Tuesday, June 13th 2017

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Could Launch on July 27

by
btarunr
 Discuss (35 Comments)
AMD could launch some of its enthusiast-segment Ryzen Threadripper high-end desktop (HEDT) processors on July 27, 2017. On this day, you will be able to purchase PIB (retail) packages of certain models of Threadripper. You will also be able to purchase gaming desktops and workstations featuring Threadripper on this day. It is expected that AMD will launch about four SKUs, two 12-core, and two 16-core. The company could end 2017 with up to nine models. Accompanying these Ryzen Threadripper chips will be new socket TR4 (SP3r2) motherboards based on AMD X399 chipset. Some of these were showcased at AMD's Computex 2017 show.

Related News

Add your own comment

35 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper Could Launch on July 27

#26
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
btarunrThat's why I said "with compatible RMs." I was merely commenting on the heatsinks' ability to take the thermal load. The impression being created by the poster was that Threadripper is too hot to be handled by coolers available today.
It isn't worth the argument. It never is. To be fair AMD's 165w TDP chip will likely match something around 205w from intel.
Posted on Reply
#27
Aenra
btarunrDell/Alienware press-release isn't a The Verge-exclusive.
Don't split hairs with me..
You posted somehting with zero backup, zero citation; just you typing whatever. Naturally, someone would wonder where you got it from and/or why you didn't mention it. Pretty simple :)
Posted on Reply
#28
1c3d0g
AenraDon't split hairs with me..
You posted somehting with zero backup, zero citation; just you typing whatever. Naturally, someone would wonder where you got it from and/or why you didn't mention it. Pretty simple :)
Why do you keep pestering him about it? Why is this so important to you? Are you a source nazi? Just let the man type. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty simple. :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#29
timta2
AenraDon't split hairs with me..
You posted somehting with zero backup, zero citation; just you typing whatever. Naturally, someone would wonder where you got it from and/or why you didn't mention it. Pretty simple :)
Childish tantrums like this are the reason I don't bother spending much time at TPU anymore. You were wrong about your original insinuations, that someone was "stealing" and being "unethical". It's a press release, get over it.
Posted on Reply
#30
Aenra
Considering how you all dying to see me getting over it, you sure come back to mention it some more.. :)
And then i'm childish ^^

I said it's customary (if not ethical) to mention where you found your info.

That's all i said and it stands, whether you care for it or not.
Posted on Reply
#31
R-T-B
We try to cite sources when possible. It's hard to URL link a PR email in our inbox though, obviously.
Posted on Reply
#32
R0H1T
cdawallIt isn't worth the argument. It never is. To be fair AMD's 165w TDP chip will likely match something around 205w from intel.
This is one of those points which annoys me to no end, TDP ≠ power consumption & yet we compare TDP from different manufacturers, for completely different products! Also do you think SKLx will still be 140~160W TDP even when OCed?


So this is what a 140W TDP deca cores consumes when OCed, FYI the power consumption even at stock exceeds 140W o_O
Posted on Reply
#33
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
R0H1TThis is one of those points which annoys me to no end, TDP ≠ power consumption & yet we compare TDP from different manufacturers, for completely different products! Also do you think SKLx will still be 140~160W TDP even when OCed?


So this is what a 140W TDP deca cores consumes when OCed, FYI the power consumption even at stock exceeds 140W o_O
I never said it would be I said and you quoted the on TDP ratings that a 165w amd would match a 205w Intel. If you would like to argue that point you are welcome to post proof to back it up.
Posted on Reply
#34
R0H1T
cdawallI never said it would be I said and you quoted the on TDP ratings that a 165w amd would match a 205w Intel.
Yes but the point is power consumption depends on the type of workload & the actual load on the CPU, in that sense AMD is no more accurate (or inaccurate) as compared to Intel so far as their TDP rating is concerned.
If you would like to argue that point you are welcome to post proof to back it up.
As for this I'm not entirely sure what you're saying?
Posted on Reply
#35
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
R0H1TYes but the point is power consumption depends on the type of workload & the actual load on the CPU, in that sense AMD is no more accurate (or inaccurate) as compared to Intel so far as their TDP rating is concerned.

As for this I'm not entirely sure what you're saying?
No one has said they are inaccurate I said in comparison that an AMD 165 would match a 205w intel chip. That seems to be a habit of AMD.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 4th, 2024 04:13 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts