3 ms·
The TDP on EPYC chips is a lot higher. I think of Threadripper as mid-tier, and EPYC as the high-end. Ryzen is remarkable because you can buy new equipment with
by cturner 6y ago
The TDP on EPYC chips is a lot higher. I think of Threadripper as mid-tier, and EPYC as the high-end. Ryzen is remarkable because you can buy new equipment with ECC, at consumer prices. I am hazy, but don't think that has been possible since the 386 era ('parity ram').
- loeg 6y ago> The TDP on EPYC chips is a lot higher. EPYC TDP ranges from "a lot lower" (35W embedded, 120W regular) up to "comparable with" (180-240W, a single 280W model) relative to Threadripper (180-250W last gen; current gen is all 280W). It's definitely not a lot higher on the Epyc side. > I think of Threadripper as mid-tier, and EPYC as the high-end. This oversimplifies to the point of not being a useful intuition (or is arguably even incorrect). Threadripper is a SKU with a moderate number of cores at relatively high clocks; (high-power) EPYC SKUs have a lot of very efficient cores running at lower clocks. They both have a niche, but Threadripper has unambiguously better single-core performance due to the ~20% higher clocks. And single-core IPC still matters in many applications (to oversimplify: Amdahl's law; but also, latency-sensitive applications).
- sitkack 6y agoAMD is more accurate in their TDP specs than Intel is, they can't really be compared.