13 ms·
Ryzen Threadripper Pro 3995WX Spotted
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago64 cores? how much would that cost? around $1k or more? is this for the consumer line or server line of products?
- tpetry 6y agoThreadripper is the consumer line, epyc is for servers.
- dragontamer 6y ago> around $1k or more? I'd expect closer to $4000 or more. > is this for the consumer line or server line of products? Neither or both. Threadripper has high-clocks (like consumer) and high-core counts (like servers). It'd be for "workstations".
- forrestthewoods 6y agoThe 64-core 3990x is MSRP $4000. I’d expect this new fangled 3995WX to be that much or more.
- mcraiha 6y agoCPU and motherboard prices aren't really relevant since RAM is so expensive. And only real reason for getting this instead of 3990x is that you need e.g. 1 terabyte of RAM. https://www.amazon.com/Tech-12x128GB-2933MHz-PC4-23400-288-Pin/dp/B07ZZMSWJX/ref=pd_lpo_147_t_0/135-5978031-6451344 https://www.amazon.com/Tech-12x128GB-2933MHz-PC4-23400-288-P...
- j88439h84 6y agoWhat workload do you have in mind?
- MooMooMilkParty 6y agoScientific computing is what I would be interested in for these types of hardware.
- simcop2387 6y agoThere might be some other cases for less ram. If the rumor that it supports rdimm or lrdimm modules is true then it could enable much easier ecc support since there are not a lot of ecc udimm options out there
- account42 6y agoI had no problem finding ECC UDIMMs for my TR build. Sure, not that many options but you only need one.
- amarshall 6y agoMostly ECC UDIMMs are limited in clock speed, but many can be comfortably overclocked. I presently have four 2666 MHz ECC UDIMMs overclocked to 3200 MHz in my TRX40 workstation (M391A2K43BB1-CTD if anyone is curious).
- pdimitar 6y agoDo the RAM sticks require separate cooling?
- kllrnohj 6y agoThis is commonly referred to as the "HEDT" category, or "High End Desktop" It's somewhere between the extreme enthusiast market and the workstation market. It's not _truly_ a workstation product as those will instead typically use Xeon or Epyc for things like full official ECC support & other such features. Threadripper muddies this line a bit as it does actually have official ECC support, but motherboard support is not as reliable as you'll find in Epyc boards. Intel also has products in this category like the i9-10980XE - which is an 18-core product that's essentially the consumer version of a Xeon chip with ECC removed. Intel calls this their X-series line. And then since Intel removes ECC support, you'll again not really find this in workstations. It's basically "take the server product, remove (some/most) of the server features, jack the power budget to the fucking roof because you can assume water cooling, and allow overclocking" line of products.
- fomine3 6y ago> The big news is that the Asia website reported the 3995WX is an offering 8-channel DDR4 memory interface, up to 2 TB of it This indicates 3995WX supports not only 8ch but also RDIMM/LRDIMM that's not supported on current Threadripper. It should need a new Socket rather than current TRX40 (TRX80 was rumored a year ago). Threadripper gets closer to EPYC. I expect PCIe lanes limitation still remains for make difference (It's many even limited).
- tinco 6y agoThat would be insane. I hope motherboard manufacturers take notice and release an IPMI board for it. We currently run a cluster that has some 3970X's in it and it's super awkward that we couldn't get remote management for them. Asrock has announced availability of one starting august, but it's a little too late for us.
- MaKey 6y agoWhat about the X399D8A-2T from AsRock Rack? It's available since October 2019.
- tinco 6y agoHm shit, now that you mention it, I didn't even consider X399. The only downside seems to be the lack of support for 3200mhz ddr. In our case that board specifically doesn't have room for the 4th GPU so it's not an option for us. We've got a weird use case, we're using (black box) software that's sensitive to clock speed, scaling only to about 8 threads until it starts levelling off aggressively (to the point where a 3970X benchmarks as faster than a 3990X). So what we do is we run 4 instances, each with their own GPU and 8 cores assigned to it. I'd be surprised if this makes sense anywhere else (as EPYC has all sorts of other advantages in HPC).
- amarshall 6y agoDoes not support 3000-series (Zen 2) ThreadRipper.
- amarshall 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Uehreka 6y agoI feel like 64 cores is getting rather close to a tipping point: What workloads are so massively parallel that they can use 64 cores of x86 but can’t use the thousands of CUDA cores on a Quadro card? I’m sure right now there are workloads that just need particular x86 instructions, but that feels like a temporary problem. Am I wrong about that being a temporary problem (that would feel frustrating)? Are these cores just that much faster than CUDA cores? What else am I missing here? I often hear people talk about getting CPUs like this for deep learning research, but all the deep learning work I’ve done goes straight to CUDA and lands on my GPU.
- lmilcin 6y agoCuda and x86 are different things. I do not personally, but I work with another team that uses tens of thousands of cores for calculations. Just day to day business.
- photon12 6y agoRunning multiple parallel VMs with Xen or KVM is a plausible example.
- staticfloat 6y agoOne big difference is memory availability; the amount of RAM directly accessible from a 64-core CPU is much larger than that of the thousands of CUDA cores on a Quadro card. Perhaps for many workloads intelligent use of the PCIE bus can make up for that, streaming datasets in/out of the card, but for others, having random access to hundreds of GBs of data may be non-negotiable. I'd be interested to know what workloads truly require that; most simulation solvers that I can think of that require large amounts of RAM are working on a discretized spatial grid, and the physical laws they're simulating are fairly "local"; e.g. you can process one area then move on to the next, in a nice stencil operation. This lends itself well to both parallelization and a sort of data-locality, so you can stream the necessary pieces of data in to the cores in an orderly fashion. I don't know what kinds of massively parallelizable workloads require much more random access of memory.
- choeger 6y ago
- bitL 6y agoSo TRX80/WRX80 were real after all...
- Roritharr 6y agoI wonder how much the silicon quality differs on a single Threadripper Chip. It would really be interesting to see if it's feasible to Overclock the best numa node to a degree that gives this a couple of high single thread performance cores comparable to the 3900X or 3950X while retaining stability overall.
- kllrnohj 6y ago> Overclock the best numa node to a degree Do you mean the best ccx? Or best chiplet? There aren't any numa nodes here, and the cache & memory architecture are already the same as a 3900x. Per-core & per-ccx overclocking does already exist on ryzen though, should work the same on threadripper.
- Roritharr 6y agoInteresting, is it already feasible to pin tasks to such OCed cores? It would be interesting to turn the 3990/3995 into a does-it-all chip with best in class single-core performance on certain cores and just lots of a tad slower cores in general.
- kllrnohj 6y agoThat's essentially what it's supposed to do out of the box. The chip already communicates to the OS what its "best" and "good" cores are for single- and low-thread count workloads: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15137/amd-clarifies-best-cores-vs-preferred-cores https://www.anandtech.com/show/15137/amd-clarifies-best-core... These are the cores that can turbo the highest. You can attempt to manually OC higher, but that by & large doesn't work without extreme cooling. Typically instead it's about achieving higher all-core frequencies than the built in all-core turbo, typically via higher voltages & power limits (and of course much better-than-stock cooling) Indeed if you look at single-thread cinebench numbers you'll find the 3960x & 3970x right in the middle of the 3700x, 3800x, and 3900x pack: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper_3960x_review,7.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper... They all hit around that same 4.5ghz single core turbo mark without any overclocking. And Zen2 by & large doesn't really go much beyond 4.5ghz anyway, so there's not all that much manual overclocking you can do without going sub-ambient cooling anyway. The only real downside to Threadripper 3rd gen is the price. It's already a pretty killer jack-of-all-trades CPUs otherwise. It's a very competent gaming CPU without any tweaks at all right out of the box. It doesn't at all have the cons of the 1st & 2nd gen Threadrippers, which were actually NUMA and therefore came with huge gaming downsides.
- quyleanh 6y agoI can't wait to see how powerful Ryzen 4 desktop be.
- soygul 6y agoA lot of people question the usefulness of 64+ cores on a workstation CPU. It is true that audio/visual tools like Adobe After Effects stop benefiting from extra cores at around 32 cores. [1] But if you want to simulate production workloads on your machine say with Apache Spark or Flink, you are in the prime. You couple that CPU with 256+ GB memory, and you can start exploring the bottlenecks in your batch algorithms using as many cores as you want. [1] https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CPU-performance-AMD-Threadripper-3990X-64-Core-1658/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CPU...
- cameron_b 6y agoI think we will be contending with this sort of barrier for a while on desktop software. 32 cores used to be massively parallel 10 years ago, 15 years ago it was nuts to think that we'd have that in a get-it-from-Newegg offering. Massively parallel operations take a different focus on your MPI/bus/queue architecture than we've ever needed for desktop software. BUT I think what we've already seen is that in general purpose computing there will always be someone ready to consume resources as they are available. Both feet don't move at the same time, one takes a step and then the other.
- Keyframe 6y agoDoes that mean more than 256GB of RAM without having to go for an EPYC?
- bkolobara 6y agoThe article mentions support for up to 2 TB of RAM.
- Keyframe 6y agoTrue, and 3990x supports more than 256, but not in practice (motherboards)
- heelix 6y agoThe (bit of) article mentioned 2T, but the thing that was interesting was the 8 channel memory. My current TR4 boards are doing quad, so 2 banks of 4 slots. Sounds like a single set of 8... so wonder if this is a potential BIOS update on the sTR4 or if there is a new chipset on route?
- AdrianB1 6y agoThe traces are wired to CPU pins, there is no potential BIOS update to make it 8 channels from CPU pins for only 4 channels. You need different socket with double the number of pins for memory to double the number of channels. Your 4 channels with 2 slots each have the 4 channels daisy chained to 2 slots, but they are just 4 channels. With 8 channels and 2 slots per channel you can have 16 slots, with 32 GB unbuffered (regular) DIMMs you are limited to 512 GB of RAM, for 2 TB you need registered or load reduced RAM.
- heelix 6y agoAh... that answers my real question then. sTR4 will likely be a short lived series.
- hellofunk 6y agoIt’s unclear to me what eight channel memory actually means, I’m not used to seeing that mentioned in casual architecture overviews. What’s the benefit of that? Is that something that a programmer must explicitly take advantage of, or is that just an automatic part of the CPU?
- recrof 6y agofrom the software standpoint, it's invisible to the programmer. it's about bandwidth of the memory bus. when you have single shared memory lane, bandwidth gets split between memory modules. typically(on most of the consumer hardware) there are 2 memory channels.
- kllrnohj 6y agoThink RAID 0 but for RAM done by the CPU. Nearly every consumer CPU for the last 20 years is dual channel, meaning "2 drive RAID 0". If you've seen things like recommendations to get paired DDR memory sticks, this is why. You only get this RAID-like benefit with multiple RAM sticks (just like RAID 0 of a single drive doesn't do anything). It's also why some consumer products have unexpectedly bad performance for the CPU specs - cheaper laptops may skimp here and just run a single stick of memory instead of 2. Which means half the memory bandwidth. 8 channel then means the CPU can do this up to 8 sticks for 8x the bandwidth instead of the more common 2x.
- Hello71 6y agoalso notably this doesn't help with latency, which is more often the sticking point.
- gameswithgo 6y agowith 64 cores and 4 channels, throughput may often be a sticking point. that is like have 32 cores on a normal 2 channel desktop, throughput would often be a limiter there.
- Laforet 6y agoMore channels allow more memory bandwidth, though actual performance gain is marginal unless the data being processed has very strict spatial locality (e.g. fluid dynamics simulations), most other workloads are more constrained by cache. The real reason for adding more memory channels to a general purpose CPU is actually to increase the maximum amount of memory per node. A few years ago, workstation and server platforms often allowed 3 or more DIMMs per channel with performance declining sharply with memory density. Since then both AMD and Intel have limited each channel to 2 DIMMs and increase the number of memory channels from 4 to 6/8 to make up for the loss. While more memory channels do enable better performance scaling, it has also made the CPU socket more complex and fragile than ever: The TRX40 socket has 4094 pins and literally requires the CPU to be bolted down using a torque wrench to ensure good contact.
- runawaybottle 6y agoGuru3d seriously not update their website design in 20 years? Looks the same since the 2000s.
- derision 6y agoif it ain't broke..