AMD CEO Talks Ryzen Threadripper and Ryzen 3 Series in Latest Company Video

[TheLostSwede]

As for the dies being the same, what evidence do you have that they are not? AMD has talked extensively about how part of the beauty of their new product lineup is their extensive use of MCMs with Infinity Fabric since they can produce the smaller dies with much higher yields and then create products in their various product segments from that common stock at lower costs. I would say that your assertion that the dies would not be the same would less follow from common logic, and as such the burden of proof is yours.

For cores, yes, not the PCIe root complex which takes up a HUGE die area. It simply doesn't make sense that they use the same cores when you have 28, 64 and 128 PCIe lanes. That said, I have as much proof as you do, so let's wait for the die shots...

However, looking at the Ryzen die shot, it doesn't look like there's any unused PCIe lanes in there.

 

[Nosada]

Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.

By that logic, Intel CPU's should cost no more than the 50 euros I spent on my cousins G4560 times 2 or 4, depending on the number of cores they have.

Pushing more silicon into one package has never, and will never, be cheaper.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I have to say the fanboism is strong in that guy, spitting out so-called facts without backing it them up, that magic crystal ball must be doing overtime at 120% warp speed.


All I really want is a 1950X for gaming, maybe a little crunching too.

 

[ironwolf]

That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?

That i9-7900X price is a bit flimsy:

Intel: Recommended Customer Price $989.00 - $999.0
Newegg (antonline): $1186.96 (OOS)
Amazon: $1049.99 (OOS)

 

[Particle]

By that logic, Intel CPU's should cost no more than the 50 euros I spent on my cousins G4560 times 2 or 4, depending on the number of cores they have.

Pushing more silicon into one package has never, and will never, be cheaper.

The scenario we're discussing here is where there are two products which consist of either one or two of the same dies in theory. Your anecdote about different monolithic products with different feature sets doesn't really follow that thread of discussion.

 

[PowerPC]

Now please give normal non-professional users some actual applications for 16-core CPUs. Ryzen has made it possible, now make it practical for us please.

 

[Rahmat Sofyan]

Can you feel the beat..

Throwaway your any fanboyism sh** into the ...

This is why we love competition as a consumers, tech lovers etc.

Today AMD maybe is the smarter choice, next day we never know, face it..

2017 so far AMD ripped intel for value/performance, let's hope stay like this, they do the best as they can to give us the best products with reasonable price, just pick it one which the best for you.

 

[wiyosaya]

Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.

Absolutely agree with this. As I see it, the only reason that AMD is charging $999 for this proc is because of Intel's pricing. Unfortunately, without this kind of competition in the recent past from AMD, Intel was easily able to bloat the price of the 6950 to the ridiculous level approaching $1,700 US, thus, Intel was able set the "baseline" for HEDT at that level. Now, we have to live with it. If Intel had not been able to set the baseline at that level (the thing is stupendously expensive considering it only has two more cores than a proc costing $500 less), we would probably be seeing pricing closer to 2X the 1800X or perhaps less.

 

[Franzen4Real]

It just connects all of the things that two of what is already on an 1800X already has. The 1800X has some of its PCIe lanes disabled.
THEN--
It is literally two of the same dies stuck together. The 1800X you're referencing has the same PCIe root hub inside of it. It's just not fully exposed. If anything, you should be complaining about how the 1800X is artificially limited.
BUT THEN--
The 1800X is a fully enabled and fully functional die while the same is not true of the dies on an 8-core EPYC. Your point is nonsense..

lol

 

[silentbogo]

However, looking at the Ryzen die shot, it doesn't look like there's any unused PCIe lanes in there.

I had a crazy theory in my head that 8 of the PCIe lanes from each module are used as a transport media for InfinityFabric. Both the number of "unused" lanes and the max. bandwidth roughly match.
E.g. a desktop version of Ryzen 7 has 24 lanes. A 16-core Threadripper has 64 lanes(which is 16 per 4C module). The missing 8 lanes provide a bandwidth of 40GB/s max, while InfinityFabric presentations mentioned numbers like 42GB/s die-to-die or 37GB/s MCM-to-MCM.

 

[W1zzard]

PCIe lanes from each module are used as a transport media for InfinityFabric

At least on Epyc they are a completely different technology. PCIe uses differential pairs, InfinityFabric is single-ended.

 

[r9]

Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.

Forgetting the glue, it's $149.

 

[Particle]

lol

I was mindful of that when posting it, but I actively chose to omit that in order to be more concise since we were talking primarily about cores and frequencies.

 

[Ebo]

TR looks like a good replacement for my old I7-5820K.

 

[Particle]

For cores, yes, not the PCIe root complex which takes up a HUGE die area. It simply doesn't make sense that they use the same cores when you have 28, 64 and 128 PCIe lanes. That said, I have as much proof as you do, so let's wait for the die shots...

However, looking at the Ryzen die shot, it doesn't look like there's any unused PCIe lanes in there.

I'm happy enough to wait for die shots, but we've already been told that Epyc consists of four Zeppelin dies (revealed during the AMD Financial Analyst Day). These are same dies used in the desktop Ryzen processors. There have been discussions at length elsewhere about how each Zeppelin die has 32 PCIe lanes with only 24 exposed for the Ryzen desktop parts.

I can find lots of talk about Ryzen desktop processors being made from Zeppelin but absolutely nothing about it being a different die. One example would be Melvin Dionio (an AMD product development engineer) showing on his LinkedIn profile that part of his recent duties have been to "support system level test (SLT) test program development for all Zeppelin (Summit Ridge, Naples, Snowy Owl) packages". We know that Summit Ridge is desktop Ryzen and Naples is server Ryzen. Why would Threadripper stand out with a different die?

 

[prtskg]

So no single-CCX quad core CPUs from AMD with SMT. Why not? The current quad cores they have suffer from too much L3 cache and cross-core latency because of the interconnect fabric that glues CCXes together. Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much.

They'll come from apu dies as Athlon series.

 

[evernessince]

I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart.

What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...

Essentially, yes. There are a few PC enthusiasts who have that "The best or nothing" mentality, where even a 1% increase in gaming performance will make them look at the competition like it's trash.

 

[HammerON]

Please refrain from personal attacks. Warning issued.

I for one am excited to see how well TR will be at crunching for WCG. Might have to invest in 1950X...

 

[Nuno Lourenço]

Absolutely agree with this. As I see it, the only reason that AMD is charging $999 for this proc is because of Intel's pricing. Unfortunately, without this kind of competition in the recent past from AMD, Intel was easily able to bloat the price of the 6950 to the ridiculous level approaching $1,700 US, thus, Intel was able set the "baseline" for HEDT at that level. Now, we have to live with it. If Intel had not been able to set the baseline at that level (the thing is stupendously expensive considering it only has two more cores than a proc costing $500 less), we would probably be seeing pricing closer to 2X the 1800X or perhaps less.

Let me if I'm getting this straigth. Until a few months ago Intel was charging 1700$ for a CPU which is now outperformed by more than 60% by a CPU that costs 700$ less and you keep saying that its too expensive? I don't get it, really...

 

[Deleted member 172152]

Let me if I'm getting this straigth. Until a few months ago Intel was charging 1700$ for a CPU which is now outperformed by more than 60% by a CPU that costs 700$ less and you keep saying that its too expensive? I don't get it, really...

If AMD can get 16 cores at the same price with realistically the same stock performance per core on anything below a really good 240mm AIO, which it has, then intel is still overpriced. 4.0-4.1ghz on all cores and you won't notice the difference at a decent resolution like (U)WQHD or higher and in multi-thread optimized tasks and especially multitasking you get much better bang for your buck from AMD. The fact is, clockspeed won't save skylake-x in 2017 when 1440p is considered the minimum for a HEDT.

 

[FrustratedGarrett]

They'll come from apu dies as Athlon series.

There's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.

 

[Frick]

Yeah AMD has made me a fool a lot lately. I guessed the top Ryzen be $800ish, and I could not imagine the 16c/32t Threadripper being $999. Go!

 

[GoldenX]

There's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.

Most likely, but they can cripple that by reducing or removing the L3 cache.

 

[Frick]

Absolutely agree with this. As I see it, the only reason that AMD is charging $999 for this proc is because of Intel's pricing. Unfortunately, without this kind of competition in the recent past from AMD, Intel was easily able to bloat the price of the 6950 to the ridiculous level approaching $1,700 US, thus, Intel was able set the "baseline" for HEDT at that level. Now, we have to live with it. If Intel had not been able to set the baseline at that level (the thing is stupendously expensive considering it only has two more cores than a proc costing $500 less), we would probably be seeing pricing closer to 2X the 1800X or perhaps less.

This is accurate. No one knowing their history can deny it. So is ">3Ghz 16c/32t CPU for $999 is AWESOME". One can argue theoretical scenarious in which AMD didn't make Bulldozer and Intel didn't reigned alone for a long while all day long but here we are. AMD is damned near disruptive at the moment, at least CPU-side and from a viewpoint many users share. They are competitive in a duopoly, which is the important thing. I wish VIA would amaze us once again (and make some nanoITX boards while they're at it, preferebly with two NICs), but again theoreticals.

 

[wiyosaya]

Let me if I'm getting this straigth. Until a few months ago Intel was charging 1700$ for a CPU which is now outperformed by more than 60% by a CPU that costs 700$ less and you keep saying that its too expensive? I don't get it, really...

What I am saying is that Intel set the bar for current processor pricing and that AMD is almost certainly pricing against that bar. If the bar were at $1,200 or less, AMD may have similarly priced their new entry at a correspondingly high discount - say $700.

So, the lack of competition, at least as I see it, has inflated prices.

No, the AMD offerings are far from overpriced when compared against Intel and Intel's prices, however, if Intel chooses to be aggressive in its future pricing, we might see prices on procs like this come down to lower levels.