3 ms·
I wonder if it's the same silicon as Epyc, just ThreadRipper gets the worse bins. Or maybe there's one less chip in the package?
by TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
I wonder if it's the same silicon as Epyc, just ThreadRipper gets the worse bins.
Or maybe there's one less chip in the package?
- bryanlarsen 9y agoThreadRipper has 2 CPUs in its MCM, and Epyc has 4.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoAh, so the high-end ThreadRipper would contain the same chips as a high-end Epyc, just twice as many, and likewise for the lower-end variants, I guess? That makes sense.
- masklinn 9y ago> just twice as many Half. Epyc gets 4 MCM[0], ThreadRipper gets 2 (with each MCM containing 8 Ryzen cores) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-chip_module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-chip_module
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoUh, right. Got it the wrong way round.
- redtuesday 9y agoMaybe even better bins if the rumors are true, which put the 1998 X at 3.5 ghz for 16 cores (and boost on single core to 3.9 ghz). But I believe it only when I see it. Especially since the rumors said Threadripper will only have 44 PCIe lanes like Intel, which as we now know was false (and was weird previously because Naples has 128 PCIe lanes).
- hishnash 9y agoSo AMD have done something really clever, it is not 1 big Die but rather 2 smaller (ryzen7) dies linked. The issue with binding is the larger and more complex your die the more failures you have. But breaking it down to 2 smaller dies that are combined they reduce this since they are already getting relly good yields out of the ryzen7 dies. Epic is just 4 ryzen7 dies. So no this is not worse bins the 16core threadripper is 2 ryzen7 cores.