AMD Announces Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and 1950X processors

Denial

2017-07-13 15:03

Pricing looks good, nearly linear scaling with the rest of the lineup. I personally have no use for that many cores - but people doing video work/running VM's/etc will probably love these things. Having 16 cores at 4Ghz would be pretty awesome.

#5452147

schmidtbag

2017-07-13 15:16

Seems AMD isn't [yet] wasting their time with lower-clocked and/or non-X variants, and I don't blame them. Considering the limited overclockability of Ryzen, everyone would buy cheaper variants and OC them if they were available. Haha funny how the Ryzen 3s were also emboldened at the bottom, like "oh yeah and BTW, these exist too, but they're not worth reporting on".

#5452149

BLEH!

2017-07-13 15:19

So chances are this will clock similar to standard DT Ryzen (4-4.1 GHz), but with 16 cores, and at probably a far more reasonable power consumption than X299?

#5452150

k3lt

2017-07-13 15:20

Single Threaded performance still sucks?

#5452151

ahossein

2017-07-13 15:21

12 cores with a base clock of 3.5 GHz and a boost clock of 4 GHz at the asking price of $799 is a steel, really.

#5452153

Denial

2017-07-13 15:24

So chances are this will clock similar to standard DT Ryzen (4-4.1 GHz), but with 16 cores, and at probably a far more reasonable power consumption than X299?

Statistically it will clock slightly worse than the 1800x (it's basically two 1800x's stuck together), so you double the chance of a core not hitting whatever the target frequency is. Power consumption per core will be lower, but Intel's top X299 parts will probably cap out at 300w, this might be the same when all the cores are clocked at 4ghz. Threadripper has a larger surface area though and soldered IHS (at least as far as we know). It also has the same AVX performance as Ryzen. Temps will be far lower.

Single Threaded performance still sucks?

I guess if sucks is defined by "90% of the competition's for half the price".

#5452154

Amx85

2017-07-13 15:31

Pricing looks good, nearly linear scaling with the rest of the lineup. I personally have no use for that many cores - but people doing video work/running VM's/etc will probably love these things. Having 16 cores at 4Ghz would be pretty awesome.

Is´nt 16 cores @4.00GHz, "Precision Boost" just affects 1 core per CCX, up 200MHz over "Max Turbo Boost", Max Turbo Boost affects up to Half of theads, could be up to 3.80GHz, "Turbo Boost" affects all threads, could be 3.60GHz, then is a 16 cores @3.60GHz :infinity:

#5452155

Amx85

2017-07-13 15:33

So chances are this will clock similar to standard DT Ryzen (4-4.1 GHz), but with 16 cores, and at probably a far more reasonable power consumption than X299?

yeah, 32 cores "EPYC" draws lower power than 28 cores "Platinium" Xeons :infinity: AMD RYZEN ark are way more efficent than Kabylake/Skylake 😛c1:

#5452157

Exascale

2017-07-13 15:37

Single Threaded performance still sucks?

Guess you missed all the months of info on AMDs new architecture. They are beating Intel at every price point. Single thread performance is good, and you get 2x the cores and a lot more features than Intel. This CPU supports ECC from what i have read, so it should be able to compete with some of the ridiculously overpriced Xeons for a fraction of the cost.

#5452158

Aura89

2017-07-13 15:37

16 cores, 32 threads, 3.4Ghz, 4.0Ghz boost, $999, my freakin goodness

Single Threaded performance still sucks?

Hi 2004, you might want to visit 2017.

#5452159

Denial

2017-07-13 15:37

Is´nt 16 cores @4.00GHz, "Precision Boost" just affects 1 core per CCX, up 200MHz over "Max Turbo Boost", Max Turbo Boost affects up to Half of theads, could be up to 3.80GHz, "Turbo Boost" affects all threads, could be 3.60GHz, then is a 16 cores @3.60GHz :infinity:

Yeah, I'm talking about overclocking though. Like there are definitely people that buy this and have all 16 cores at 4Ghz. Pair with a few Vega GPU's and some decent virtualization software and you can run like 4 fully fledged gaming systems off one computer. If I had a family with kids I'd totally do that for nerd cred.

#5452161

Amx85

2017-07-13 15:40

Single Threaded performance still sucks?

Umm, since Intel just has 10% higher top clocks (4.50GHz vs 4.00GHz) and less than 5% higher IPC, yeah, but thats on games, ThreadTripper is´nt a gaming CPU, in render you prefer 32 Threads @3.60GHz than 20 Threads @4.30GHz :infinity:

#5452164

Amx85

2017-07-13 15:52

guess you missed all the months of info on amds new architecture. They are beating intel at every price point. Single thread performance is good, and you get 2x the cores and a lot more features than intel. This cpu supports ecc from what i have read, so it should be able to compete with some of the ridiculously overpriced xeons for a fraction of the cost.

yes!

#5452166

Silva

2017-07-13 15:57

Single Threaded performance still sucks?

Intel fanboys will fanboy all over the place. Because of the modular design (CCX) AMD can afford to price these very competitively. Intel, on the other hand, charge a kidney for every core you add above 4. Treadripper is the ultimate workstation, AMD won 2017 for the CPU. Let's hope they're working hard on Navi.

#5452167

Evildead666

2017-07-13 15:58

I'd guess, logically, with those price points, that the 10-core version would be about $699, and a possible 8 core version (with quad channel memory still and those 64 PCIe lanes) at $599. They might not do an 8 core version, in which case I'd hope for a lower clocked 10 core at that price point. Also leaves room for a 14 core version at $899. All good though. 😉

#5452173

Embra

2017-07-13 16:09

I'd guess, logically, with those price points, that the 10-core version would be about $699, and a possible 8 core version (with quad channel memory still and those 64 PCIe lanes) at $599. They might not do an 8 core version, in which case I'd hope for a lower clocked 10 core at that price point. Also leaves room for a 14 core version at $899. All good though. 😉

Maybe a little cheaper ($50 or so) with the Ryzen 7 price drops.

#5452175

StewieTech

2017-07-13 16:14

Man that cpu is huge look at it on the guys hand! 16 core, sweet.

#5452181

IceVip

2017-07-13 16:24

Not sure how i feel about rushing towards the 8core. Should've waited for this.. but when i bought the 8 core threadripper wasn't even a rumour.

#5452182

Zeka

2017-07-13 16:24

This is just amazing. This level of performance in a desktop computer is out of this world I just checked the pricing on the i9 7900x : Amazon lists at $1049 (out of stock) and Newegg $1186 (also out of stock)

#5452184

schmidtbag

2017-07-13 16:35

Not sure how i feel about rushing towards the 8core. Should've waited for this.. but when i bought the 8 core threadripper wasn't even a rumour.

I find this confusing. Why is this now an issue? Why do you need more? For many years, there were more powerful CPUs than what you have, so what difference does it make that AMD is releasing a 16-core? If it is supporting AMD that you like, their 16-core Opterons (which have been available for a while) supported dual and quad socket.