Yeah, just saw the video by Der8auer. Quite interesting, although not too surprised. Perhaps Threadripper is just EPYC CPUs that didn't quite make it?

I can't say this surprises me either. But hey, at least now we know delidding one of these things isn't a viable option. "We are a bit puzzled as to how things are configured for the to be released 16-core threadripper. Common sense dictates that two dies would be disabled, then again there could be four dies active with 2 disabled cores per CCX. But ergo, Threadripper really is 32-core EPYC. And that opens up so many question like is that 1 DRAM channel per die ?" I'm sure it's not as complicated as it might seem. Kind of the point of the CCXs and infinity fabric is to exchange data across the entire die. So it wouldn't surprise me if in some cases an entire CCX has no active cores, but the L3 cache, memory controller, and PCIe lanes are still available for the others to utilize. Maybe I'm way off, but how else would AMD account for defective cores in such a complex CPU? Perhaps this is why AMD never made any single-CCX Ryzens, because otherwise that might have forced it into single-channel memory.

That means yields are not that great, that they use only "half" of cores. Ok, let's pretend they are. vbetts, is this comment also too flaming for you to tolerate my presence and refusal to love AMD?

That means yields are not that great, that they use only "half" of cores.

I wouldn't say that so absolutely, but you're probably right. Keep in mind though that core count seems inversely proportionate to potential buyers. In other words, I'm sure more people have an interest in a 16 core than a 32 core. So ultimately, it works out for processor manufacturers. As with anything you manufacture, the more complex it is, the greater the chances of there being a defect. It's inevitable, and too expensive to just throw these things away, so they're limited in various ways. Take LCDs for example - manufacturers allow more headroom of dead pixels as panels get larger, because when you've got a 30" display with a dead pixel here and there, that's a lot of product that'd otherwise go to waste: http://www.tested.com/tech/1337-we-uncover-the-dead-pixel-policies-for-every-major-lcd-maker/

vbetts, is this comment also too flaming for you to tolerate my presence and refusal to love AMD?

For once, I'd say the first part wasn't. However, I'm not sure he's going to appreciate the 2nd half :wanker:

Holy mother of cores... !! If they are able to build these at a decently low production cost, it means that they can compete with Intel's offerings indefinitely. Sometime 2018: Intel (finally) launches their 18-core uber-expensive 1999$ top of the line HEDT. "We have moar corez !" AMD: "yawn" ... launches 24 cores TR Intel ups the frequency 100Mhz in despair... TDP goes through the startosphere. AMD: "more yawn" ... launches 32 cores TR. BANG. BANG. Ur Dead.

I wouldn't say that so absolutely, but you're probably right. Keep in mind though that core count seems inversely proportionate to potential buyers. In other words, I'm sure more people have an interest in a 16 core than a 32 core. So ultimately, it works out for processor manufacturers. As with anything you manufacture, the more complex it is, the greater the chances of there being a defect. It's inevitable, and too expensive to just throw these things away, so they're limited in various ways.

We've seen this before with the Ryzen 5, where cores are disabled in symmetric pairs. I think Threadripper pairs four 8-core dies with half the cores disabled - so perfect dies are packaged together and sold as EPYC while the imperfect dies are packaged together and sold as Ryzen Threadripper. This makes sense, as HEDT is a niche market, so wouldn't make sense for AMD to dedicate an entire new production line for it. Also, if they disable cores symmetrically, I doubt that we will see a 10 or 14 core Threadripper, although it's possible that they'll release a 24-core or 32-core model in the future (TDP permitting).

We've seen this before with the Ryzen 5, where cores are disabled in symmetric pairs.

Are they though? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never saw any evidence of how exactly AMD disables the cores. For all we know a 1400 could have 1 core enabled on once CCX and 3 enabled on the other. Seems to me having symmetry would be too expensive.

Also, if they disable cores symmetrically, I doubt that we will see a 10 or 14 core Threadripper, although it's possible that they'll release a 24-core or 32-core model in the future (TDP permitting).

Yes, if you are right about the symmetry then I am inclined to agree. Seems a bit awkward, going from 8 cores to 12. I figure anything above 16 cores will be in the Epyc range.

Oh my this is very interesting. Hopefully the motherboard manufacturers will launch a BIOS update on the motherboards to unlock these cores. Sort of how the old Phenom CPU cores could get unlocked. If that is the case, Intel will have to seriously reconsider what they bring out next.

Are they though? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never saw any evidence of how exactly AMD disables the cores. For all we know a 1400 could have 1 core enabled on once CCX and 3 enabled on the other. Seems to me having symmetry would be too expensive. Yes, if you are right about the symmetry then I am inclined to agree. Seems a bit awkward, going from 8 cores to 12. I figure anything above 16 cores will be in the Epyc range.

Actually, read a bit more into it and it seems that AMD is disabling two of the dies for Threadripper, as opposed to disabling cores on each die. This changes the equation dramatically so I'm not sure what to think, although it makes 24 and 32 core TR even more likely. Hopefully there will be more analysis on this over the coming days.

Are they though? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never saw any evidence of how exactly AMD disables the cores. For all we know a 1400 could have 1 core enabled on once CCX and 3 enabled on the other. Seems to me having symmetry would be too expensive. Yes, if you are right about the symmetry then I am inclined to agree. Seems a bit awkward, going from 8 cores to 12. I figure anything above 16 cores will be in the Epyc range.

The way they have been showing these it makes sense what he is saying. It also from a cost standpoint makes total sense. It allows AMD to use almost every bit of silicon that comes from a wafer. If they have to be semetrical having only one CCX per zeppelin (die) active is the only way you can get a 12 core. It still leaves the door open for a 8 core TR. Also as he stated it also lets AMD one up Intel on core count quite easily without any retooling.

i can see it now if they dont cut/break those extra core people will try to enable them

Oh my this is very interesting. Hopefully the motherboard manufacturers will launch a BIOS update on the motherboards to unlock these cores. Sort of how the old Phenom CPU cores could get unlocked. If that is the case, Intel will have to seriously reconsider what they bring out next.

On products this high-end, I wouldn't keep my hopes up. Back in the days of unlockable AM3 CPUs (particularly the triple cores), many of them had disabled cores simply to keep up with demand; apparently it was more profitable to disable a core or 2 than it was to release a quad core that wouldn't be bought. But I have a feeling supply and demand isn't going to be an issue for TR, and the complexity of it means whatever cores they disable were disabled because they're faulty - the CCXs are otherwise too expensive.

Actually, read a bit more into it and it seems that AMD is disabling two of the dies for Threadripper, as opposed to disabling cores on each die. This changes the equation dramatically so I'm not sure what to think, although it makes 24 and 32 core TR even more likely. Hopefully there will be more analysis on this over the coming days.

That actually makes a lot more sense, seeing as TR has half the PCIe lanes (though what doesn't make sense is it still has quad channel memory). This ought to make for some very strange thermals. Imagine seeing one part of the CPU being 20 degrees cooler than the other. I still don't think we're going to see more than 16 cores in TR, but, this does open doors for 10 and 14 core variants, and maybe 8 cores.

The way they have been showing these it makes sense what he is saying. It also from a cost standpoint makes total sense. It allows AMD to use almost every bit of silicon that comes from a wafer. If they have to be semetrical having only one CCX per zeppelin (die) active is the only way you can get a 12 core. It still leaves the door open for a 8 core TR. Also as he stated it also lets AMD one up Intel on core count quite easily without any retooling.

But if dies are symmetrical, that would be more expensive and more wasteful. Consider the 1400 again: you can get 4 working cores whether the arrangement is 2+2 or 1+3 or 3+1. For argument's sake, let's say there is an equal probability that any of these arrangements could be done (due to faulty transistors in the disabled cores). What that means is if AMD wants to build a quad core but are restricted by symmetry, 2/3 of their options cannot be used. That seems pretty wasteful, especially once you start getting toward higher core counts. EDIT: Actually it wouldn't be 2/3 of unusable options. Since each CCX has 4 cores, that means there are 6 total combinations (per CCX) of 2+2, but 4 for 1+3 and another 4 for 3+1. That still makes for a lot of wasted silicon.

It's only wasted silicon if those disable parts are perfect otherwise it's a way to ensure you use as much o the yields as possible. Remember Ryzen is manufactured as 4 core CCX's and "glued together".We assume they are required to be in two CCX packages. So you can basically always pair two perfect cores with two perfect cores. [spoiler]http://www.techpowerup.com/img/17-03-10/bc345e6356e6.jpg[/spoiler]

Intel Shennanigans? Is it possible they can pull an Intel? A more successful one? You can purchase and unlock code for BIOS to unlock moar cores?

Remember when we had BIOS hacks to unlock the 4th core on the old AMD triple core CPU's. How freaking cool would that be.

Is it possible they can pull an Intel? A more successful one? You can purchase and unlock code for BIOS to unlock moar cores?

i dont see that going over well but then again

i dont see that going over well but then again

Sounds about as popular as a fart in a crowded elevator.

true but from greed stand point it great way to milk something :3eyes:

I'm not surprised by this, in fact i expected it to be like this, considering its the same setup as their servers. I'm curious though, does that mean a 16 core chip is 4+4+4+4?

That means yields are not that great, that they use only "half" of cores. Ok, let's pretend they are.

Hey look it's Mr. Nonsensical back to tell us all about his mass knowledge of absolutely nothing taking information and turning it around without absolutely any proof all to hound on AMD for no reason. A whole lot of nonsense. It's nice to see you, i really hope you get banned soon.

i dont see that going over well but then again

Normally, and previously no. But given the price/perf value of TR, why not? If the cost to unlock and double cores is still a significant price/perf value over anything Intel is offering ...?