just because there is no connections, does not mean it wasnt EPYC with laser cut to disable, not the first time any cpu/gpu have done exactly this LOL.....he is basically just saying "cannot enable the 2 dies because they have been disabled/cut" shame they couldnt optimize a hair further to pick the best of the dies of the 4 available for lowest leakage/highest speed possible and use that extra space for embedded vapor chamber or something along those lines as they are anything but low cost parts, seems a bunch of wasted space for a wonking huge cpu to me ^.^

@Dragonstongue. ZERO difference. If "your" dead, it doesn't matter if it was of old age/accident or anything else, as end result is still the same... "you" only disable cores etc if market demand is high AND you have good yields. dont see this with zen, as they started releasing the lower core (amount) cpus first, as to gain stock on hand for TR or maybe even 1xC on X370

So the threadripper-dummy is dead? RIP

Finally, I will sleep better knowing the truth.

Just as I had thought. AMD called them dummy dies to make it clear that there was no way to activate them.

I think I just shed a tear...all those cores will never have a future...sad 🙁

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.

So what's the point of having those two there, then? Heat dispersion?

vonSternberg:

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.

RmVA:

So the threadripper-dummy is dead? RIP

Honestly, this is the best post in this thread so far.

schmidtbag:

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.

Oh that makes total sense, I haven't thought of that.

schmidtbag:

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.

Considering how many SKUs of thread ripper there are at 16cores or less, the smartest and cheapest long run solution would to be to rearrange the two dies to a top/bottom layout. What happens when they get yields to very high rates to which they have limited amount of dead dies? Are they going to go out of stock on threadripper? Doesn't make any sense the route they went.

Agent-A01:

Considering how many SKUs of thread ripper there are at 16cores or less, the smartest and cheapest long run solution would to be to rearrange the two dies to a top/bottom layout.

I'm assuming what you actually meant was "remove the 2 dummy dies and position the 2 functioning dies in the center of the package, side-by-side". In one perspective, what you said may be true. But there are some things to consider. For example, the dummy dies are literally waste products, so I don't think their current layout is a whole lot more expensive than you may think. Meanwhile, their current layout is pretty good at dissipating heat. The two cores are pretty much as far away from each other as they can get, so heat won't be concentrated in one small spot. Also, the sheer size of the package may limit where each die can be positioned. Keep in mind TR and Epyc mostly share the same socket, so "downscaling" the Epyc design may be cheaper than re-arranging the layout.

What happens when they get yields to very high rates to which they have limited amount of dead dies?

Then they'll use actual blanks with legitimately no transistors. Or, they could just wedge a piece of steel in there for even better thermal dissipation at a negligible price. This isn't that complicated.

Are they going to go out of stock on threadripper? Doesn't make any sense the route they went.

TR isn't that high-demand of a product. Most people aren't willing to spend $550+ on a single CPU. The only part of AMD's route that doesn't make sense is how the CCXs seem to need symmetry. They used this multi-die system to help reduce costs, but the design of the CCX must contribute a lot of waste.

Agent-A01:

Considering how many SKUs of thread ripper there are at 16cores or less, the smartest and cheapest long run solution would to be to rearrange the two dies to a top/bottom layout. What happens when they get yields to very high rates to which they have limited amount of dead dies? Are they going to go out of stock on threadripper? Doesn't make any sense the route they went.

On the contrary, I think it's the most cost-effective solution. Threadripper is a derivative of EPYC and likely uses the same production line. To do what you're suggesting would mean creating a separate line specifically for TR, which would take both time and money.

"Won't be able to activate" doesn't mean "TR4 socket can't run on all-4-die-activated chips". It might only runs with 4 channels of memory, and the other 2 non-channeled dies have to rely on the 2 channeled memory controller for data feed; therefore, more latencies, but it doesn't matter much for heavily threaded tasks and this what high-core CPUs are meant for. We won't see full 32-core CPUs for "The Rippers", yes "The Rippers", any time in the next 10 years, no way; but 6-core x4 = 24 and 8-core x3 = 24 are possible if Intel manages to release its 18-cores with all-core boost clock goes beyond 3.0GHz. An 18-core monolithic CPU could be as big as a Vega chip, no joke. It is gonna be hard to harvest good chips that clock well.

So if the the dies are dead whytf is the damn cpu so freaking big then? They couldn't design a cpu with two working dies without making it just smaller than a cell phone? Or was this planned to waste as much space as possible on a new platform, to insinuate bigger cpu equals bigger output? Also going down this path of reasoning when ZEN 2 comes out will that cpu be even bigger than the TR to insinuate even more power? The explanation that it creates an even cooling area is blsheet. A smaller cpu would ensure even cooling. AMD is now using smoke and mirrors, what's next, pull a 32core 64 thread cpu out of a top hat? Don't get me wrong, I'm still buying Ryzen. But I don't like where AMD is going on pr.

So your saying you would pay more if the die was smaller?? Lol..

NewTRUMP Order:

So if the the dies are dead whytf is the damn cpu so freaking big then? They couldn't design a cpu with two working dies without making it just smaller than a cell phone? Or was this planned to waste as much space as possible on a new platform, to insinuate bigger cpu equals bigger output? Also going down this path of reasoning when ZEN 2 comes out will that cpu be even bigger than the TR to insinuate even more power? The explanation that it creates an even cooling area is blsheet. A smaller cpu would ensure even cooling. AMD is now using smoke and mirrors, what's next, pull a 32core 64 thread cpu out of a top hat? Don't get me wrong, I'm still buying Ryzen. But I don't like where AMD is going on pr.

Yeah.. that is surely for this reason... seriously... Reduce cost and simplify the integration.. same socket.. same heatspreader, same substrate size , same line of assembly for the package etc.. TR is derivated from Epyc, plateform share same socket type etc, this way no need to rework all ( and this is true too for motherboard partners )

Mr Tran:

"Won't be able to activate" doesn't mean "TR4 socket can't run on all-4-die-activated chips".

In this case, yes it does mean that, because as stated in the article, the dies aren't wired up. They're non-functional and they never will be: end of discussion.

NewTRUMP Order:

So if the the dies are dead whytf is the damn cpu so freaking big then? They couldn't design a cpu with two working dies without making it just smaller than a cell phone? Or was this planned to waste as much space as possible on a new platform, to insinuate bigger cpu equals bigger output? Also going down this path of reasoning when ZEN 2 comes out will that cpu be even bigger than the TR to insinuate even more power? The explanation that it creates an even cooling area is blsheet. A smaller cpu would ensure even cooling. AMD is now using smoke and mirrors, what's next, pull a 32core 64 thread cpu out of a top hat? Don't get me wrong, I'm still buying Ryzen. But I don't like where AMD is going on pr.

Does it really matter? If anything, the gargantuan die has been a marketing attraction to TR, and many reviewers are drawing a lot of attention to it (getting AMD's name out there) so it seems to be working in AMD's favor regardless of how unnecessary the size is. At least it helps with temperatures. Anyway, the CPU is so big because it's cheaper for AMD to recycle the same physical socket as Epyc. AM4 likely isn't capable of handling the extra cores, PCIe lanes, and memory bandwidth of TR. I don't think Epyc (or at least future iterations of Epyc) would work so well on a smaller socket. So, since it'd be too expensive to create another socket for a relatively niche market, AMD just recycled the TR4 socket. The end result wouldn't be any more or less convenient to the consumer. The socket would still have to be bigger than AM4, which means you're still going to need a new motherboard and new heatsink mounting brackets.

maybe they did it to let intel feel good about their 18 core cpu, so now intel is hopefully set on 18 core max for x299 and whatever comes next in the next year while amd is free to unleash a 24-32c part, but I also wonder if they are not wired because they are meant to be dead or because the x399 chipset isnt wired for the extra dies at all