Read more.HEDT assault begins with a trio of giant TR4 chips priced from $549.
Read more.HEDT assault begins with a trio of giant TR4 chips priced from $549.
About time AMD could pick and choose the price it charges for processors like Intel has been able to for years...
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
The jump from Ryzen 7 1800X to Ryzen Threadripper 1900X doesn't give you more cores/threads, but a .2 GHz boost on clock speed across all cores and a TDP change from 95W to 180W! No surprise they didn't pick that processor for the performance-per-watt chart.
Quad DDR4 support and 64 pcie lanes is a huge jump from the lower end parts though. Not aimed at the lower wattage requiring customers, but a 40 watt jump from Intel is quite a bit. Real world figures I'd expect to be lower but as discussed in many places Threadripper is a multi-die chip and so could always be expected to have a higher TDP
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
From the Ryzen price cut thread:
OK, so I was $50 on the low side, but really no surprise to see an 8 core TR in the mix - as 3dcandy says the platform gains are a huge jump, and I'm intrigued to see that, rather than drop the TDP, they've used the 180W design point the platform's built for to push the clocks up to the ragged edge. They could've made a 130W part but they've chosen to make sure the processor is never slower than an 1800X - that's potentially a very good move...
WAIT!!! the 16 core AMD drinks less electricity from the wall compared to the 7900x under max load??? For real.
Performance per watt doesn't mean it will actually draw less from the wall, it's just how much performance it gets per 1% of the cpu type of thing. The -2% doesn't have any factors applied so we don't know how much time it spent on idle versus load etc so I wouldn't be holding my breath on it being lower overall but as long as it's close that's not exactly a bad thing.
It's also a bit of an unfair comparison, although fair on price, seeing as the intel cpu only has 10 cores (20 threads) so AMD will always have more performance. When intel releases their competitor (next year from what I'm reading)then we can likely get a fair comparison of 16 versus 16.
Okay please help here: if a system has a processor that eats 180w and has dual pro GPUs each eating 300w, the system operates 24-7 rendering architectural jobs, on average how much electrity bill can the system cost every month assuming the system is based in London?
Also I expect them to offer more cores or higher clocks later as things mature. Fitting more cores into 180 watts is much easier than say 140 watts like Intel. Get the platform out there, get cpu's in the wild - then see if the market can withstand a monster TR chip with a monster price. I'm sure I read somewhere that underneath they are structured like Epyc chips ie. 4 dies so we could see a TR with 64 cores and 128 threads![]()
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
No idea on london prices but our price per kwh (a unit) is about 14p here so assuming you're hitting the max draw of the values given (not always the case) and the your system is using both cpu and gpu's to do the rendering (not all rendering engines do), you'll be looking at something close to 1000w draw when you factor in other stuff too like hard drives, displays etc. Therefore some simple maths would be 1kwhx24 so 24kwh @ 14p which would be 336 + daily charge of 18p iirc in my case so you might as well say about £3 to £3.50 a day. Take a month as being 30 days and it would likely be £90 to £105 per month... yes it's not cheap, luckily I've got solar panels to offset most of the day charge and get some cash back![]()
no more i-Sheep. infinity fabric is not a bottleneck after all.
It sort of is otherwise AMD wouldn't be providing the ability to switch between creator mode and gaming mode so as to reduce latency, presumably by disabling/hiding some cores.
For one, the Ryzen Master software, as well as the BIOS, will expose an ability to switch between what AMD dubs "Creator mode" and "Gaming mode." The difference here is that Gaming mode compensates to attain lower latency, an issue that is more prevalent here, according to AMD, than on the Ryzen 7, due to the structure of these chips. (They are essentially four chips on a die with internal connections, which naturally exacerbates latency.) Gaming mode also exists to accommodate some legacy games that simply will not run with chips with 12 or more cores. (Presumably this will come an issue on the Intel side of the fence, as well, when its higher-end Core i9 processors roll out later in 2017.) In so doing, Gaming mode can dynamically disable half of the cores to allow those titles to run.
1900x is a bit of an oddball IMO. Sure you get the extra memory channels and PCI-E lanes, but It seems like it would be a very specific use case that would benefit from that capability, rather than saving a considerable chunk of cash and getting the 1800X. Especially when you consider the huge TDP and cooling requirements (although they are coming with AOI water loop coolers included)
Millennium (02-08-2017)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)