5 ms·
1 socket 16 / 32 @ 2.9GHz max for $700+... it looks like 16 core Threadripper with reasonable frequencies for less then $999 looks in reach...
by satai 9y ago
1 socket 16 / 32 @ 2.9GHz max for $700+... it looks like 16 core Threadripper with reasonable frequencies for less then $999 looks in reach...
- brianwawok 9y agoSo how will threadripper different from the single socket guy presented here?
- snovv_crash 9y agoThreadripper is a 2-chip module rather than 4, so will have half the L3 cache. Threadripper has half the memory channels and half the PCIe lanes. EPYC is available with up to twice the cores. The main advantage I see for Threadripper is that at 16 cores EPYC will have half the cores disabled, so for problems that fit in L2 you lose some performance from the reduced L2 sharing. That and it should be priced better than server chips, with I suspect the 12 - 14 core being the sweet spot. Based on leaks I think Threadripper might boost a few 100 MHz higher, with base clock up to 3.6GHz.
- jnordwick 9y agoIs L2 shared on AMD or are they going the Intel route and making it per core? Is there any info on cache architecture for Zen?
- dom0 9y agoHm? L2 is per core. Always has been in a three+ layer architecture. Zen has 512K L2 per core and 8M L3 per CCX (two CCX per dice). L3 is a victim cache iirc, unlike previous generations where the L3 was inclusive. Intel usually went with a similar scheme in the last few years, where the L3 is partitioned into slices assigned to cores; accessing the local slice is faster than a non-local slice. Skylake-SP deviates from this (significantly), for better ... or worse.
- jnordwick 9y agoL3 is a victim cache? Intels L4 is the victim cache for their inclusive L3. How does that work? And their L2 is basically a buffer between their L1 and L3. That doesnt make sense to me. I can't find any good info on this.
- IanCutress 9y agoCheck AnandTech's Zen review and their recent Skylake-X review for the latest details.
- snovv_crash 9y agoSorry, I meant L3 without leaving the CCX.
- redtuesday 9y agoI would not be surprised if there will be no 14 core part. None of the Zen based CPU's so far have a uneven CCX configuration but 14 cores would require that.
- MrFlynn 9y agoThe Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600x have two CCX modules with 3 cores each (one core disabled on each CCX). So it wouldn't be impossible for AMD to make a 14 core part.
- redtuesday 9y agoYes, but what I meant is uneven CCX. The 4 core parts have 2+2, the 6 core parts have 3+3, the 8 core parts have 4+4. There is no uneven CCX combination like 2+4 for example. If this applies to multi die solutions like Threadripper, there will be no 10 and 14 core parts as they would require uneven CCX combinations. If the Epyc lineup is an indication this might be true. Especially since there is no 12 core part for Epyc. Since it has 4 dies you could produce 12 cores by using only 3 cores of each die, but this would require uneven CCX (1+2 or 0+3).
- bryanlarsen 9y agoI suspect that uneven configurations aren't allowed. IIRC, in the die each core has a direct link to the same core on the other CCX, a direct link to the same core on the other dies in the MCM, and a direct link to the same core on the other chip if in a 2P motherboard. IOW core #13 is the 5th core in the second die, aka the 1st core in the second CCX on the second die. So it would have a direct link to the 1st core in the first CCX on the second die, as well as a link to the 5th core in the other 3 dies as well as a link to the 13th core on the second chip if in 2P. So it seems quite likely that all 16 CCX's in a 2P server must have the same number of cores.
- sqeaky 9y agoI think Threadripper will have 2 chips per unit instead of 4 like Epyc. That should make them smaller and cheaper. If so it would mean that making motherboards would be simpler so those would be cheaper too. I think AMD also stated there will be no dual CPU Threadripper setups. so the CPU interconnect stuff also won't need to exist on threadripper motherboards.
- sliken 9y agoActually I believe threadripper and epyc use the same (4094 pin/contact) socket. So the same motherboards should work.
- dom0 9y agoThey're marketed as different sockets, so I wouldn't be surprised if that does not work. E.g. because a SP3r2 motherboard doesn't route power to unpopulated dice on the module.
- anoother 9y agoPast experience suggests it's very likely they will be compatible, at least at a basic level. See eg. or Socket 'L' vs. 'F' in AMD's history (hint -- they're the same thing), or the various Socket 2011 Intel iterations across server/enthusiast markets. You may lose out on some features (eg. RDIMM support with server CPU, overclocking support in either direction, etc.) Untimately, I hope, the cross-compatibility of EPYC CPUs on enthusiast chipsets will be a decision for motherboard manufacturers to make, as it has been in the past. 64 PCIe lanes should be enough for... at least some of us ;) ETA: As parent mentioned, the situation this time is more complicated. Threadripper in an EPYC board is likely to be problematic -- the CPU doesn't have enough PCIe/Infinty Fabric connectivity to allow CPU links and PCIe to be active simultaneously. Even in a 1P system, only half of the board's potential PCIe lanes would be available. Due to these issues, it's likely such a setup may not be supported. It would be a strange thing to try in the first place, however, especially if equivalent EPYC parts end up similarly-priced to Threadripper. EPYC in a Threadripper board is the news I'm hoping (and expecting) to be better -- the parent talked about powering the extra dies... an interesting consideration, though I expect (and hope) the only pins which won't be broken out on a Threadripper board will be the extra PCIe lanes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kinghajj 9y agoHigher TDP/frequency, and less memory channels (I believe Naples is 8 per socket, whereas Threadripper is only 4).
- redtuesday 9y agoIt will not support LRDIMM and RDIMM, which means you can get "only" 256 GByte of memory [0] although the CPU would support 1 TByte. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6icdyo/amd_threadripper_supports_up_to_256gb_of_ram_942/dj5lhs7/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6icdyo/amd_threadrippe...
- ww520 9y agoHmm. My desktop machine is 8 years old. Things haven't changed much since then. It seems AMD is giving good reason to upgrade.
- chao- 9y agoI am in a similar spot with a 7-year old, 6C/12T overclocked Xeon W3680. If Threadripper frequencies are decent it might finally be time to join the current generation of hardware. I would "settle" for a 12C/24T Threadripper if it were clocked as high/higher than the 16C/32T version, and at the right price point (ala the Ryzen 1600X). Doubly so if Intel follows through on opening up Thunderbolt licensing and I can add a Thunderbolt 3 expansion card to a non-Intel system in the future. Optane isn't interesting, and while I have a fascination for AVX512 from discussions with a friend who does HPC, I know I concretely won't use it most of the time. The only unique thing that Intel offers me right now is Thunderbolt 3.
- ptmcc 9y agoYou know, I had a desktop build of a similar vintage (late 2008) until recently. High quality for the time - C2D E8500 with 8GB of RAM, newer SSD and video card. I said exactly that, "things haven't changed much since then". It ran well and all, and never overtly irritated me. But the newest round of affordable mid-high end CPUs is a huge upgrade. Same with SSDs, even compared to ones a few years old. It's one of those things you don't really realize how big the difference is until you use them back to back. Do it!