Read more.All in an AM4 package with a 105W TDP.
Read more.All in an AM4 package with a 105W TDP.
I imagine it leaves them itching for a 3000 series threadripper, for enough PCIe lanes to plug in all their GPUs and NVMe cards.It questions the need for genuine content creators to look at either the Intel X299 (Core-X) or AMD TR4 (Threadripper) platforms;
For gamers.. at $750??
Looks like a genuinely impressive chip though - binned to get nice silicon no doubt for those thermals. I just hope it doesn't have too much of a negative effect on (perceived) 3800X silicon because at first glance it looks horribly like all the bad chips are going to the 3800X and all the good ones to the 3950X.
And silicon binning is something you can't account for in reviews, especially if the manufacturer supplies the chips for review directly. Frustrating as it is, looks like we should wait for community reviews.
Got to be honest here, at $750 (that's £800 by todays exchange rates) I might as well wait and see if there's an update to threadripper with all the other benefits of extra pcie lanes... I kind of feel it's about $100, maybe even $150 too much.
While I know it's far better bang per buck than intel and I know I could make use of all the cores it just seems a little off in it's pricing and positioning imo.
Priced fairly I feel all things considered.
$750 is an interesting price point for a 16C32T part.
However, it doesn't bode too well for seeing higher core count Threadrippers at lower price points. Assuming a $=£ conversion, this will come out at £750. The Gen. 2 16C Threadripper is currently ~£810 (on Scan). I was hoping to see Gen. 3 16C Threadrippers become the entry point, given they have now doubled the core counts across the board, but that means it'll be at least £750. Given the extra cost of the rest of the platform it doesn't make much sense.
Unless they don't even bother with 16C Threadrippers (or have one, but with a higher base clock speed and a slightly higher price - like the 1900X). Gen. 2 didn't bother with an 8-core model, so maybe they'll just ditch the 16C model for Gen 3.
Also, with the introduction of R9 39xx, they haven't left themselves much room for Threadripper names. Curious. Maybe, like Gen. 1, we'll only see 2-3 products instead of 4 for Gen. 2. Maybe they'll be the Threadripper 3970X and 3990X. And then a 3999X because why not?
Interesting times be upon us.
I assume it's still a dual channel memory interface? I wonder whether that'll affect the performance much, given the increased core count?
I have not evidence to back this up, but I wonder if AMD are planning to discontinue threadripper, and instead get the motherboard makers to start selling EPYC compatible desktop boards to fill the gap.
It would reduce the number of SKUs in AMD's inventory, and provide an easier upgrade path for power users who need an insane number of CPU cores and RAM (who think that that even in maxed out $30k form Apple's latest computer is under powered).
Last edited by scaryjim; 11-06-2019 at 01:47 PM.
Problem is the workstation machines I have used swap between maxing out all cores to needing one core at high clock speed (compile source files in parallel then one big link, or the different phases of FPGA compile and layout not all of which scale across cores). Threadripper seemed pretty much perfect for that, and if an Epyc chip is made for good single core turbo then just call it a threadripper
Sounds like it is a pretty big saving vs an X570 board. If you need threadripper, you probably need a ton of ram (eg 128GB or that big FPGA compile doesn't fit) and won't be that cost sensitive to the motherboard.
Edit: Having said all that, the 2600X was faster than a lot of workstations I used in the past. Just if I was still in that market I would be pointing at threadrippers instead of the 4 ram channel Xeons.
So while we wait for PCIe5 and the like this allows a good jump for people already on this ecosystem.
However are those 24 lanes pcie3 or pcie4?
Are they shared with any of the sata/usb bus etc or purely available for graphics and nvme?
3900x sounds like better bang for buck with faster base too.
I'd heard they were releasing a new mobo variant for these to offer better thermal headroom etc - has that been scrapped now?
Last edited by ik9000; 11-06-2019 at 01:51 PM.
Yeah, potentially. I mean, you can pay up to £260 for an X470 board if you want to (which brings the entry level X399 boards into thye picture), but you don't have to. I strongly suspect that X470 and B450 will continue to fill out the motherboard market for AMD for some time to come.
Oh, there's definitely a place for Threadripper, even at the "lower" core counts - if you need masses of fast storage, x16 add-on cards, or huge memory bandwidth there's no real comparison. I will be interesting to see how they implement 3rd gen TR though: will they let it go right up to the insane 64C/socket of a repurposed EPYC, or will they peg it at 32C with a custom IO chip... I can see them easily doing 16, 24 and 32 core versions just be having 2, 3 or 4 chiplets on the substrate....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)