AMD Announces 32-core / 64-threads Ryzen Threadripper (12nm Zen+)
Click here to post a comment for AMD Announces 32-core / 64-threads Ryzen Threadripper (12nm Zen+) on our message forum
BigMaMaInHouse
Yes!!! we knew it gonna happen from day 1 🙂, and the best part is that it's backward compatibility, best for working workstation that you don't need to rebuild the system an reinstall all the programs and setting it all up- this is huge time saver for professionals!
RIP Intel!
PS- while Intel has problem on 10nm, AMD Epyc 7nm already in testing 🙂
chispy
64 threads of goodness ... 😀
SaLaDiN666
The same pr stunt as Intel did, cpus with higher core counts /16+/ gonna be bottlenecked thanks to the quad channel and the new added parts will not have the direct access to the memory, that is going to add huge latencies and performance penalty.
Phragmeister
I guess it's just a matter of piling on the cores until an improved tech arrives that will allow 10GHz+ clock speeds without liquid nitrogen cooling. Perhaps graphene will save us in the next 10/15 years. Next up, however, Intel i9 extreme 64 cores 128 threads!
sverek
ok 🙂
Elder III
I don't need this, but I sure do want one of these bad boys. 🙂
Fox2232
Maybe you could have waited a moment for my reply in other thread.
There is IF between CCX(CPU complex) and IMC. In other words they have exactly same concurrency.
Edit: And btw. PR stunt is showing CPU score from benchmark when it is OCed and eats like 700W+.
AMD introduced chip and its specs. Specs which allows normal user to plug it into MB, and keep it operational.
nizzen
Strange that "they" said this when Ryzen and threadripper 1 lounched...
Is Intel done now?
What happened is that ryzen and threadripper lowered they're prizes.
Ps: I have 1800x and TR 1950x 😉
LEEc337
You could see a 32c/64t tr comin when the first gen tr came out, it had the space then could they squeeze any more under there if they rearrange the ccx's
Mugsy
Didn't they confirm the 24 core since they did that demo in blender between the intel and a 24 core threadripper 2 ? Then they showed the 32 core demo.
nizzen
Explane, and make the forums better 🙂
asturur
For me having 64 threads could possibly mean waiting for my test suite 1/5 ( at best ) of the time compared to now that i have 12 threads
I wonder if my platimax 1350w could support it.
Fox2232
Would not worry about that PSU. It is great. I would worry about 250W going through VRMs. They have to be made for it and have proper cooling.
If one is using liquid for CPU, then VRMs may need additional fan.
nevcairiel
Its not going to scale linearly because individual cores get slower the more you add. A 16c TR is 180W, a 32c is reportedly 250W, thats not going to double your performance outside of very specific workloads.
nizzen
There is no problem with 250w+ with the top tier x399 mainboards 🙂
I have Asrock x399 fatality pro , and have no problems overclocking my 1950x to 4.2ghz on all cores 🙂
nevcairiel
Intels 10nm has been in testing for years. Testing doesn't mean shit. Full mass production runs with proper yields is what is important, and 7nm isn't there yet either.
Hopefully Intel can fix high-performance 10nm by 2019, proper advancement is important to have on both sides to keep progress going.
PS:
Intels 10nm is about the same density as what everyone else calls 7nm, just to get that out of the way.
Perjantai
These announcements about 28 core intels and 32 core threadrippers makes my inner nerd moist. Still waiting for good reason/price to get +10 core processor.
D3M1G0D
It's just as I (and many others) any expected. Intel announced a 28 core Core i9 to try to steal AMD's thunder. Nice to see the official announcement (and no water chiller gimmick like Intel 😉).
I have to say, I've always been a bit disappointed that the first-gen TRs had two dummy dies - a CPU with all four active dies feels like a more complete product. It's also nice to hear that it will be compatible with the current X399 platform - I could slip this right into my current system (the extra power and thermal requirements should already be covered, as I'm using a custom loop with a beefy PSU). As I mentioned in the Intel thread, this will be perfect for grid computing.
AcidSnow
I'm not a server, I'm a gamer. ...So until games take advantage of more than 4 or even 8 cores, I have to say that I don't really care.
sluflyer06
lol, yea...done with what? For non server use these kind of core counts don't mean a thing for either Intel or AMD, it's 100% useless for >90% of people for both home and work use. It's nothing for than a halo marketing move for both companies, has nothing to do with actual usefulness so it has no impact at all. Single thread performance is still incredibly important so it doesn't do AMD or Intel fans a solid by chasing core count.
