# AMD's Entry-Level 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper to Reportedly Cost $849



## Raevenlord (Jun 6, 2017)

AMD has recently announced that at least nine models are in preparation for their new HEDT line-up, which will, for now, feature processors with up to 16 cores and 32 threads. The entry-level 16-core chip, the Threadripper 1998, will come in at 3.20 GHz with 3.60 GHz boost, 155 W TDP, and is absent of XFR.

If recent reports hold true, this entry-level Threadripper 1998 will come in at $849. Now, let's be honest - this seems like an immensely optimistic value, undercutting even Intel's 10-core 7900X, which has been announced at $999 (in tray quantities.) That's over 6 more cores and 12 more threads for $150 less. And let's just say that AMD's IPC isn't that much lower than Intel's to justify such an aggressive undercutting, a high-volume approach to the market.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## _larry (Jun 6, 2017)

AMD IS BACK IN THE GAME.


----------



## P4-630 (Jun 6, 2017)

@Knoxx29 

$849,-


----------



## FireFox (Jun 6, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> @Knoxx29
> 
> $849,-



You are lucky there is not an emoticon showing the middle finger

Joke.

Btw, i wouldn't spend not even a penny for that thing.




_larry said:


> AMD IS BACK IN THE GAME.



Whatever


----------



## Aenra (Jun 6, 2017)

Assuming i read this right, we're talking about the non-X variant here.
Assuming (again) that the difference between X and non-X variants will be similar to that of R7s (17ish %), we're looking at $993 for the 1998X.

A 16c/32t XFR SKU $7 cheaper than intel's *10*c/20t. I approve


----------



## wiak (Jun 6, 2017)

well makes sense, ryzen 1800X was priced $499 and that competes with 6900K

$999 = 16 core threadripper
$849 = 16 core threadripper
$749 = 14 core threadripper
$649 = 10 core threadripper
$499 = 8-core ryzen

thats what i think


----------



## Evildead666 (Jun 6, 2017)

wiak said:


> well makes sense, ryzen 1800X was priced $499 and that competes with 6900K
> 
> $999 = 16 core threadripper
> $849 = 16 core threadripper
> ...



I would expect :
10 core @ $599
12 core @ $699
14 core @ $799
16 core @ $899
16c/XFR @ $999

or somewhere thereabouts.
I wouldn't expect a major jump from 8 core to 10 core price. At least I hope not. That entry level chip needs to be entry level.


----------



## OSdevr (Jun 6, 2017)

Intel's top HEDT processor has long been a $1000 part, it makes perfect sense for AMD to line their stuff up this way (especially PR wise).


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 6, 2017)

Gotta love the aggressive pricing, Intel has a hell broke loose with AMD's pricing and competition.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 6, 2017)

wiak said:


> well makes sense, ryzen 1800X was priced $499 and that competes with 6900K
> 
> $999 = 16 core threadripper
> $849 = 16 core threadripper
> ...


You forgot the 12-cores.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 6, 2017)

9700 Pro said:


> pricing and competition.



About Pricing agree, competition nah, however, i am fine with Intel's prices.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 6, 2017)

First off, this is not confirmed by AMD. Second, if this is true then it looks like AMD is seriously not trying to cut into their own server market potential and minimize confusion. I don't think they will work though because I don't remember any difference between Threadripper and Epyc other than support for multiple sockets or am I wrong?


----------



## OSdevr (Jun 6, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> First off, this is not confirmed by AMD. Second, if this is true then it looks like AMD is seriously not trying to cut into their own server market potential and minimize confusion. I don't think they will work though because I don't remember any difference between Threadripper and Epyc other than support for multiple sockets or am I wrong?


Threadripper goes up to 16 cores. EPYC (aka Naples) maxes out at 32 cores in one package. I think it uses 4 full dies.

I'm really curious to see how EPYC competes with Intel's monsters at the ultra high end.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 6, 2017)

OSdevr said:


> Threadripper goes up to 16 cores. EPYC (aka Naples) maxes out at 32 cores in one package. I think it uses 4 full dies.
> 
> I'm really curious to see how EPYC competes with Intel's monsters at the ultra high end.



Probably well if clockspeeds are half-decent. Skylake-x xeon clockspeeds drop off rapidly after x amount of cores.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 6, 2017)

OSdevr said:


> Threadripper goes up to 16 cores. EPYC (aka Naples) maxes out at 32 cores in one package. I think it uses 4 full dies.
> 
> I'm really curious to see how EPYC competes with Intel's monsters at the ultra high end.



Naples will have single socket boards as well allowing 128pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram and 32c/64t.   I doubt they will be compatible with the thread ripper boards... and even if they were... probably limited to 64 pcie lanes and quad channel.
By reducing the core count AMD can clock these higher and target a prosumer/workstation workload.   The 32c chips are clocked very low... 1.4ghz 2.8ghz turbo.

Intel 2066 is also limited to single socket and will only launch with up to 12 cores... the 14/16/18 xeon transplants won't be available this year, they were a pure kneejerk response to threadripper.

It will be interesting to see how much AMD x399 boards cost... G34 boards were and stayed incredibly pricey compared to 2011 and g34 had 1944 contacts, these have 4094.
The chips will have to be somewhat cheaper just to make the system cost competitive.

Naples will be competitive if for nothing other than NVME storage boxes.   Intel simply can't compete with 128pcie lanes off a single chip.


----------



## Kursah (Jun 6, 2017)

Let's keep the personal jabs out of conversation, post something constructive and useful or move along.

Frankly I hope AMD does release at this price, I would love nothing more than to see more competition from them as Ryzen continues to develop. Not sure it is going to be there yet...those that want the best will pay the price, those that can settle for something good enough can save a nice chunk of change. Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 6, 2017)

Raevenlord said:


> That's over 6 more cores and 12 more threads for $150 less.



I don't think it is over 6 more cores, I believe it is exactly 6 more cores.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 6, 2017)

Frick said:


> Serious question at this point: why?



simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.


----------



## ERazer (Jun 6, 2017)

$849 with 64 lanes? i do not mind at all


----------



## OSdevr (Jun 6, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Naples will have single socket boards as well allowing 128pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram and 32c/64t.   I doubt they will be compatible with the thread ripper boards... and even if they were... probably limited to 64 pcie lanes and quad channel.
> By reducing the core count AMD can clock these higher and target a prosumer/workstation workload.   The 32c chips are clocked very low... 1.4ghz 2.8ghz turbo.
> 
> Intel 2066 is also limited to single socket and will only launch with up to 12 cores... the 14/16/18 xeon transplants won't be available this year, they were a pure kneejerk response to threadripper.
> ...


I never said anything about the sockets. I agree that there will be one for each processor 'class'. As for the high core count low frequency chips, I always assumed that this was because they needed to respect the TDP.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 6, 2017)

So nice, but I want mah APUs!


----------



## Patriot (Jun 6, 2017)

OSdevr said:


> I never said anything about the sockets. I agree that there will be one for each processor 'class'. As for the high core count low frequency chips, I always assumed that this was because they needed to respect the TDP.


(shrugs) just informing.   And yes, it is to maintain tdp.  I am curious what the clocks on the 16c APUs will be to maintain that 180w tdp.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 6, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> You are lucky there is not an emoticon showing the middle finger
> 
> Joke.
> 
> ...




We get it, you love Intel and would pay anything to make your epeen bigger. Is there anything you feel like contributing to the conversation, or do you just feel like thread crapping?

Personally I would pay more than a cent for one, and am glad for competition as no matter who or what you are or think, competition is good for everyone. The logical fallacy of confirmation bias and the Dunning Kruger effect is strong with some though.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 6, 2017)

Patriot said:


> (shrugs) just informing.   And yes, it is to maintain tdp.  I am curious what the clocks on the 16c APUs will be to maintain that 180w tdp.


AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.


----------



## ERazer (Jun 6, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.



APU ryzen/vega mmmmm...


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 6, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> About Pricing agree, competition nah, however, i am fine with Intel's prices.


This ain't FX.


----------



## notb (Jun 6, 2017)

If this is true (which I doubt), why would they do it?
It would be enough to price it 10-20% below Intel's counterpart.
Instead this is priced at roughly half of Intel's rumored 16C/32T.

So my first question would be: just how bad is the performance? Because from the price point of view, they're putting this against the 10-core Skylake-X.
Or maybe they already know Intel is going to drop prices even before the launch?


----------



## Static~Charge (Jun 6, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.



You're the type of customer that Intel is begging for: brand-loyal and price-blind.  The people who can put all those threads to good use will get a much better cost/performance ratio from the AMD processor.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 6, 2017)

Its about damn time Intel gets to sit on teh backseat, good for nothing company.
Stops doing anything the moment the competition has no answer.

Die Intel die, Ryz AMD RYZZZZ

moar liek intelripper.

(apparently these kind of fanboy posts are allowed now so might as well join in)


----------



## notb (Jun 6, 2017)

Static~Charge said:


> You're the type of customer that Intel is begging for: brand-loyal and price-blind.  The people who can put all those threads to good use will get a much better cost/performance ratio from the AMD processor.


But he could also be the type of customer who will actually use all his cores for work or fun most of the time.
Think how much time people spend comparing benchmarks, choosing the perfect Zen CPU, finding gear that'll support it and so on.

Most AMD users are geeks, they love choosing and tweaking their CPUs.
Most Intel users don't know what "a socket" is. Pfff. Most aren't even allowed to open the PCs they use. 

You have to take this into consideration when comparing their products.


----------



## Static~Charge (Jun 6, 2017)

notb said:


> Most AMD users are geeks, they love choosing and tweaking their CPUs.
> Most Intel users don't know what "a socket" is. Pfff. Most aren't even allowed to open the PCs they use.
> 
> You have to take this into consideration when comparing their products.



That is a highly inaccurate description. The title of "geek" doesn't apply to any particular brand of component. I know plenty of Intel geeks who obsess over the minutiae of their system configurations. It boils down to the matter of pride in the computer that you've created.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jun 6, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.


They make things for when Intel fanbois are on the edge of a meltdown, others call it a Klenex tissue.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 6, 2017)

Static~Charge said:


> That is a highly inaccurate description. The title of "geek" doesn't apply to any particular brand of component. I know plenty of Intel geeks who obsess over the minutiae of their system configurations. It boils down to the matter of pride in the computer that you've created.



both of you are just generalizing which is...rather unintelligent.
That is unless one of you can back it up with actual data showing percentages on both sides and which group does more overclocking for example.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 6, 2017)

For years i have been an Intel supporter. Better CPU´s, great performence and overclock. I remember AMD´s awful first gen Phenom (Phenom 2 whas deffently better) with bad performence, hard to oc over 3 GHz and so on and because of AMD lack of new and fast CPU. Intel had the hig-end market for them them self.

Intel released some great CPU back in the days with X58 line up and Sandy brigde with good IPC over the gen before. But then Intel got lazy because of no real competision from AMD. So the commen years after that intel released CPU every year with maybe 3-5 % IPC performence gain and pissed on there costumers and let prices slowly but for sure getting higher over the years. But after some time intel not only godt lazy but also greedy so from the before 999 USD for and extreme CPU they charged 1500 USD and that got to 1700 USD with I7 6950X and now 1999 USD with i9-7980XE. then does this madness ends.

But finnaly AMD come out with Ryzen Threadripper and Intel got scared taken with there lazy pants down. Rushed 14, 16 and 18 cores out that where event plant or ready at Computex 2017 and it also looks lige Coofee lake gona be rushed and because X299 is rushed som features lags. Just se Linus Tech Tips video about it.

So Intel has gone from great to lazy greedy fags that got taken hard by AMD. After all this mess from intel the special the last 2-3 years. It is getting harder and harder to support Intel at the time being. And if AMD thread ripper lands around 999 USD for the 16 core X top model, intel is really gonna lose supporters and costumers this round specialy with those priced they claim for the biggest models.

Here is a short story on how intel im my mind has gone from great to greedy panicked lazy bums that rips your wallet.

The good old serious days of intel.






Then AMD came with Bulldozer...




And after Intels panicked reaction to AMD threadripper. It can not be other than this here in 2017.





I still support Intel but not as much as i used to do and i am not bying there new CPU cause i am staying on X58, But i also have to say this time AMD has something special that can get intel go in panic mode and properly some good prices aswell. Where AMD still dissapoint me throw is Ryzen OC capabilety cause OC is an importent factor for me then i chose a platform. There is intel still a winner, but AMD wins in other areas in return.

But what holds the future for intel and AMD then.

For AMD some good years in the near future.

For intel a loss in sales, consumers and supporters. I even been told that intel is no longer sending ES models to EU any more for test.

Rumors also tells that the future code names for Intels up comming CPU´s is this.

For the small socket code name is: Money lake

For the big socket: Wallet ripper

Well i hope you guys find this funny all throw some of it is true aswell.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 6, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.


Take a good look girls and boys, here we have what is known as intellus fanboyis in the animal kingdom, in his natural habitat he can be found trolling AMD threads and making ridiculous starments like the one above, however the under attack Ryzena's are quick to group and pounce on the predator who is quickly outnumbered and outfacted before he retreats to his own den to lick his wounds and his bruised ego


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 6, 2017)

that is a great deal... esp at those clocks - not sure how it will sell though since...

"no one's ever been fired for buying intel"


----------



## Patriot (Jun 6, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.


Server APU on naples socket.   VEGA, HBM2 and 16-32 cores... 
In the EHP (exascale heterogeneous processor) AMD detailed what they were planning back in 2015.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 6, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Intel 2066 is also limited to single socket and will only launch with up to 12 cores... the 14/16/18 xeon transplants won't be available this year, they were a pure kneejerk response to threadripper.


You do know that there will be Xeon Gold/Platinum, offering up to 8 socket scalability, with at least up to 28 cores per socket?
There wouldn't be a 1:1 match in comparable CPU models from AMD and Intel in mainstream, HEDT and server, so don't limit your scope to one line of CPUs.

And no, you're wrong. The planning of 18 core Skylake-X took place years before the rumors of Threadripper.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> You do know that there will be Xeon Gold/Platinum, offering up to 8 socket scalability, with at least up to 28 cores per socket?
> There wouldn't be a 1:1 match in comparable CPU models from AMD and Intel in mainstream, HEDT and server, so don't limit your scope to one line of CPUs.
> 
> And no, you're wrong. The planning of 18 core Skylake-X took place years before the rumors of Threadripper.



I am overly aware of both companies entire lineup.... but you are missing the point.
Threadripper SP3r2 and 2066 are single socket only.   SP3 is 1p/2p and  3647 is 2p-8p.
The price jump up in board cost is huge going from 2066 to 3647.   I don't expect threadripper boards to be cheap but knowing AMD it will be nicer than 3647.

This gen is just painful from the gap between 1p and 2p.   I can have 22 cores in a desktop x99 board right now, and buy a second and a $300 board and have a 2p with 44c/88t.
1p is limited to 18 cores in 2066 and those wont even be out this year.   Now moving to 2p requires new chips and boards on both teams.   IMO, SP3 seems to be the winner.
Side note... any arch question from 1366 to now... I have a solid chance of knowing... I can id an intel chip gen from its underbelly.

All I can say is... competition is fun!


----------



## notb (Jun 6, 2017)

ZoneDymo said:


> both of you are just generalizing which is...rather unintelligent.
> That is unless one of you can back it up with actual data showing percentages on both sides and which group does more overclocking for example.


Well... we can make a pool on TPU (which is already hugely biased and the share of AMD here is way above average). You'd like that?  I'll have to think about the question for a moment.


----------



## tbris84 (Jun 6, 2017)

Where have these 10 and 14 core Threadripper chips been officially announced? I thought we learned from AMD when Ryzen 5 launched that they were disabling cores in symmetrical pairs only. Leaving us with 4:4/3:3/2:2 CCX arrangements for Ryzen and 4:4:4:4(16core)/3:3:3:3(12core) for Threadripper. Has this changed with Threadripper? Ifso, why and source?

(Source: Google "AMD Ryzen Cores Are Disabled in Symmetrical Pairs" there are dozens.)


----------



## HTC (Jun 6, 2017)

notb said:


> *If this is true (which I doubt), why would they do it?
> It would be enough to price it 10-20% below Intel's counterpart.
> Instead this is priced at roughly half of Intel's rumored 16C/32T.*
> 
> ...



I have my doubts of whether or not this is true but the reason why seems logical for me: by seriously undercutting Intel's pricing, they'll bring more customers right away. This would not be possible if prices were much closer to Intel's offerings, IMO.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 6, 2017)

I read the tea leaves and what was on the wall and it said, AMD has screwed over people before with big claims and not much to back them up when the smoke clears, but...... and its a bit but...... Zen architecture seems to be good, and it it scales as well as the 8 cores do with power and performance, and possibly being even better silicon. Unicorns would still have to bless it before some will buy it at prices equal to the performance it offers. The pricing is to buy customers back, not to directly compete with Intel at this point.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 6, 2017)

Excellent pricing.


----------



## warrior420 (Jun 6, 2017)

Also, 7900X = 44 PCI-E lanes, versus 64 PCI-E lanes on ALL of the Threadripper CPUs.   That's huge to me...


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 6, 2017)

Lets just wait and see what happens, shall we? Patience is a virtue.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> And no, you're wrong. The planning of 18 core Skylake-X took place years before the rumors of Threadripper.



That's not what MB vendors said. They said they had no knowledge of such a product.


----------



## Camm (Jun 6, 2017)

I've been saying for quite a while that AMD will price its highest core part at the old Intel halo $999 price point.

AMD won't price higher as its aggressively after market share and to bring people into AMD's ecosystem before Intel can launch a decent counterpunch.


----------



## notb (Jun 6, 2017)

HTC said:


> I have my doubts of whether or not this is true but the reason why seems logical for me: by seriously undercutting Intel's pricing, they'll bring more customers right away. This would not be possible if prices were much closer to Intel's offerings, IMO.


But what does this strategy get them?
Basically there is no gain in having a customer - there is no paid plan or apps or whatever. There is hardly any cross-selling, because nothing (apart from chipset) is only usable with AMD CPU.

I don't know what would be the profit for AMD in a $850 16-core CPU (it could be similar to Ryzen 7).
Let's assume it is $200. Why not sell for $1400 and get another $550? Intel's 16C/32T is expected at $1700.
Few weeks back AMD was commenting on the mediocre Q1 results and they said that high-profit products will get a higher priority. What happened to that?!

Looking at historical AMD/Intel price ratios (for the same performance) and Ryzen pricing, I'd expect that a $850 CPU would be put against a $1100-1200 Intel model in performance. 16-core Threadripper VS 12-core 7920X? If they're comparable, just how far ahead is the 18-core i9? 
But more importantly, how big will be the gap between Xeon and EPYC?


TheGuruStud said:


> That's not what MB vendors said. They said they had no knowledge of such a product.


Source?
Also, how many weeks before launch had they learned final Ryzen specs? 


warrior420 said:


> Also, 7900X = 44 PCI-E lanes, versus 64 PCI-E lanes on ALL of the Threadripper CPUs.   That's huge to me...


This is interesting, since a Ryzen 8-core CPU has only 24 lanes. That gives 48 for two chips, so where did they get the extra 16?


----------



## Rockarola (Jun 7, 2017)

notb said:


> Well... we can make a pool on TPU (which is already hugely biased and the share of AMD here is way above average). You'd like that?  I'll have to think about the question for a moment.


I'd like you to prove said bias, otherwise the bias must be inherent in the observer not in factual reality. 
(to put it in a simpler way: yeah right, prove it!)


----------



## Dave65 (Jun 7, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.


----------



## JMccovery (Jun 7, 2017)

tbris84 said:


> Where have these 10 and 14 core Threadripper chips been officially announced? I thought we learned from AMD when Ryzen 5 launched that they were disabling cores in symmetrical pairs only. Leaving us with 4:4/3:3/2:2 CCX arrangements for Ryzen and 4:4:4:4(16core)/3:3:3:3(12core) for Threadripper. Has this changed with Threadripper? Ifso, why and source?
> 
> (Source: Google "AMD Ryzen Cores Are Disabled in Symmetrical Pairs" there are dozens.)



Yes, disabled in symmetrical pairs, but remember, ThreadRipper is a dual-die MCM, so having a 4:4+3:3 or a 3:3+2:2 configuration is possible.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 7, 2017)

notb said:


> If this is true (which I doubt), why would they do it?
> It would be enough to price it 10-20% below Intel's counterpart.
> Instead this is priced at roughly half of Intel's rumored 16C/32T.
> 
> ...



Because they can.


AMD's die size is SMALLER per 4 cores than Intel's is, and they are getting _better_ yields than Intel is.  Seriously it costs roughly half as much as it does Intel to make a quad core, and then it gets worse:

-AMD's CCX design allows them to simply piece together 4 x 4.0GHz quad cores for _moar cores_ and cache.  That's why AMD will have a 4.0GHz 16-core.    Something Intel can only dream of.

-AMD's design is more efficient as well.   So AMD's 16-core will likely be 180w while Intel will be lucky to get a 3.5GHz 18-core that uses less than 220w.


AMD will make _more money _ on each 16-core sold than Intel will on each 12-core sold, and they desperately need marketshare in the server space.   *I will be the first to admit that I thought AMD would charge more for Threadripper, but they need the marketshare; and they will make PLENTY of money at these prices.   The server market is tough to get into, and so they need to be merciless to get contracts.  They need to make it so a company will be at a competitive disadvantage if they don't switch.*


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 7, 2017)

That's good. Now where are them benches with Intel/AMD comparisons?


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Because they can.
> 
> 
> AMD's die size is SMALLER per 4 cores than Intel's is, and they are getting _better_ yields than Intel is.  Seriously it costs roughly half as much as it does Intel to make a quad core, and then it gets worse:
> ...


interesting take... 

Cant say we will see 4ghz stock on 16c amd... their quads are barely 4 ghz chips overclocked.

If you stitch together 4 of those, does that exacerbate the latency in transferring across the fabric which is/was a concern?
https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/...yzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises

Also, their STOCK quads are 65W... x4 = 260W. Quads at 4ghz all cores im certain are more than that. I know you cant just x4 it, but.. 4ghz and 4 ccx wont sip power either. I expect it in the neighborhood of 200W stock. At 4ghz, 200+ for sure. 

Just something to consider.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> interesting take...
> 
> Cant say we will see 4ghz stock on 16c amd... their quads are barely 4 ghz chips overclocked.
> 
> ...




Well there is definitely a 5-10% performance hit in IPC from the CCX fabric (Forgot where I saw the tests that showed this).   But considering Ryzen's pricing, I think we can both agree it's worth it lol.

I doubt there is more of a hit when switching to 4 x CCX's, but we will have to wait for the benchmarks won't we .   Even if it took an additional 10% hit, it would crush whatever Intel releases (Rumors point to Intel having trouble getting the 18-core i9 above 2.5GHz lol).


As for Threadripper's clockspeeds - Leaks point to 4.1GHz for the 14-core, and 3.9 + XFR for the 16-core (I clearly believe them).    Oh and AMD can bin their quad-cores to use less than 65w per CCX, and additionally I believe there is some power savings by combining them.   After all AMD's 8-core has a 95w TDP while they 4-core has a TDP rating of 65w.  It's not insane at all to think they could get 180w with their 16-core.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

How cant there be more of a hit? You add three more ccx which goes through it. Any thread jumping will suffer when doing so. How much is going to be the question. I dont expect it to be a dealbreaker or anything, but something to keep an eye on for sure.

The threadripper base clock is (rumored) at 3.5ghz with 3.9 or 4.1 ghz boost/xfr (one or two cores... dont recall). 7900x is 3.3 with single core to 4.3ghz... intels 18 core monster wont make 3ghz, but heh, its (rumored) to be 165w.


Edit: hate to post this but...: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6fbmdj/i97980xe_clock_speed_prediction/

Saying 3.1ghz.... but who knows...


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> How cant there be more of a hit? You add three more ccx which goes through it. Any thread jumping will suffer when doing so. How much is going to be the question. I dont expect it to be a dealbreaker or anything, but something to keep an eye on for sure.
> 
> The threadripper base clock is (rumored) at 3.5ghz with 3.9 or 4.1 ghz boost/xfr (one or two cores... dont recall). 7900x is 3.3 with single core to 4.3ghz... intels 18 core monster wont make 3ghz, but heh, its (rumored) to be 165w.




Well I guess we will have to see what each one can do with an AIO Liquid cooler.

My assumption is once tweaked Intel's 7900X will hit ~4.5GHz on ALL cores at once, and then AMD's 16-core will hit 4.0GHz on ALL cores at once.  I think it's pretty obvious which one will be stronger lol.  *6 more cores for the same price!*

Power usage will likely be the same.  Intel's (no inferior) efficiency goes down by a large margin when overclocked.  We will see....


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

Captn... its a crapshoot for their 8 thread to reach 4 ghz on all threads (and blow its tdp out of the water in the process)... I mean, I WANT to see it, but just am not sure, with the info we have already, that's going to be possible with all threads. Zen2...?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Captn... its a crapshoot for their 8 thread to reach 4 ghz on all threads (and blow its tdp out of the water in the process)... I mean, I WANT to see it, but just am not sure, with the info we have already, that's going to be possible with all threads. Zen2...?



That's the leak.  I don't doubt power usage will go up, but I see no reason why it would use more than 200w if you told it to run at that speed on all cores.   

I doubt the 18-core Xeon will be able to hit 3.5GHz without using 250w lol


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

Lol, ok.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Captn... its a crapshoot for their 8 thread to reach 4 ghz on all threads (and blow its tdp out of the water in the process)... I mean, I WANT to see it, but just am not sure, with the info we have already, that's going to be possible with all threads. Zen2...?




https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/14.html

Have you read the review?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 9, 2017)

Ryzen 1800X hits 4Ghz pretty reliably.  I've yet to see one that doesn't.  Mine is a poor overclocker and even it does with some healthy voltage and cooling.

But, I mean we should expect this as it's binned to turbo to that.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

Ive seen several, but an overwhelming majority is accurate. 

The (my) problem with that.... it isnt past its own xfr. So, its bringing all cores to full boost.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 9, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> That's not what MB vendors said. They said they had no knowledge of such a product.



That's just like how MS pulled directx12 out of their ass and the documentation almost matches Mantle word for word.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 9, 2017)

Nice pricing . I thing the XFR on those is out of the picture. Purpose of this CPU is not to reach high clock rates. It would be nice if it could but.... 3.6Ghz is nice for 16 Core CPU. It is still better than Intels top Xeon 24 Core. Turbo 3.4 Mhz and only 32 PCI-E  lanes. Wonder how this 32core will look like will look like.


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 9, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.


 AMD slides show epyc with full 32 cores on the MCM, and its fabric branching to additional cpu/gpuS, presumably on an mcm on the second socket of a dual socket mobo.

4 core and 1 vega gpu is the sweetspot minimum config, as required for power sipping, lucrative mobile apuS - so that configuration is sensibly, first to market.

But there seems few limits to cpu/gpu combos (apuS) possible on the amd mcm/fabric.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 9, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Nice pricing . I thing the XFR on those is out of the picture. Purpose of this CPU is not to reach high clock rates. It would be nice if it could but.... 3.6Ghz is nice for 16 Core CPU. It is still better than Intels top Xeon 24 Core. Turbo 3.4 Mhz and only 32 PCI-E  lanes. Wonder how this 32core will look like will look like.



The same leaks show XFR up to 4.1 GHz on the 14-core buddy


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jun 9, 2017)

finally, after years of misery in the CPU market, things are heating up


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> The same leaks show XFR up to 4.1 GHz on the 14-core buddy


Amazing they can't get an 8 core to 4.1 XFR, yet with 16 its possible...........................



..................................


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Amazing they can't get an 8 core to 4.1 XFR, yet with 16 its possible...........................
> 
> 
> 
> ..................................



WuT?

It's common knowledge that 1800X XFR to 4.1.    Threadripper is just several 1800X/1600X dies glued together lol.    It will likely have a lower base clock (For TDP reasons), but you can expect these to boost to 4.1 just as easily.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

Let me clarify... ALL CORES to their boost/xfr speeds.

...thought we were talking all cores... at least i was, lol!


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 10, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.



Good for you Intel fanboy, enjoy ripping yourself off.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 11, 2017)

Lionheart said:


> Good for you Intel fanboy, enjoy ripping yourself off.


Maybe it's not being a fanboy but it's an unconditional love


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 11, 2017)

A lot of people seem to be getting bent out of shape at these being cheap and therefore expecting poor performance Vs Intel.

This is nothing like that it's just the scaleble modular design means pricing follows a very simple format.

About twice the power costs about twice as much. Each time.

This is because AMD are making 8 core parts and them sticking them in the infinity fabric.

Intel with are straight up making 20 core monolithic CPUs, meaning their pricing scales down from the top rather than building from the bottom.

So Amd chips maybe cost 50 dollars each then they stick 4 of them on a PCB then charge you 1000 for it. But you still get loads of performance.

Intel 20 core maybe costs 500 dollars straight up thanks to complex monolithic CPUs having exponentially more chances of having errors. Vs a quad core based on same architecture and process.

So an 18-16-14 core are all that same 20 core chip that costs Intel 500 or so.


AMD have engineered a game changer here folks assuming they don't balls it right up.


It means dual GPU cards should In theory not be shitty as they'll be using the infinity fabric as well.


Sorry writing isn't my forte but hopefully you get the jist.


AMD have made god damn processor Legos,that's what Vega and Ryzen are, building blocks that fit together perfectly.

So you could build a "little house", or"Lego land "

AMD could could put 64 cores in a single package,128 etc etc.

The scalebility on depends on how much the customer wants to spend and power delivery/cooling etc.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 11, 2017)

Well, most are worried about that same fabric and more ccx modules and how that effects performance too. Its easy to add, but weve already seen latency issues from the two ccx/8 core...i can imagine 4 ccx will have more latency?


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 11, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Well, most are worried about that same fabric and more ccx modules and how that effects performance too. Its easy to add, but weve already seen latency issues from the two ccx/8 core...i can imagine 4 ccx will have more latency?


I suspect that it will be similar to latency to talk to L3 cache since that's usually where all the cores can eventually talk to each other, on AMD and Intel CPUs (most of them anyways,) but, the CCX is even kind of one level out from that so, it's almost like what the latency would be for an on-die L4 cache depending on how everything is laid out. I suspect that they'll be quick so long as the OS isn't switching threads to a different CCX often because the memory it's using might not be already resident in that CCX' cache and more communication between the different functional parts means more latency. I'm not going to lie, I think that single-threaded performance is going to be worse but, it's coming with the trade-off of having more cores. I say this to people at work and I'll say it here too. *Use the right tool for the right job*. Not everyone needs a ton of cores but, there are situations where people need that. I know that a lot of people here are mainly concerned about gaming and that's fine but, we all have to remember that there is more to computers than just games and that there are a lot of different tasks that devs and scientists are using them for.


----------



## infrared (Jun 11, 2017)

I assume AMD have been putting aside all the best 8c dies to use in threadripper. Some of the better 1800X's can do 4.1+ on all cores, my one is running WCG at 4.1ghz 1.406v at the moment, under a lighter load I can push it to 4.2ghz. On the same note power consumption should be reduced with higher quality dies. So I think their target is _plausible_ but probably not easy for them to achieve.

I'm very impressed with their pricing if that's accurate.. I believe they're going as low as they can on price, not because performance is bad, but because they want as many people as possible to buy it and spread the word of how _good_ their new generation of products is. They've hurt their reputation so badly this last decade that they _need_ to price stuff low for IT companies to begin using them again.


----------



## HTC (Jun 11, 2017)

infrared said:


> I assume AMD have been putting aside all the best 8c dies to use in threadripper. Some of the better 1800X's can do 4.1+ on all cores, my one is running WCG at 4.1ghz 1.406v at the moment, under a lighter load I can push it to 4.2ghz. On the same note power consumption should be reduced with higher quality dies. *So I think their target is plausible but probably not easy for them to achieve.*
> 
> I'm very impressed with their pricing if that's accurate.. I believe they're going as low as they can on price, not because performance is bad, but because they want as many people as possible to buy it and spread the word of how _good_ their new generation of products is. They've hurt their reputation so badly this last decade that they _need_ to price stuff low for IT companies to begin using them again.



Even if it is plausible, i doubt they'd make it so because it will be more susceptible to instability @ higher speeds (assuming you are talking about clock speed of 4 GHz for a 16 c / 32 t chip). Stability in server environment is far more crucial so i'd expect @ most 3.5 GHz *base clock*: even this much is pretty much unheard of in chips with this many cores.

We already know how the fabric works in an 1x00(X) chip: what we don't know is how it works linking different chips. Does it have a higher penalty then the latency between different CCXs of the same chip? The infinity fabric's performance when linking different chips is what is going to make or brake threadripper as well as epyc: we shall see ...

Regarding the pricing, i totally agree with what you said.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 11, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Maybe it's not being a fanboy but it's an unconditional love



Nah, the one in question is really a full-on self professed fanboy.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 12, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Well, most are worried about that same fabric and more ccx modules and how that effects performance too. Its easy to add, but weve already seen latency issues from the two ccx/8 core...i can imagine 4 ccx will have more latency?



Inter chip communication is supposed to be the same speed as inter ccx communication, certainly when the chips are in the same package anyway. AMDs new processors /gpus are okay but its the fabric thats the most impressive bit of engineering.

According to AMD they're getting close to 100% scaling with this modular design, and likely would be if they could keep clock speeds the same.  Amd did a presentation recently where thread ripper done a cinebench done a run in 13 seconds ( approx) where as if actually 100% scaling it be 12 or so. That still aint bad at all.

It looks like if you want IPC single core performance intel are still king, but when it comes to multithreaded work loads I think AMD have outdone themselves.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 12, 2017)

Thats way cheaper then I thought they would be. Remember the old FX-57/60 priced more then this and your getting alot more CPU now then you did back then for the Money!


----------



## ratirt (Jun 12, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> Inter chip communication is supposed to be the same speed as inter ccx communication, certainly when the chips are in the same package anyway. AMDs new processors /gpus are okay but its the fabric thats the most impressive bit of engineering.
> 
> According to AMD they're getting close to 100% scaling with this modular design, and likely would be if they could keep clock speeds the same.  Amd did a presentation recently where thread ripper done a cinebench done a run in 13 seconds ( approx) where as if actually 100% scaling it be 12 or so. That still aint bad at all.
> 
> It looks like if you want IPC single core performance intel are still king, but when it comes to multithreaded work loads I think AMD have outdone themselves.


I'd really like to see the IPC for one core with intel high core count platforms too. They were not that great. (maybe it's due to lower frequency and OC potential?)


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 12, 2017)

Frequency.. has nothing to do with interconnectivity or IPC.


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 13, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> A lot of people seem to be getting bent out of shape at these being cheap and therefore expecting poor performance Vs Intel.
> 
> This is nothing like that it's just the scaleble modular design means pricing follows a very simple format.
> 
> ...




Agree, but its even more modular than u say - the "leggoBlock" wafer is 4 core - an 8 core ryzen is 2 x on the fabric/mcm.

Doubling up to yield 16 core TR, & again for 32 core Epyc, clearly has been plain sailing, given the latters imminent release.

Next big trick is getting the cpu & vega gpu leggo blocks to team up nicely on their "fabric", and few amd savvy folk would doubt thats a done deal too - its the same as an apu, which amd has done for many years.

we will see zen/vega apuS b4 xmas, in the more lucrative mobile market first.

Beyond that point, i personally cant see intel/nvidea getting much of a look in, if AMD can grow fast enough to meet demand. But again, the simplicity of their formula, makes me confident they have this covered.

The world will be their oyster.

Take the ~existing Epyc MCM. Its a fabric that can team up to 8 of the above leggo blocks. a server (which it sure is w/ 128 lanes), and could be purchased with just the right balance of cpu/gpu cores to suit projected c/gpu workloads.


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 13, 2017)

A question for the mavens here please?

What do u think of the notion that it pays to have symmetrical arrangements of cores/cache on these AMD Multi Core Modules? e.g. 8 core vs 6 core ryzen.

Conversely, the notion that the asymmetrically populated MCMs may yield more bang for buck, as they nip some cores, but leave the cache alone, but dont really price it in?


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 13, 2017)

msroadkill612 said:


> Agree, but its even more modular than u say - the "leggoBlock" wafer is 4 core - an 8 core ryzen is 2 x on the fabric/mcm.
> 
> Doubling up to yield 16 core TR, & again for 32 core Epyc, clearly has been plain sailing, given the latters imminent release.
> 
> ...



I know they've described the CCX as the "base" but I've not seen any dedicated quad cores based on this design yet hence my assumption 8 is the smallest "block" We'll see what happens with APU's though as I suspect you'll get a single ccx there plus graphics linked with the fabric.

Either way still clever stuff!


@At the guy who asked about intels high core count stuff being lower clocks.

Basically with a monolithic design you've got two problems, first of all power delivery and TDP start to effect what high clocks you can get as the chips will start having stability issues earlier on. That and as they are sold for the server market not consumer lower clocks that guarantee stability and TDP are better. Also monolithic design means all x cores need to hit the same target core speed. If 1 doesn't go to 3.5ghz for example then they'll fuse off that 1 off plus its pair and sell it as an 18 core for example ( if it were a 20 core chip) 

Where as AMD are making these 8 core chips, ones that arnt right end up in the 1600/1500/1400 series cpus. All the good ones get matched up ( best ones in server, followed by thread ripper and then ryzen) so if you have two chips that can 3.5 ghz  on all cores then they'll stick them in a thread ripper package, they'll also have the benefit of the two chips actually being apart and so not heating each other up to such a degree which is why Ryzen/Thread ripper are clocked about the same. A monolithic CPU with that many cores would be toasty to say the least.
(Large chips are more costly to design as you get less chips per wafer, you also increase the chances of having a flaw the larger the chip as well)


Basically if all this works as it should, AMD have a system where they can maximise profit for each product sku whilst minimising losses on bad chips.
Its just chip binning as usual cept the infinity fabric allows them to be a lot more flexible.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 13, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> I know they've described the CCX as the "base" but I've not seen any dedicated quad cores based on this design yet hence my assumption 8 is the smallest "block" We'll see what happens with APU's though as I suspect you'll get a single ccx there plus graphics linked with the fabric.


Isn't Ryzen 5 1400 a single CCX CPU?
Edit: I see that they just disabled two cores and half of the L3 on each CCX in 1400. At that point, why didn't they just do a full CCX?


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 13, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> I know they've described the CCX as the "base" but I've not seen any dedicated quad cores based on this design yet hence my assumption 8 is the smallest "block" We'll see what happens with APU's though as I suspect you'll get a single ccx there plus graphics linked with the fabric.



I ponder that too.

It seems clear that what we historically know as an apu from amd (ryzen mobile nee raven ridge), will ~comply with ryzen basic layout MCM. Instead of 2 x 4 core cpu leggo blocks on the MCM, it will be 1 x 4 core cpu & 1 vega gpu.

If linking these 2 core units on the fabric works as well as it should in amdS uniquely experienced hands, then the concept is very extendable to historically UNFAMILIAR APUs, like 16 core and 4 x gpu on one amd ~epyc MCM.

I agree that their step down from ~ryzen, the expected soon, R3 cpuS, which are 4 core or less, i.e only one leggo block for which the MCM (& maybe chipset) is ~superflous expense, will be revealing.

FYI, I will post an amd slide separately as behoves its interesting nature .


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 13, 2017)

FYI

woo - this slide shows a fully populated epyc mcm, with the fabric branching yet again to further cpu/gpu cores.

I am curious how this works physically.

What it may refer to, is that the links are via a 2 socket server? - i.e. the fabric is extended to include a second epyc MCM on the other socket. These 2 socket servers allow  double the leggo blocks, but no increase in pcie lanes over a 128 lane 1 socket server, as the extra 128 lanes are used for interconnecting the two ~epyc mcm/fabrics.

Still, its not how it looks. It shows a branch to a cpu/gpu on both ends of the epyc mcm.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1620103/lightbox/post/26112320/id/3040021

or

https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/3040021/width/350/height/700/flags/LL&imgrefurl=http://www.overclock.net/t/1620103/various-exclusive-amd-vega-presentation/920&docid=Wz5LiR-5iN6G0M&tbnid=a0ukJ3NOv60CjM:&vet=10ahUKEwjmxZHSzLrUAhWCWbwKHayrCcIQMwg0KA0wDQ..i&w=350&h=197&bih=880&biw=1776&q=amd epyc slides&ved=0ahUKEwjmxZHSzLrUAhWCWbwKHayrCcIQMwg0KA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

an exciting (imo) but obscure feature of vega is provision for dedicated raid nvm ssd storage directly connected to the gpu, laying the foundations for unheard of storage speeds for use as ~unlimited (512TB) vram sizes using virtual memory.

Perhaps even ~500GBps  HBM2 vram can be pooled among GPUs and even CPUs, tho i doubt the latter (cpus cannot use vram from what i hear).


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 13, 2017)

The price remains speculative, but yeah, have long thought TR/epyc (same socket & hence mobo)  would be surprisingly cheap, rather than dear. As in, 1.5 x an 1800 ryzen, rather than 2x or more as intel may have done.

Fundamental to the biz model, is its a ~fixed cost biz. sure there are variable costs payable to fabs etc., but the unit variable costs pale (and amd are getting pleasing yields as a bonus) beside the money irretrievably sunk in getting that first chip produced and supported.

Nor do i think ryzen price cuts are unconnected with the imminent release of epyc products. Its normal to gouge early adopters a bit when supply is short anyway. early adopters accept there is a premium & dont begrudge it. The new reality is ryzen has competition from sibling products, and must adjust its price point.

This is contrary to the popular view. TR is a consumer product, not for the cores, but for the lanes.

Hi bandwidth devices, NVMEs ssdS especially, have rather blindsided an industry with 5 year product development cycles.

Every such ssd, must have 4 pcie3 lanes (both due to the specification, and because they will soon saturate that bandwidth, and now come close to doing so). It would take 8x sata ssdS to saturate 4 lanes. multiple 16 lane gpuS have gained utility recently. The new norm for lans will be 5-10x the bandwidth of the current 1Gb/120MB lan, ...

Intel even have the nerve to sell current products with a ludicrous 16 lanes total. even the higher lane count models i distrust. - they seem to be shared via the southbridge.

Amd got a bit lucky - they just happened to be aiming for servers via their mcm/fabric, which they may as well flog to consumers as well, and all that server type grunt, serendipitously, is now very desirable on even consumer desktops, and certainly on hedtS. (FYI, TR =64 lanes & epyc 128 lanes. Ryzen x350 - 24 lanes, x370 chipset = 28 lanes).

the apu could be interesting, as it will probably forgo the need for the usual 16 lanes for cpu/gpu interconnect, by simply using the fabric rather than the system bus.

This is how their apuS have worked for many years (A10-7850k e.g.).
As others have ~said here, amdS focus should not be on profits now, but seeding the; vast, lucrative, virgin and cautious server market.

The ecosystem is ~as important as the product. W/o sales volume, developers wont do the tweaks that can make big differences to productivity.

I forget re which product, but lisa su mentioned 5000 "seeder packs" sent pre-release to industry folks. Surely this excellent investment is a serious hit to the current account books, yet alleged stock analysts pilloried AMD  for losing a lousy $70m in the quarter ending a few weeks post ryzen release. They are scoundrels and/or fools.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 13, 2017)

infrared said:


> I assume AMD have been putting aside all the best 8c dies to use in threadripper. Some of the better 1800X's can do 4.1+ on all cores, my one is running WCG at 4.1ghz 1.406v at the moment, under a lighter load I can push it to 4.2ghz. On the same note power consumption should be reduced with higher quality dies. So I think their target is _plausible_ but probably not easy for them to achieve.



Pretty much this.   AMD's CCX design will allow them to launch the entry models at ridiculously low prices while also allowing for the highest core counts we have EVER seen in chips with this many cores.


There will be a 16-core for ~$850, but this model will likely max out at ~3.5-3.8GHz.  However with some binning it wouldn't be insane to think they could have 16-cores clocked at 4.0 - 4.2GHz, but at a higher $1200 - $1500 price point.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 13, 2017)

I am ready for this. Bring it on!


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 13, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> However with some binning it would be insane to think they could have 16-cores clocked at 4.0 - 4.2GHz, but at a higher $1200 - $1500 price point.


Now you are reaching i think. At least not with zen... zen2... with you..


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Now you are reaching i think. At least not with zen... zen2... with you..



He's not far off if boost is at 3.9ghz for the X, that is its plausible.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 13, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> He's not far off if boost is at 3.9ghz for the X, that is its plausible.


For all 16 cores like he said??? No..not from the factory.

xfr is one core and these 8 core ccx cant get past their own boost/xfr with all cores for the most part. Not sure why adding another ccx using the same exact architecture can suddenly reach past what others cannot...

That logic leap escapes me (cause its not logical). 

Seriously...what suddenly makes these all 4-4.2ghz cpus when most 8 cores cant get past 4?


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> For all 16 cores like he said??? No..not from the factory.
> 
> xfr is one core and these 8 core ccx cant get past their own boost/xfr with all cores for the most part. Not sure why adding another ccx using the same exact architecture can suddenly reach past what others cannot...
> 
> ...



Relax dude. One its certainly possible for them to improve their process, and two the yields on their process have improved to 80%. That's all good news so there's more positive than not. And judging from the clock limitations on Ryzen gen1, it is not cooling related leading to the assumption that it is process limited. Iirc clocks are one of the things they focused on. And lastly, if their 16 core part boosts to 3.9, that's a pretty damn good outlook. 

And he was imagining the fantastical probability not stating fact, "However with some binning it would be insane to think they could have 16-cores clocked at 4.0 - 4.2GHz." 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-14nm-wafer-yields-pass-80-threadripper-cpus-on-track.html


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

Quite relaxed. 

Indeed it is possible to improve the process. This is why i conceded zen2 for that type of 'insane to think of' clock.

Threadripper is nothing more than 2 zen ccx's, right? Where is the process improvement? I can see amd binning these cpus, but to fit within a power envelope more so than higher clocks. The more cores, generally, the less stock clockspeed.

I dont find it impressive that one core boosts to 3.9...its no different than one core boosting to 4ghz xfr on one ccx. In my feeble head, the fact that it boosts less with merely one more ccx speaks volumes to me about the 16 core ever clocking that high. 

And cheers for amd hitting 80% yields...but that has nothing to do with clockspeed on the same exact process and architecture.

I also took the '...insane to think....' part different than you. In a positive light. I mean, why throw the binning part in there if its so outlandish?? When i see sick tricks i call it insane.... but again, in a positive way. A little disbelief, a lot of awesome.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 14, 2017)

I don't think clocks are the problem. Sure, we've seen a ceiling on what has been release so far but, that only sets the bar. Lets say for a moment that a 16c, 4 CCX CPU comes out. The real question should be, even if clocks are the same, will IPC be maintained and will the interconnect become a limiting factor? So, we know that Xen runs better with faster memory because memory clock is tied to the clock of "the IMC" which communicates with all of the CCXs. The real question should be is the IMC/Infinity Fabric bandwidth sensitive or is it latency sensitive? If it's latency sensitive, it means that quad channel memory might not improve performance as much as we think it will (like how my 3820 can drive my memory at 1600Mhz or 2400Mhz and it is really makes no difference,) which I think is more likely. If it's bandwidth sensitive, it means that the sucker is going to fly and could scale incredibly well in purely parallel workloads which seems too good to be true.

If AMD is smart, they will decouple the memory clock from the IMC/Fabric clock and let them be independently adjusted if it's latency sensitive. That would drive it home all together.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

I think its going to remain the same, ipc. I believe there will be worse performance when threads jump ccx's...so it depends on the programming, no? With more ccx's, there is a potential for more thread jumping just by sheer, well, math, lol. But again it depends on how the application is programmed(?)...

Im betting, lets be honest...guessing... quad channel wont matter much. Increased bandwidth, but also increased latency... so, it will depend. Im curious to see how some empirical testing on that goes.


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 14, 2017)

Re clocks, just saying, but as AMD have shifted the desktop/hedt goal posts to seriously multicore+, intel are at a serious TDP/clock/IPC disadvantage with their monolithic chip approach. This has been their traditional strong suite.

Intel 12-16 core may well be technically superior in parts, but have a cost structure of a different order - fab AND cooling.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

They are sure as heck not at an IPC disadvantage....


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 14, 2017)

how do u know ipc when we dont even know clocks yet on intels (bar the smallest)?

Also, cooling on air seems out for intel, which is no small thing for consumers/hedt.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

Because we know AMD IPC is several percent behind Intel. We also know SkylakeX isnt going to go backwards in IPC...we also know threadripper is the same as any existing zen cpu just with more ccx. No arch changes/updates so no IPC changes.

You are aware of what IPC is, right?

Edit: lol, aircooling isnt out for intel.... And since its hedt, you'd think people can afford an aio anyway...


----------



## systemBuilder (Jun 14, 2017)

notb said:


> I don't know what would be the profit for AMD in a $850 16-core CPU (it could be similar to Ryzen 7).
> Let's assume it is $200. Why not sell for $1400 and get another $550? Intel's 16C/32T is expected at $1700.
> Few weeks back AMD was commenting on the mediocre Q1 results and they said that high-profit products will get a higher priority. What happened to that?



Do you have any idea how profitable the 1700, 1700x, and 1800x are?  AMD is making only ONE chip and this is it with 8 cores and it costs them only $60 to fab! Where do they get the extra pci lanes?  Why they simply connect the wires I am sure are already available internally on the ONE chip they are making!


----------



## notb (Jun 15, 2017)

systemBuilder said:


> Do you have any idea how profitable the 1700, 1700x, and 1800x are?


No, exactly. I'm waiting for the financial statement.


systemBuilder said:


> AMD is making only ONE chip and this is it with 8 cores and it costs them only $60 to fab!


Where did you find this information?
What about unallocated costs? Are they included in this figure?

Also... $60 is a lot....



systemBuilder said:


> Where do they get the extra pci lanes?  Why they simply connect the wires I am sure are already available internally on the ONE chip they are making!


Are you saying that Ryzen 7 is crippled?


----------



## systemBuilder (Jun 15, 2017)

Estimated costs for Threadripper production are $120 and so i simply cut that price in half, assuming the packaging for threadripper is twice what it costs for Ryzen - we know that threadripper is just 2 Ryzen cpus interconnected by the infinity fabric!

$60 on a $300 part is 400% markup, i bet you wish you had a product with that kind of markup.  The markup is even better on 1700x ($349) and 1800x ($449).

In VLSI fabrication you ALWAYS build the ultimate CPU and the stuff that fails test with JTAG is lasered out.  Some of the Ryzen 5 cores probably have 8 working cores but if the customer pays only enough for 4 cores, they disable the other 4 cores.  I think it's pretty clear (because there are so few SKUs and just about every chip overclocks at maximum GHz) that AMD took the time to optimize yields and process margin before releasing Ryzen.  While $60 to make a $300 part is not as profitable as i486 (which was $25 on a $400 part - more profitable than printing money!), it is still a great profit margin.  Ryzen chips are 22% smaller than equivalent Intel chips (part of this probably the lack of integrated graphics).

I don't know why AMD motherboards only have 24 PCI lanes it could be a limitation of AM4 - not the chips themselves.


----------



## notb (Jun 16, 2017)

systemBuilder said:


> Estimated costs for Threadripper production are $120 and so i simply cut that price in half, assuming the packaging for threadripper is twice what it costs for Ryzen - we know that threadripper is just 2 Ryzen cpus interconnected by the infinity fabric!


Again, where does this figure come from and what does it include?
Regarding "cost of manufacturing" - basically the only thing you can scale with number of cores is the cost of waffle and that's just a few % of the 60/120 USD you talk about.



systemBuilder said:


> $60 on a $300 part is 400% markup, i bet you wish you had a product with that kind of markup.  The markup is even better on 1700x ($349) and 1800x ($449).


First of all: why do you even use markup? It's a measure used by people with 1-man businesses (e.g. house painting) that can't calculate costs effectively.
The values you suggest are nothing special, anyway.
I work in insurance. Every day I see products with infinite markups...


systemBuilder said:


> In VLSI fabrication you ALWAYS build the ultimate CPU and the stuff that fails test with JTAG is lasered out.


WOW, that was obvious. But I see you have a big fondness for technical abbreviations.


systemBuilder said:


> While $60 to make a $300 part is not as profitable as i486 (which was $25 on a $400 part - more profitable than printing money!), it is still a great profit margin.


Markup is not profit margin.


systemBuilder said:


> I don't know why AMD motherboards only have 24 PCI lanes it could be a limitation of AM4 - not the chips themselves.


So Ryzen 7 is crippled not internally but by socket design? This is your theory?


----------



## systemBuilder (Jun 16, 2017)

notb said:


> I work in insurance.



I can tell.


----------



## notb (Jun 16, 2017)

systemBuilder said:


> I can tell.


?

Honestly, you'll give a source for that $120 or not? Maybe you missed a zero and it's actually $1200?


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2017)

notb said:


> Honestly, you'll give a source for that $120 or not? Maybe you missed a zero and it's actually $1200?


You should probably stick with insurance.


----------



## notb (Jun 16, 2017)

Aquinus said:


> You should probably stick with insurance.


What's your problem? You have something against me? Against insurance business in general?
Someone posted information about rumored Threadripper manufacturing cost. I'd simply like to see the source.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Captn... its a crapshoot for their 8 thread to reach 4 ghz on all threads (and blow its tdp out of the water in the process)... I mean, I WANT to see it, but just am not sure, with the info we have already, that's going to be possible with all threads. Zen2...?


The Mac Daddy boost to 3.9 ( 4ghz with xfr) boost is two cores not 1 if I remember correctly. ( The cores have pairs, can someone with Ryzen confirm this please?) 3.8-4ghz should be possible because of the mcm design assuming you can deliver enough power as we'll probably be at the 250w+ trying to power all 16 cores at 4ghz. Epic motherboard VRM will be required but there's nothing stopping the silicon it's self from hitting Ryzen speeds.



Aquinus said:


> Isn't Ryzen 5 1400 a single CCX CPU?
> Edit: I see that they just disabled two cores and half of the L3 on each CCX in 1400. At that point, why didn't they just do a full CCX?




Because they are making 8 core chips as a base not quad cores.

Having multiple different cpu designs costs a lot more money.

AMD have gone for the Jack of all trades type cpu design and it works pretty good.


----------



## infrared (Jun 16, 2017)

systemBuilder said:


> notb said:
> 
> 
> > I work in insurance.
> ...





Aquinus said:


> You should probably stick with insurance.


Keep it impersonal please.
systemBuilder: If you can't provide a source that's fine, but don't resort to baiting.



pantherx12 said:


> The Mac Daddy boost to 3.9 ( 4ghz with xfr) boost is two cores not 1 if I remember correctly. (The cores have pairs, can someone with Ryzen confirm this please?


2 core boost confirmed on R7


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2017)

notb said:


> Someone posted information about rumored Threadripper manufacturing cost. I'd simply like to see the source.


I don't need a source to know that the following statement is absurd.


notb said:


> Maybe you missed a zero and it's actually $1200?


If manufacturing costs were that high, not only would there be no room for profit because your pricing would have to start at at least $1,500 and since a lot of dies are cut from the same wafer and as @systemBuilder said:


systemBuilder said:


> In VLSI fabrication you ALWAYS build the ultimate CPU and the stuff that fails test with JTAG is lasered out. Some of the Ryzen 5 cores probably have 8 working cores but if the customer pays only enough for 4 cores, they disable the other 4 cores. I think it's pretty clear (because there are so few SKUs and just about every chip overclocks at maximum GHz) that AMD took the time to optimize yields and process margin before releasing Ryzen.


Plus, it's not like you're making profit immediately after building it if you factor in the cost of development, the cost of your employees, the cost of marketing, etc. along with the cost of manufacturing. There are a lot of expenses that need to be taken into account when talking about the production of ICs and the actual manufacturing cost is probably a lot less than you think it is but, you probably don't realize how much money is going to the other things that got the product there. Insurance and manufacturing are two very different industries that operate differently. I would even argue that building software is more like building ICs than like insurance because the big cost isn't the manufacturing of a product or deployment of software, it's in all of the other things that lead up to it and @systemBuilder was talking about the *manufacturing costs* not total costs.


infrared said:


> If you can't provide a source that's fine, but don't resort to baiting.


AMD isn't going to release what their margins are on a CPU, that's unwise but, it's not unrealistic to call out a nutty claim like this:


notb said:


> Maybe you missed a zero and it's actually $1200?


...because if manufacturing costs were that high, entry level thread-ripper would probably be north of $1.5k and possibly even 2k to actually break even because manufacturing costs are one part of the equation, not the entire one. While I understand how systemBuilder's claim can't necessarily be confirmed due to information that no one other than someone in the industry would be aware of, I was calling out the actual erroneous claim that manufacturing costs would be as high as 1.2k because *that* definitely is nuts regardless if you have a source or not. Anyone who can do simple math can find out real quick that a number that high doesn't quite add up.

...but if being in the insurance industry gives @notb a unique perspective on computer hardware, just image what being a software engineer adds to my perspective.


----------



## notb (Jun 16, 2017)

Aquinus said:


> I don't need a source to know that the following statement is absurd.
> [cut]


So much text!
You could simply say that you don't get irony.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2017)

notb said:


> So much text!
> You could simply say that you don't get irony.


If that's the best you got, then I don't think it's me who's not getting the irony.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 16, 2017)

infrared said:


> Keep it impersonal please.
> systemBuilder: If you can't provide a source that's fine, but don't resort to baiting.
> 
> 
> 2 core boost confirmed on R7



Thank you Kindly, I doubt they'll do it that way but it means thread ripper maybe 4 core boost. That would be fantastic since 4 cores are the sweet spot for an awful lot of stuff.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 16, 2017)

Ahh, so XFR is one core? I appreciate the clarity too..

SKylake X is also doing the same thing (full boost 3.0 to 2 cores instead of one).


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ahh, so XFR is one core? I appreciate the clarity too..
> 
> SKylake X is also doing the same thing (full boost 3.0 to 2 cores instead of one).



Xfr is just 100mhz on top of the boost assuming temperatures are fine and tdp is within specs. So it should still be 2 cores that are boosted. ( Basically it's marketing wank as I'm sure you picked up on it being the clever chap you are, they boost to 4.1 but AMD couldn't garantee 4.1 on every chip so came up with a word so they can advertised 4.1ghz without actually committing to it. )

I am definitely not 100% on this though I've been following all of this pretty closely but it's sometimes hard to remember what I've read in a forum or on an actual article.


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 16, 2017)

a comment i saw, puts what i posted b4 much better:

"However at high core counts intel's monolithic die design concentrates all the thermal energy in one area which leads to an exponential build up, they have to clock the cores much lower to maintain stability, the spaced out design with cores being connected by the infinity fabric avoids this issue and allows AMD to clock Threadripper at Ryzen 1800X (or more apparently with the 12 core) and EPYC at much higher clocks than their Intel counterparts. With the sheer number of cores being used in these chips and with each chip being considerably faster due higher clocks, Xeon is going to be in for one hell of a pounding."

at worst, it seems fair to say that the gap in per core performance has become much narrower, and the amd modular fabric approach has been a big help.


----------



## msroadkill612 (Jun 16, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> Xfr is just 100mhz on top of the boost assuming temperatures are fine and tdp is within specs. So it should still be 2 cores that are boosted. ( Basically it's marketing wank as I'm sure you picked up on it being the clever chap you are, they boost to 4.1 but AMD couldn't garantee 4.1 on every chip so came up with a word so they can advertised 4.1ghz without actually committing to it. )
> 
> I am definitely not 100% on this though I've been following all of this pretty closely but it's sometimes hard to remember what I've read in a forum or on an actual article.



Or it could just be the beta version, of the natty concept of intelligently auto overclocking in small increments, if the appropriate sensors among the zillions (~700?) amd have embedded in zen, say its ok.

the better u cool, the better it auto OCs. Simple. I like it.

It does sound a bit of a yawn now tho.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 16, 2017)

You need to figure out how to edit and add to posts instead of double+ posting throughout the thread....


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You need to figure out how to edit and add to posts instead of double+ posting throughout the thread....


Mod This!


----------



## systemBuilder (Jun 20, 2017)

notb said:


> ?
> 
> Honestly, you'll give a source for that $120 or not? Maybe you missed a zero and it's actually $1200?



The source is exactly the same guy ("Bits n Chips") who tweeted that Threadripper @ 16 cores would cost $849.  At the same time he tweeted that the manufacturing costs for that chip are $110-120!  Therefore, since the chip is little more than 2x the pins and 2x the cores, wired together, It stands to reason that a single 8-core CPU would cost about $60 to manufacture.


----------



## notb (Jun 20, 2017)

systemBuilder said:


> The source is exactly the same guy ("Bits n Chips") who tweeted that Threadripper @ 16 cores would cost $849.  At the same time he tweeted that the manufacturing costs for that chip are $110-120!  Therefore, since the chip is little more than 2x the pins and 2x the cores, wired together, It stands to reason that a single 8-core CPU would cost about $60 to manufacture.


But should we believe him? How do we know he's a reliable source?
As for the "2x" idea - it's, sadly, not that simple. Production cost includes packaging, some allocated cost etc. This would make a difference.
Keep in mind Ryzen CPUs are often bundled with a cooler.


----------



## systemBuilder (Jun 20, 2017)

If you just wanted to piss on the rumor why did you press me so hard for the source?  It is a realiable source that is far more reliable about AMD matters than most sources, why don't you educate yourself a little bit before going off half-cocked with wild accusations, he has a whole web page of his predictions for the past 5 years - when he made them and when they came true.  Your assertions carry little weight if you provide no references yourself.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jun 20, 2017)

notb said:


> But should we believe him? How do we know he's a reliable source?
> As for the "2x" idea - it's, sadly, not that simple. Production cost includes packaging, some allocated cost etc. This would make a difference.
> *Keep in mind Ryzen CPUs are often bundled with a cooler*.


Not exactly true. You can buy ANY CPU without a cooler.


----------



## notb (Jun 21, 2017)

systemBuilder said:


> If you just wanted to piss on the rumor why did you press me so hard for the source?


Because this is important information and you should have mentioned where you got it from.


systemBuilder said:


> It is a realiable source that is far more reliable about AMD matters than most sources


You didn't say where you get this info from, so how is it relevant whether the source is reliable or not?
1) Retail price, naming, release dates etc is public information - thousands of people know this before the official launch (from retailers to package/brochure printers).
2) Production cost is a corporate secret. Even most employees don't know precise figures for their firms' products.
Just the fact that someone is often correct at (1) doesn't imply he should be also right with (2).


----------

