5 ms·

Did we ever see a definitive rationale for ending consumer grade Threadripper? I’ve always wondered if sales were simply cannibalized by the growing thread coun

by ip26 4y ago

Did we ever see a definitive rationale for ending consumer grade Threadripper? I’ve always wondered if sales were simply cannibalized by the growing thread counts in Ryzen. A sort of Innovator’s Dilemma, except with more vocally unhappy consumers.

wtallis 4y ago
I think it wasn't just the growing core counts on the mainstream platform, but also the death of multi-GPU gaming and steady growth in DDR4 speeds and NVMe SSD capacity and performance—all of which combined to eliminate the need for a larger socket with all the extra IO.
wmf 4y ago
It's not definitive, but AMD also had a capacity shortage so they allocated their capacity to more profitable Epyc.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
Threadripper was nearly pointless. What they really need is some SP5 workstation boards, but what does that even get you that you don't get from the server boards? Integrated audio? Just add a sound card. The real disappointment is the clock speeds on the lower core count Epyc SKUs. Epyc 9124 and Ryzen 9 7950X have the same configuration and Epyc has a higher TDP but it's 3GHz/3.7GHz instead of 4.5GHz/5.7GHz. And the reason for it is that the Epyc SKUs with more cores have almost the same TDP, which they couldn't hit with twice as many cores at 4.5GHz -- the 9334 has a base clock of 2.7GHz, and probably not artificially. Who is going to pay ~$3000 for a 32-core 2.7GHz 9334 if there was a ~$1000 16-core 4.5GHz 9124? It would be only 20% faster for three times the price. So they artificially limit the 9124 for market segmentation. Then there is nothing available with the higher clock speeds that has more I/O, 12 memory channels and RDIMMs. Which seems like leaving money on the table. I mean, sell something on SP5 with the 7950X's clock speeds for some price. WTF.
- sounds 4y ago
  Assuming they had fab capacity to produce a hypothetical Epyc 13912k with 4.5GHz base clock, I think AMD still nailed the revenue sweet spot with their current mix. So maybe they're not strictly leaving money on the table, so much as it is a lack of demand for a high end desktop that doubles as a server. Intel has to produce that kind of beast because they're currently slightly behind in some areas. AMD might lose money if they followed Intel's playbook right now.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    They could sell the 7950X but on SP5 and for $4000, or with twice as many compute dice but the same clocks as the 7950X and the TDP of the 9474F for $8000. Put a 24-core in the middle for $6000 and call these the "workstation" line. At those prices there would be no money to lose because nothing close to equivalent would be cheaper, but then at least it would exist.

by ip26 4y ago

wtallis 4y ago

I think it wasn't just the growing core counts on the mainstream platform, but also the death of multi-GPU gaming and steady growth in DDR4 speeds and NVMe SSD capacity and performance—all of which combined to eliminate the need for a larger socket with all the extra IO.

wmf 4y ago

It's not definitive, but AMD also had a capacity shortage so they allocated their capacity to more profitable Epyc.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

Threadripper was nearly pointless. What they really need is some SP5 workstation boards, but what does that even get you that you don't get from the server boards? Integrated audio? Just add a sound card. The real disappointment is the clock speeds on the lower core count Epyc SKUs. Epyc 9124 and Ryzen 9 7950X have the same configuration and Epyc has a higher TDP but it's 3GHz/3.7GHz instead of 4.5GHz/5.7GHz. And the reason for it is that the Epyc SKUs with more cores have almost the same TDP, which they couldn't hit with twice as many cores at 4.5GHz -- the 9334 has a base clock of 2.7GHz, and probably not artificially. Who is going to pay ~$3000 for a 32-core 2.7GHz 9334 if there was a ~$1000 16-core 4.5GHz 9124? It would be only 20% faster for three times the price. So they artificially limit the 9124 for market segmentation. Then there is nothing available with the higher clock speeds that has more I/O, 12 memory channels and RDIMMs. Which seems like leaving money on the table. I mean, sell something on SP5 with the 7950X's clock speeds for some price. WTF.

sounds 4y ago
Assuming they had fab capacity to produce a hypothetical Epyc 13912k with 4.5GHz base clock, I think AMD still nailed the revenue sweet spot with their current mix. So maybe they're not strictly leaving money on the table, so much as it is a lack of demand for a high end desktop that doubles as a server. Intel has to produce that kind of beast because they're currently slightly behind in some areas. AMD might lose money if they followed Intel's playbook right now.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  They could sell the 7950X but on SP5 and for $4000, or with twice as many compute dice but the same clocks as the 7950X and the TDP of the 9474F for $8000. Put a 24-core in the middle for $6000 and call these the "workstation" line. At those prices there would be no money to lose because nothing close to equivalent would be cheaper, but then at least it would exist.