AMD 3rd Gen Threadripper Coming This October to Take on Intel's New HEDT Lineup?

[HwGeek]

We know that AMD uses top 5% silicons for TR, and last gen 2950X had 4.4Ghz boost vs 4.3Ghz on 2700X, so looks like the 16C TR should have 4.8Ghz max boost and if it will be using 4x4c chiplets then the heat density will be low and they can boost to higher clocks in All core and ~50% utilization, it would be funny if it's going to be "World Fasted Gaming CPU" on HEDT platform ,

 

[Deleted member 178884]

it would be funny if it's going to be "World Fasted Gaming CPU" on HEDT platform ,

Not going to happen, Intel HEDT parts are still going to be significantly faster in games (though HEDT isn't for games) TR4 is designed for multi thread value, not gaming.

so looks like the 16C TR should have 4.8Ghz max boost

4.6 boost is more realistic possibly 4.7.

 

[Bones]

I'm not sure about the "significantly faster in games" part but the point about them being for multithreaded use, not gaming is true.

Once they are released we'll find out what the difference really is.

 

[Kapone33]

Not going to happen, Intel HEDT parts are still going to be significantly faster in games (though HEDT isn't for games) TR4 is designed for multi thread value, not gaming.

Are you sure about that. My 1900x is definitely faster than my 1700 and also faster than my 2600. If they release a TR4 chip with both dies attached to the Memory controller it should provide a 15+ % improvement on games compared to the 2990WX and a boost clock may be actually close to 4.7. The IPC improvement from 12nm to 7nm should also lead to some nice gains. If the 1950 could do 4.1 and the 2950 4.4 I don't see why high clocks aren't reachable. It would seem that the chiplets also allow for higher boost clocks (mabye they are sharing workload).

 

[Wavetrex]

"out of my a$$" predictions for next Threadripper:

- using 4 chiplets with cores + 1 bigger I/O die (all models, unlike Gen 1 which had two disabled "dummies")
- 16, 24 and 32 cores ( 4x4, 6x4, 8x4 ), with SMT of course
- Quad-channel I/O die 100% compatible with existing TR4 socket - Can continue to use X399, and getting PCI-e 4.0 on all lanes that go straight to the CPU
- sustained all-core boost of 4.3 ghz, actually boosting to 4.7 (unlike 3900X which barely hits 4.5 while advertised as 4.6...) - ALL OF THEM.
(so the only differentiation will be core count)
- faster in every way than 3950X due to UMA on four channels, double the cache and a lot more thermal headroom coming from the massive package.
- Introduction of new X599 south-bridge with powerful I/O and all PCI-e 4.0 top to bottom

People are hoping for 8 chiplets but it ain't going to happen this time around... TRs will not be repurposed EPYCs anymore with some wires cut, but their own independent design.

Names and Prices (I'm sure I'll be completely off here):
- Ryzen Threadripper 3970X - 16c - $799 (but be aware that this uses half-disabled chiplets, the ones that didn't make it; Still has double the cache of 3950X)
- Ryzen Threadripper 3980X - 24c - $999
- Ryzen Threadripper 3990WX - 32c - $1499 (yep, lower price than 2990WX which will be phased out)

 

[Deleted member 178884]

- 16, 24 and 32 cores ( 4x4, 6x4, 8x4 ), with SMT of course

TR4 has already been confirmed by Lisa Su to "move up" in core count, but not by how much.

 

[HwGeek]

Lisa did hinted for 64C, Lisa and other AMD stuff keep using "Move Up, Up", always saying "Up, Up" to hint that it's going 2 steps over current 32C limit = 48C & 64C.
Also 4 chiplets for sure to offer 100% of the Mem write speed, that means 16C will have 128MB cache vs 64MB on 3950X, this with all the extra that X599 can offer will differentiate the AMD vs TR4.
Question is if the 32C will be 8 chiplet based with 256MB cache or 4 chiplet 128MB cache, this will be the most interesting TR 4000 CPU IMO.
Since AMD can play with cache config with different chiplet quantity- I believe that new TR line will be on 4XX0 since there is no room left in 3XX0 line after 3950X .

P.S: new TR part will be more expansive IMO:
16C $999
24C $1499
32C $1999
48C $3499
64C $4499

 

[Wavetrex]

16C $999
24C $1499
32C $1999
48C $3499
64C $4499

About the rest of the stuff... maybe.
But the pricing you've put doesn't line up very well.

Why $250 extra for 16c? That's too much of a markup just for a bit of extra memory bandwidth, and higher than the launch price of 2950X without offering more cores ? Nah.
Also, 32c more expensive than what the previous gen launched ? That also doesn't make sense... judging by Ryzen 9 prices, which is 50% more cores for similar price.

So 32c would probably be at the launch price of 24c last gen, which is $1299 (up to a max of $1499)
That also makes 48c about the launch price of 2990WX, so $1799 to maximum $1999
And the "ultimate" 64c would be $2999 max, and that's a bit of a stretch.

Those would be somewhat "fair" prices (cost per core), continuing the line-up from 6 to 64 cores.
Your prices... NAH, no way. It's reaching Xeon Platinum levels, AMD won't do that.... they want marketshare, exposure... it won't come with a near five-thousand dollars CPU.

 

[HwGeek]

Why? because this time they have no competition, 2990WX/2970WX are cheap because in Windows they are many times slower then 2950X and Intel X299 16C/18C are more attractive, but this time it will be different story so the price will be higher, look at Puget benchmarks, the 3900X matching 2950X in almost every benchmark, now think about 3950X and imagine how 32C with 128MB/256MB with Quad channel memory with 250W TPD will perform, even $1999 will be cheap price for it.
Also if AMD will use ROME I/O chiplet as Chipset then be ready for ~30~40W Chipset with massive cooling and super high prices for X599.
And 64C part will compete against $4500 XEON W-3275- so why not? AMD will be stupid if they price it lower.

Product Specifications

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

 

[Kapone33]

Why? because this time they have no competition, 2990WX/2970WX are cheap because in Windows they are many times slower then 2950X and Intel X299 16C/18C are more attractive, but this time it will be different story so the price will be higher, look at Puget benchmarks, the 3900X matching 2950X in almost every benchmark, now think about 3950X and imagine how 32C with 128MB/256MB with Quad channel memory with 250W TPD will perform, even $1999 will be cheap price for it.
Also if AMD will use ROME I/O chiplet as Chipset then be ready for ~30~40W Chipset with massive cooling and super high prices for X599.
And 64C part will compete against $4500 XEON W-3275- so why not? AMD will be stupid if they price it lower.

Product Specifications

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

Why, because they already have Rome to compete with Xeon. There are more people on Threadripper today than when it launched, AMD knows it cannot price the next TR4 chips too high to kill their market share in the HEDT market. I see that the 2920X is already $559.99 CAD on Newegg and the 1900x is $399.99 and has been around there for months. I honestly think that AMD removed TR4 from their road map so that it would not impact on Ryzen3 sales. This is what I see for pricing. This is based on where the Ryzen3 CPUs are currently priced.

AMD 3920X 12/24 4.6 GHZ Base 5.0 GHZ boost $499
AMD 3950X 16/32 4.5 base with a 4.8 GHZ boost $699
AMD 3970X 24/48 4.3 base with 4.6 GHZ boost $799
AMD 3990X 32/64 4.2 base with 4.5 GHZ boost $999
AMD 3970WX 48/96 4.0 GHZ base 4.3 GHZ boost $1499
AMD 3990WX 64/128 3.8 GHZ base 4.0 boost $1999

Hopefully I am right.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

AMD 3920X 12/24 4.6 GHZ Base 5.0 GHZ boost $499
AMD 3950X 16/32 4.5 base with a 4.8 GHZ boost $699
AMD 3970X 24/48 4.3 base with 4.6 GHZ boost $799
AMD 3990X 32/64 4.2 base with 4.5 GHZ boost $999
AMD 3970WX 48/96 4.0 GHZ base 4.3 GHZ boost $1499
AMD 3990WX 64/128 3.8 GHZ base 4.0 boost $1999

I don't agree with the boost clocks on this - far too inaccurate in terms of the 5 / 4.8 / 4.6 much too unrealistic. As for the pricing I'd believe AMD will shoot for the 2500$ range at least for the 64c part.

 

[Kapone33]

I don't agree with the boost clocks on this - far too inaccurate in terms of the 5 / 4.8 / 4.6 much too unrealistic. As for the pricing I'd believe AMD will shoot for the 2500$ range at least for the 64c part.

You may be right, I may be right only time will tell. The only thing I know is TR4 used the top 5% of Ryzen chips. I would assume it would be the same for the chiplets. Neither do i believe that they will price TR3 chips too high, the performance gap between Threadripper and Ryzen3 will be too small to justify the increase in price. However at this point this is all just conjecture but makes for interesting thoughts.

 

[Wavetrex]

5.0 (or even 4.8) not possible with current Zen 2 core design on ambient temp. (only sub-zero LN2)

It needs a review and a respin of production for that, but I'm almost convinced it's possible with a new revision.
AMD might call it Zen 2+

It's also possible that the new Threadripper will be on this Zen 2+, and not on the current design.
Announcement time... no earlier than end of year.

 

[Kapone33]

5.0 (or even 4.8) not possible with current Zen 2 core design on ambient temp. (only sub-zero LN2)

I know that you guys mean real world. I was more meaning how they will be marketed. Even the yet to be released 3950X has a boost clock of 4.7 GHZ according to AMD.