Read more.Quote:
The monster unleashed.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The monster unleashed.
utter utter beast
A very few years ago, nothing like this was even imaginable.
Now, in 2020 a mere mortal can build a PC with so much multi-thread muscle that nearly any computational task is within reach... at home in a box under your desk.
with about..what... £6k, you could load up a good board, with a ton of DDR4 and a load of quick storage, multiple monitors and render nearly anything.... utterly astounding.
It really is quite something!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
Now admittedly I'm freelance rather than big business but I'm in a bit of a weird situation on this... on the one hand, I'd love the cores etc for 3D rendering etc but at the same time I can't really see a reason to spend over £3k on just the cpu when things like GPU rendering are rapidly progressing.
Also got to be honest, I would have liked to have seen some tests about how it compares to gpu rendering in things like vray and the likes....
Edited: ah, against a GPU!Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
My mistake
Which version of Windows 10 did you use? There are issues with Home and Pro schedulers over 64 threads. Enterprise/Pro for workstations has fewer problems.
See: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483...3990x-review/3
Handbrake suffers from this - try enterprise and the score increases massively.
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/...483/114663.png
Couple of extreme overclockers have got their numbers up on HWBot and they're suitably absurd. Up around 5.5ghz under LN2, outright quickest on cinebench r15 and r20.
Talk about kicking the competition when down, seems that glue intel mocked is working rather well.
Interesting spec against the 64 core Epyc, slightly cut back on some parts but then a higher TDP and clocks to match.
Hopefully AMD will start to benefit from the halo effect.
Oh I do love when MS does this.... I know the stuff in the workstation version might have limited appeal for a lot of people but why have a pro version that basically doesn't fully support 'pro hardware'.... I can understand multiple cpu support being restricted and even refs but not having full scheduling etc for a single socket cpu in the non workstation version just seems daft... especially when it's there in the 'next version up'Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
LTT's video review is quite a polar look at this chip
My little - old 12/24 TR CPU seem so,,,,,, sigh
AMD is killing Intel in the CPU front. Let's hope they can bring the fight to Nvidia too :D
They highlight something that Intel has been doing for decades though. I understand why they say it, but honestly so few UK people will buy this CPU it is unreal. It is not aimed at the average person at all....Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidmunkee
You do pay more for the next version up though....Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
If you need support for a top end processor is it so wrong to have the correct version of Windows to support such a beast? It's not like the cost is the issue... Microsoft get plenty wrong, as do Apple et al, but I can't see this being a bad call. They have to make some money somewhere...
It's the whole artificial product differentiation thing. From an engineering point of view, it is a bit worrying that you spend all that money and get code that hardly anyone else is running so it isn't actually *that* well tested compared to the mainline consumer code. So what you are paying extra for, is under tested code.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Hardly anyone else is running? I imagine there are literally millions running Win 10 enterprise....Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
It is shipped as standard by a fair few PC manufacturers on top end laptops and workstations for instance
i think it will sell very well actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Because the UK is full of people rendering/compiling at a time restriction and to be profitable, speed is of the essence.
this CPU utterly rips through threads.. in fact.. I think we might have a name there ;)
Like I say, I can understand multiple cpu sockets (although pro does support 2), I can even understand the ReFS file system (outside of storage space), but to not fully support a single socket cpu which is 'readily' available and aimed specifically at 'pro' users seems a bit off.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Hell I've been looking into this since I saw that and unless you've happened onto that video I doubt you'd even know you need the workstation version because windows 10 pro appears to fully support 64/128 cores/threads.... according to wiki (for some reason I couldn't find the MS page...) windows 10 pro (I'll assume x64 only) supports 128 cores, which 'should' be fine for 3990x. In fact you can't even buy windows 10 workstation that easily, you have to faff around with the MS store and upgrade which then literally just unlocks some features.....
Also mentioning apple in there is quite funny, they don't even have multiple versions of OS-X, it's the same version on the mac pro as it is on the mac mini or laptops.... now admittedly their business model is slightly different but still.
As to enterprise version being used, I'd argue that's more about bulk purchase and distribution of software/patches etc over the network which is in most home user cases unnecessary, but incredibly useful for business IT support staff.
Apple mentioned just because they cripple things in general, like battery life on older iphones for example...
My point is they all do it. Every last one segments the market. I still can't see the issue, you buy a £4k processor and buy the version of windows that is best suited for it. I can't see people buying this cpu and not getting the correct version of windows....
This cpu will be used in places where before it was a 2 socket system, so enterprise will be used!!!!
I'm not sure you're getting the issue raised by anandtech by the looks of it....Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Windows pro can support up to 128 cores, windows essentially sees a thread as a core so windows 10 pro 'should' fully support the 3990x and perform at it's maximum potential, however there is an issue with the scheduling that is preventing this, windows pro for workstation (or enterprise in this case, which is fundamentally the same as workstation) doesn't have this issue.
With the same cpu, in this case a 3990x, there should be no performance difference between pro and pro workstation because both versions are supposed to support 128 cores (more in the case of workstation). This isn't the case according to anandtech.
I totally get it.... but they also see that part as an Enterprise part, code for it accordingly and that accounts for the difference.
Just because they are both supposed to support 128 cores doesn't mean the enterprise code base isn't much better optimised for more cores as it obviously is. Having a dig at Microsoft when all of their documentation and help says to get better enterprise performance get the enterprise edition just seems a bit harsh. You want or need more core performance, just get the enterprise edition. The figures show it performs better, Microsoft are aware of it and say so! There is no hidden agenda
But they don't actually say this.... it was only found out via testing. All they say is that workstation (and enterprise) supports 256 cores and 4 sockets.... which is totally understandable to have a 'higher cost' for, there is nothing mentioned about improved performance for 64c/128t cpu's. As I said there should be no difference between 128 core cpu's between the pro and workstation because they both support 128 cores, more in the case of workstation.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
They already can, I believe it is AMD hardware CPU/GPU in the new consoles coming out this year, they get the support from the game companies for raw power first of all as most games is developed for consoles as well if not first, then ported to PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by fend_oblivion
It was AMD CPU/GPU in the current generation of consoles that came out in 2013 as well. Developing for a fixed hardware platform like a console is very different from developing for high-level APIs in a disparate hardware environment. And AMD doesn't have a hardware product available that comes close to NVidia's halo product. AMD are essentially stuck trying to provide better value in the mid-range.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuorTek
AMD's resurgence in CPUs is because Ryzen is that good. They don't have a GPU that is convincingly better than anything nvidia has on the market. Being the GPU provider in consoles again will mean nothing to the PC market unless they can provide a card that genuinely outperforms nvidia, ideally at lower cost and lower power consumption...
I think that is just interpretation though. All the blurb says you'll get better performance for enterprise etc. it's built for enterprise or whatever depending where you lookQuote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
Possibly; millions isn't very many in the PC world, and I'm pretty sure every Windows based work PC I have used has been running Pro. I *think* I did have Enterprise running on an old junk laptop once as the poor bloke who had to navigate the seven circles of Microsoft corporate volume licencing deemed it cheaper for some reason. But I would be surprised if there was less than a magnitude difference in number of people running Pro vs Enterprise. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more than a factor of 100 in it. Heck, I personally don't test against Enterprise and currently have no way to do so (and I sometimes test against XP!).Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
But then part of the reason I am used to actual big expensive workstations running Linux is to get away from this nonsense.
Indeed dances... it's not ideal, and yes it's one of those things. But I'm sure Microsoft really weren't expecting these kind of chips when Win 10 was segmented. I also reckon a patch will be issued fairly quickly to reduce the difference if enough people complain, but then again to upgrade from Pro to Enterprise is just a case of entering a new key and it will go off and do it's thing
I'm at a small company atm, so it would probably involve purchasing a licence and then submitting an expenses claim which is enough to put me off. In previous jobs I would have to find the person in charge of licencing, make sure they were in a really good mood, and ask them for a replacement licence for a machine where the existing licence should be perfectly fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
I think you are right that there will be a patch. I doubt it will even take any complaining, fixing scheduling performance has been a regular thing since, what Pentium 4 hyperthreading?
What so now we have to guess whether a version will actually give us full performance even if it's listed as being fully supported.... oh come on this is getting a bit daft now.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
It shouldn't need a patch due to people 'complaining' because it shouldn't have been an issue to start with..
Honestly, the more I think about this I think it just needs and will get a patch because it is a bug. And quite a minor one at that, if you compare against the problems with early ThreadRippers with their game mode BIOS switches to get around Windows and games utterly failing to handle something they had never seen before. We also had sub optimal cross CCX scheduling in early Ryzen chips, which got fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
I can almost understand the first ryzen cpu issues, we always get a small window of 'issues' with any new architecture change and/or major OS update, but these sort of 'differences' between OS versions shouldn't be happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix