worthy upgrade option, making previous gen products completely obsolete.
Ricardo
I don't think we'll see AMD raising the number of cores for a while now. The current design is already pretty robust, and aside from another die shrink, there's only so many cores that can fit the physical space of a die. Zen 3 will (probably) be a refresh aimed at better performance per core and better latency, with probable improvements to the chiplet design. And the future after that is a mystery really.
So I think investing in a TR CPU that uses Zen 2 would be good for the next 3 years at least. They might release a TR based on Zen 3, but will probably only have better cores, not more.
schmidtbag
It's one thing to want upgrade options, but to me, it leaves a bitter taste when you buy a product that is trounced in almost every conceivable way for a fraction of the price in a very short timeframe. Since TR was never really intended to be a budget option, I'm sure owners of it don't care as much about obsolescence, but I guess what I'm getting at is knowing AMD's recent track record, it doesn't really make sense to go for TR considering you could just wait a couple years for something faster and more efficient at half the price. If you need more cores now and price doesn't matter that much, might as well go for Epyc.
That's what we've been saying the last 2 years, and yet, we kept getting proven wrong. Nobody was expecting AM4 to have 16 cores, and yet, it is confirmed. I'm not at all expecting 32+ cores for AM4, but, I bet we will see that for AM5.
Possibly. There are enough differences with Zen2 (with the IF and chiplet design) where some of TR's shortcomings might be resolved. Since the socket already exists, AMD might as well use it. Besides, the additional PCIe lanes and more consistent support for ECC gives Threadripper a bit of an edge.
Ricardo
But that was because of the jump from 14nm to 7nm, which only happened fast because AMD went 14nm when it was more or less already mature enough and 7nm was close. 7nm is relatively far newer, and will still see a few refreshes before 5nm starts to become reasonable to use. So it will probably take a while before we see another jump in number of cores like that. Again, die space is already well used, and each Zen 2 "core" probably won't change enough to allow more cores to fit in the existing space.
They may be able to fit more cores if they make the IO controller 7nm as well, but that's kinda overkill and I don't think will happen on Zen 3. Even if that happens, AMD is trouncing Intel in number of cores now, so there's little incentive to raise the bar that much more. I mean, come on, do we really need more than 64 cores on anything other than a server? I think AMD will calm down now 😛
I think Zen 2 TR will have insane scalability, if current Ryzen is any indication. Just look at most multi-threaded benchmarks of the 3900x - it scales almost linearly when compared with the 3700x. So, the IF is much more efficient and doesn't really mismanage resources between cores as much (and maybe windows scheduler isn't fumbling as much?), meaning that things like "Game mode" won't even be necessary anymore. I would say it will be a very nice buy for those that need as many cores as they can get.
bjtag
Do I need it.... No.... But that's what they said in 2009 when I bought i7 970 6core (4ghz OC)and 24gigs!!! That i rocked till Ryzen Sidestep upgrade 2 months ago(2700x and 64gb)
It's fast, But will probably upgrade to TR Zen2 64core ASAP that i'll probably rock Foreseeable 5 plus years...
Silva
Now AMD is really paving the way for the future, Intel has nothing to fight this short term.
Home, Workstation and Server, AMD CPU division has everything covered.
Now if only the GPU division would catch up...
schmidtbag
Transistor size is irrelevant (besides, AMD went from 12nm to 7). The 16 cores for 1st gen TR was a surprise. 32 cores for 2nd gen was a surprise, and there wasn't a major die shrink. 64 cores for Epyc was a surprise. 12 cores for AM4 was a surprise. All of these were surprises specifically because people had expectations just like what you said right there.
All that being said, normally, I'd totally agree with you, but just when we're like "nah, there's not enough room" they somehow make more room, and a die shrink isn't the only factor allowing them to do that. I'd like to agree with you that refreshes and expanding dies will slow down, but every time I said that, I was wrong.
Yes, I agree with all of this. Like I said before, I'm not expecting AM4 to get any more big core counts, because it's reaching EOL next year. I'm sure the last products released for AM4 will be the Zen2-based APUs. Frankly, I think 16 cores is still overkill for the average user. But, as long as people think more cores means universally more performance, it's a good marketing ploy and works against Intel.
Right, this is why I was saying the improvements in IF and the chiplet design might help overcome TR's shortcomings. But the key word here is "might". For the existing TR models, the greatest issue is how they're basically 2 separate CPUs with their own memory controllers crammed on the same die that can talk to each other. The chiplet design, in theory, should obsolete that (in which case you'd be right that "game mode" won't be necessary).
Also last time I checked, the Windows scheduler was still pretty numb. MS really needs to get their act together, because other OSes got their schedulers figured out.
theoneofgod
Wonderful, but look at this
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13522/DqZNVuwWsAA3tHy.jpg
😱
alanm
You may have 'rocked it' for 10 years, even though it was made virtually obsolete in 1 year by the i7 2600k at less than half the price.
D3M1G0D
Like I said, it's the way things should be. Also, two years is not a short time-frame, especially in the tech world. People regularly upgrade their phone every two years, and PC enthusiasts typically upgrade their GPU every two/three years and want big performance increases when they do. The mediocre improvements with Nvidia's RTX series wasn't at all welcome for enthusiasts using their 10-series cards - if anything, we were extremely bitter about it. It didn't really matter to me that RTX extended the relevance of my 1080 Ti, I was upset that they had failed to move the needle on performance per dollar after two years of waiting.
It took two years for Zen 2 to match/exceed first-gen TR so TR customers have certainly gotten their money's worth. EPYC is also no exception - a 64-core third-gen TR would make short work of a first-gen 32-core EPYC. Technology moves forward, and what was high-end before quickly becomes low-end.
schmidtbag
Considering trends for the last decade, 2 years is a very short amount of time for a mainstream socket to outperform nearly all products in an HEDT socket in most tests. The last time we saw this level of performance increase was in the 1990s.
EDIT: And I remember how people in the 90s were really bitter about buying a new PC that was so quickly obsoleted.
Most people upgrade their phones because they're too stupid or lazy (or both) to clear out their old junk. Also, the batteries degrade and their contract allows them to get a new phone for little to no extra cost.
As for GPUs, people are bitter about that because prices keep going up but we're not getting anything with the level of performance we want. There's an actual demand for GPU power, but even a 7700K is sufficient for most gamers (for now).
Yes, I would say early adopters got their money's worth, or, those who bought a TR system after the prices plummeted from Zen2's release. I also agree that a 64-core TR would easily beat out a 1st gen 32-core Epyc, but the comparisons get much more muddy at that point. Server hardware is always much more expensive, and their workloads are so drastically different.
Ricardo
While AMD did go from 12nm to 7nm, when transitioning from 14nm to 12nm the whole transistor count remained the same, and also the position of all components. The only change was related to better spacing between components and better power drawn due to smaller size, so in a way they were largely the same processor, only more efficient. That's why AMD refrained from calling it "Zen 2" and instead called it "Zen +" - it was a simple refresh of the same design.
Source
The jump from 14/12nm to 7nm was vastly different though. And that's why I believe it won't happen for one or maybe two more generations - another die shrink would be needed to make enough space for more cores, and doing that too early would be more costly without a real need for it, since Intel can't match a TR with 64 cores.
2nd gen wasn't a surprise - we knew from EPYC that it was possible, only AMD didn't want to cannibalize their own products. So it was always known that there was enough space in TR to hold 32 cores.
With Zen 2, however, we already know the size of the chips and can guess how many would fit in a TR package - roughly 4 times of what is in regular Ryzen, provided that the 14nm IO controller can handle 8 different Zen cores. So, again, unless they shrink the 14nm chip, there won't be a lot of space (and power) left for more Zen cores, and thus the number of cores won't go up without fundamental changes. I don't believe that's the case for the foreseeable future, since AMD can really profit on the current designs for a while.
And I totally agree with your other points.
