Saturday, January 2nd 2021

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series "Genesis Peak" Processor Lineup Could Begin with a 16-Core Model

Jan 2nd, 2021 11:17 Discuss (83 Comments)

AMD is set to introduce its next-generation of Ryzen Threadripper processors in the coming weeks, and rumors are suggesting that it may happen at this year's CES. The new Ryzen Threadripper platform is codenamed Genesis Peak. If we take a look at the current 3000 series "Castle Peak" Threadripper processors, they were launched on CES 2020, with availability in February. So we are assuming that the upcoming 5000 "Genesis Peak" series is going to launch at the virtual CES event, during AMD's show. Thanks to the information from Yuri "1usmus" Bubliy, we found out that AMD is going to start the next-generation Threadripper lineup with a 16 core processor. "1usmus" posted a riddle on Twitter, that is actually a hex code that translates to "GENESIS 16 CORES".

The current generation of Threadripper Castle Peak processors is starting at 24 cores, and going up to 64-core models, so it would be interesting to see where AMD sees the 16-core model in the stack and why it chose to do it. The exact specifications of this processor are unknown, so we have to wait for the announcement event. It is also unknown if the existing TRX40 motherboard will offer support for Zen 3 based Genesis Peak 5000 series Threadripper processors or will AMD introduce a new platform for it.

Sources: Yuri Bubliy (1usmus) on Twitter, via VideoCardz

Add your own comment

83 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series "Genesis Peak" Processor Lineup Could Begin with a 16-Core Model

PrEzi

It is also unknown if the existing TRX40 motherboard will offer support for Zen 3 based Genesis Peak 5000 series Threadripper processors or will AMD introduce a new platform for it.

They'll better offer support else it will be the last TR I have bought.
Already changed the X399 MoBo to TRX40 last year because only the TR-platform seem to be incompatible chipset/socket-wise with >ZEN2 CPUs...

TechLurker

It's a long shot, but I'd really love for a 12 core or even 8 core but high clocking Threadripper; serving both as the budget end of the Threadripper line and for those who needs the I/O but more clocks rather than cores. 16 cores implies at least a 2 CCD die TR part, so just using 2 functional 6/6 or 4/4* Core CCDs shouldn't affect the manufacturing process much.

*Or a single 8 Core CCD if such a thing is possible; not sure given how TR's memory layout is a bit different from Ryzen.

windwhirl

Only reason I can see for someone wanting a 16-core TR would be up to 512 GB of quad-channel ECC memory support (at least, that's what's supported on current TR 3000 series, maybe it will be more with Zen 3 TR) and many PCIe lanes. I really wonder if there's such a need for that kind of CPU, though.

PrEziThey'll better offer support else it will be the last TR I have bought.
Already changed the X399 MoBo to TRX40 last year because only the TR-platform seem to be incompatible chipset/socket-wise with >ZEN2 CPUs...

They were pushing for PCIe 4.0 support, so yes, it was necessary to break compatibility because otherwise it would have been impossible or at the least very complicated to support 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes. And frankly, if you're buying Threadripper, you are kinda expected to shell out some big bucks. It's still less expensive than going with Intel alternatives.

Makaveli

PrEziThey'll better offer support else it will be the last TR I have bought.
Already changed the X399 MoBo to TRX40 last year because only the TR-platform seem to be incompatible chipset/socket-wise with >ZEN2 CPUs...

I don't see them pulling an intel here as you can do Zen 2 to Zen 3 on the same socket on the desktop side.

ZoneDymo

PrEziThey'll better offer support else it will be the last TR I have bought.
Already changed the X399 MoBo to TRX40 last year because only the TR-platform seem to be incompatible chipset/socket-wise with >ZEN2 CPUs...

I totally understand what you are saying, but...what else would you buy?

PrEzi

windwhirlOnly reason I can see for someone wanting a 16-core TR would be up to 512 GB of quad-channel ECC memory support (at least, that's what's supported on current TR 3000 series, maybe it will be more with Zen 3 TR) and many PCIe lanes. I really wonder if there's such a need for that kind of CPU, though.

They were pushing for PCIe 4.0 support, so yes, it was necessary to break compatibility because otherwise it would have been impossible or at the least very complicated to support 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes. And frankly, if you're buying Threadripper, you are kinda expected to shell out some big bucks. It's still less expensive than going with Intel alternatives.

I call your bluff.... It has already been proven that you can get PCIe on the x470 MoBo's (at least for the lines that are connected directly to the CPU) but AMD artifically disabled this possibility even though the System Integrators have tested and proven it stable on many of the "incompatible" boards.

And - you have missed my point totally.
1 You have a beta bios that proves the X370 can run a ZEN3,
2 X370 Supported ZEN , ZEN+ and ZEN2 WITHOUT the need to do a socket/Mobo change... plus see point 1 /// they got the ZEN3 to run on an X370 AM4 mainboard too....

So.... I hope now it is clearer why I am pi**ed as I have hoped I could run AT LEAST Threadripper 3*** on the "old" X399 Mobo.... According to PR the X399 MoBos were "creme de la creme" and the "bestest designs of the X3** line".

ZoneDymoI totally understand what you are saying, but...what else would you buy?

Had I've known that before I would go with the top of the line AM4 Mainboard + top of the line ZEN1/2 Processor....
And as I see there are some beta BIOSes floating around that enable ZEN3 support on the "old" X370 mainboards.

16 Cores are enough for me, and I am also not that much suffocated by the dual channel limitation. I/O or lack thereof hurt a little bit but ohwell...

efikkan

TechLurkerIt's a long shot, but I'd really love for a 12 core or even 8 core but high clocking Threadripper; serving both as the budget end of the Threadripper line and for those who needs the I/O but more clocks rather than cores.

Agree.
Most users who actually need more than 8 cores often benefit from more memory channels, more PCIe lanes and possibly ECC support. AMD will be missing out on a lot of potential buyers by not offering a 12-core HEDT model. There are many (semi-)professional users which needs faster cores, yet still could use more PCIe lanes etc., so currently they have to choose.

Also, there needs to be proper workstation boards for Threadripper, like the ones from Supermicro.

windwhirl

PrEziI call your bluff.... It has already been proven that you can get PCIe on the x470 MoBo's (at least for the lines that are connected directly to the CPU).
And - you have missed my point totally.
1 You have a beta bios that proves the X370 can run a ZEN3,
2 X370 Supported ZEN2 WITHOUT the need to do a socket/Mobo change...

So.... I hope now it is clearer why I am pi**ed as I have hoped I could run AT LEAST Threadripper 3*** on the "old" X399 Mobo.... According to PR the X399 MoBos were "creme de la creme" and the "bestest designs of the X3** line".

PCIe 4.0 support on motherboards that are not certified for it can make a mess with just 24 lanes if the manufacturer "cheaped out" (more like they didn't spend on overengineering quality that was not supposed to be necessary), and it's already been discussed on these forums more than once. And TR platforms allow 64 lanes. It's a PR mess saying that you can use this feature only in select X399 mobos that have overengineered quality (even for HEDT) and all the other X399s can't. Or for example, Gigabyte sometimes has multiple revisions of a board, what if they said "To use PCIe 4.0 you need revision 1.1 of X board, and you have revision 1.0, so it won't work"? It's a PR mess and bad press.

And no one from the manufacturers side wants to have an issue that will not exist as long as the motherboards are certified for PCIe 4.0. Hence, new motherboard lines that are built from the ground up with PCIe 4.0 support, and not as an after-thought. I can make an educated guess that AMD changed the pin layout in TR to accommodate PCIe 4.0's much larger bandwidth too, not just because they felt like it.

Just because it looks like it works fine it doesn't necessarily work fine.

InVasMani

TechLurkerIt's a long shot, but I'd really love for a 12 core or even 8 core but high clocking Threadripper; serving both as the budget end of the Threadripper line and for those who needs the I/O but more clocks rather than cores. 16 cores implies at least a 2 CCD die TR part, so just using 2 functional 6/6 or 4/4* Core CCDs shouldn't affect the manufacturing process much.

*Or a single 8 Core CCD if such a thing is possible; not sure given how TR's memory layout is a bit different from Ryzen.

That's in line with what I suggested the other day of what I'd prefer to happen with Threadripper. I feel a 9c single CCX chip which scales frequency well. One thing they could do on memory channels, capacity, and overall bandwidth is make ITX 3-channel, micro ATX 6-channel, and ATX 9-channel and simply segment it that way. If you want more memory bandwidth and capacity buy a larger board which can accommodate more memory slots and channels. They could do a 9c/18c/27c line up of CPU's with good scaling that's pretty linear and flexible at the same time maybe you require more capacity and/or bandwidth or more cores or the reverse or all three.

#10

damric

I would bet the 16 core units are using 4 core/4 disabled x4. There are probably already a ton of 4/8 dies piling up that didn't qualify for 6/8 or 8/8 but the remaining 4 cores can boost just fine within TDP spec. Hoping to see a cheap AM4 CPU based on 4+4 as well. Yes latency would make it slower than the 5800x, but it would be awesome for budget overclockers.

#11

PrEzi

windwhirlPCIe 4.0 support on motherboards that are not certified for it can make a mess with just 24 lanes if the manufacturer "cheaped out" (more like they didn't spend on overengineering quality that was not supposed to be necessary), and it's already been discussed on these forums more than once. And TR platforms allow 64 lanes. It's a PR mess saying that you can use this feature only in select X399 mobos that have overengineered quality (even for HEDT) and all the other X399s can't. Or for example, Gigabyte sometimes has multiple revisions of a board, what if they said "To use PCIe 4.0 you need revision 1.1 of X board, and you have revision 1.0, so it won't work"? It's a PR mess and bad press.

And no one from the manufacturers side wants to have an issue that will not exist as long as the motherboards are certified for PCIe 4.0. Hence, new motherboard lines that are built from the ground up with PCIe 4.0 support, and not as an after-thought. I can make an educated guess that AMD changed the pin layout in TR to accommodate PCIe 4.0's much larger bandwidth too, not just because they felt like it.

Just because it looks like it works fine it doesn't necessarily work fine.

Allright.... then what about "just" PCIe 3.0 + ZEN2 and ZEN3 on a X399. Similar to X370 or B450.
Simple enough?
But no! They forced TR owners to swap the whole platform for TRX40 in order to run ZEN2....

#12

windwhirl

PrEziAllright.... then what about "just" PCIe 3.0 + ZEN2 and ZEN3 on a X399. Similar to X370 or B450.
Simple enough?
But no! They forced TR owners to swap the whole platform for TRX40 in order to run ZEN2....

Threadripper isn't a budget-conscious platform (it sort of is when you compare to what Intel offered at the time, but that's not the point). And the pin layout changed, to adapt to PCIe 4.0 bandwidth needs. That's why there is no electrical compatibility.

#13

Raiju

I would be very curious about single threaded performance with that kind of TDP (280W).
Close to Intel 11900k PL2.

#14

DeathtoGnomes

damricI would bet the 16 core units are using 4 core/4 disabled x4. There are probably already a ton of 4/8 dies piling up that didn't qualify for 6/8 or 8/8 but the remaining 4 cores can boost just fine within TDP spec. Hoping to see a cheap AM4 CPU based on 4+4 as well. Yes latency would make it slower than the 5800x, but it would be awesome for budget overclockers.

I doubt heat is a consideration there. I'm think AMD wants more entry level to make pricing more appealing to the TR platform. I was recently looking for a 1900/X just to see what it would cost now to enter the TR rabbit hole.

#15

jaggerwild

RaijuI would be very curious about single threaded performance with that kind of TDP (280W).
Close to Intel 11900k PL2.

You worried about CPU-Z ?

#16

TheinsanegamerN

MakaveliI don't see them pulling an intel here as you can do Zen 2 to Zen 3 on the same socket on the desktop side.

Hey remember like 6 months ago when AMD wasnt going to let their old chipsets run Zen 3 then had to backtrack after consumer backlash that could be heard from space?

AMD isnt your friend. If they can find a way to fleece you for $$$ they will.

#17

R0H1T

PrEziI call your bluff.... It has already been proven that you can get PCIe on the x470 MoBo's

Not reliably as you probably already(?) know ~ so no it's not total BS.

#18

Raiju

jaggerwildYou worried about CPU-Z ?

We can't judge a CPU performance from only one benchmark IMHO.

#19

Fujikoma

PrEziThey'll better offer support else it will be the last TR I have bought.
Already changed the X399 MoBo to TRX40 last year because only the TR-platform seem to be incompatible chipset/socket-wise with >ZEN2 CPUs...

The amount I saved by not picking up a Xeon again would pay for a new TR setup. I wasn't happy about the lack of compatibility though... given that the upgrade path was limited for a change. It's more the hassle of moving everything off the old motherboard than dropping the cash for a new one. Until I'm forced into rendering 4K or 8K for the majority of projects, my current setup handles everything with time to spare and let's me wait to upgrade. Besides, incompatibility is always a chance with hardware advances and I got burned this round. It happens.

#20

PrEzi

FujikomaThe amount I saved by not picking up a Xeon again would pay for a new TR setup. I wasn't happy about the lack of compatibility though... given that the upgrade path was limited for a change. It's more the hassle of moving everything off the old motherboard than dropping the cash for a new one. Until I'm forced into rendering 4K or 8K for the majority of projects, my current setup handles everything with time to spare and let's me wait upgrading. Besides, incompatibility is always a chance with hardware advances and I got burned this round. It happens.

I have not said that TR is bad. It is by thousand times still a better choice than intel.... and I have also upgraded (or rather -- I was forced to) to TRX40 platform and it is great.
I will also upgrade to ZEN3 based TR but I assume this might be the last TR platform for me, as - besides I/O and Quad channel AM4 (and in the future AM5 or whatever will be the name) with 16 cores is a beast too.

#21

efikkan

I would like to offer a different view on CPU upgrades in the HEDT segment;
If you're buying a Threadripper (or comparable Xeon) in the first place, I would assume you will be using it for something which needs this kind of performance, it's not a toy. Then if you 2-3 years later actually need more CPU performance, I would guess that your time will be valuable, so I would argue that any potential compatibility issues with running an old motherboard with a new CPU is less of a concern than paying up for a new motherboard.
In a perfect world, infinite upgradabilities would be fantastic, but in reality motherboard support beyond 1-2 years is totally crap. If this should become a viable option for professionals, then it should include a 5 year support plan or something.

#22

Camm

windwhirlOnly reason I can see for someone wanting a 16-core TR would be up to 512 GB of quad-channel ECC memory support

Cooling. The surface area of a 5950X is a bit too skinny to effectively cool it, whilst the much larger die area of a Threadripper makes it a breeze. Addon quad channel memory support, and I'd highly consider moving over to threadripper, on the caveat that threadripper is becoming more and more delayed into the generation.

#23

Makaveli

TheinsanegamerNHey remember like 6 months ago when AMD wasnt going to let their old chipsets run Zen 3 then had to backtrack after consumer backlash that could be heard from space?

AMD isnt your friend. If they can find a way to fleece you for $$$ they will.

There isn't going to be a socket or motherboard change for Zen 3 on TR.

#24

windwhirl

CammCooling. The surface area of a 5950X is a bit too skinny to effectively cool it, whilst the much larger die area of a Threadripper makes it a breeze. Addon quad channel memory support, and I'd highly consider moving over to threadripper, on the caveat that threadripper is becoming more and more delayed into the generation.

I can get someone preferring a 16 core TR instead of mainstream Ryzen 9 because of all the extra features (PCIE lanes, ECC quad-channel memory, etc.), though I definitely didn't expect cooling. It's a valid reason if you have the money for it though, specially if you could find some use for the other features of the platform.

That aside, does AMD still add "dummy" dies to TR CPUs? 1st gen TR had the 1950X (I think) with 2 enabled CCDs and 2 dummies...

And AMD is probably gonna keep TSMC busy for quite a while with console SoCs, so who knows when demand will let up enough that TR products can come out without taking away too much from mainstream Ryzen while being somewhat easy to find on the market...

TheinsanegamerNHey remember like 6 months ago when AMD wasnt going to let their old chipsets run Zen 3 then had to backtrack after consumer backlash that could be heard from space?

AMD isnt your friend. If they can find a way to fleece you for $$$ they will.

Indeed. People shouldn't forget that AMD's goal is and always will be profit.

#25

voltage

amd needs more cores to keep up with Intel's newest procs. its pretty much always been that way.

Add your own comment

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series "Genesis Peak" Processor Lineup Could Begin with a 16-Core Model

83 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series "Genesis Peak" Processor Lineup Could Begin with a 16-Core Model

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series "Genesis Peak" Processor Lineup Could Begin with a 16-Core Model

Related News

83 Comments on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 5000 Series "Genesis Peak" Processor Lineup Could Begin with a 16-Core Model

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts