AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Core Configuration Detailed

[T1beriu]

TR uses just 2 Zeppelin dies. The other 2 are pure silicon. Get your facts straight.

 

[T1beriu]

All 4 spots have dies. Though there is speculation that the two dies that aren't used are just dummy dies, just there to support the heatspreader evenly.

Did you even watch the video? He said that's an engineering sample. All decent media got the memo that TR uses only 2 dies. The other 2 are unprocessed silicon.

I'm sure that by the end of Monday, the glorious TPU will write a retraction.

 

[EarthDog]

The point i am trying to make is amd or intel, nvidia or amd, it doesnt matter. When new tech hits, you pay a premium to have it out of the gate. If a cpu is an investment, have i got a something good for you....

 

[BorgOvermind]

Enable the other units we must.
Just like in the old times.

 

[gr33nbits]

Enable the other units we must.
Just like in the old times.

Enable what? Silicon dummies? huuu performance, maybe on Ryzen 5 1600 to Ryzen 7 1700 would be nice.

 

[strickland]

Nobody is even gonna buy this.

For my own purposes the lower core count processor and high pcie lane motherboards are well suited.

My last new system was in 2009 when Intel were still soldering heat spreaders. It included (bleeding edge) 4x64GB OCZ Core in a raid 0 array. It cost me ~$6k (AUD). It would easily continue to serve (but for the failure of the array ... failed ssd). The speed lent to the cpu by the bootable raid 0 array (only achieving ~480MB/s) was a marvel to me at the time.

I would like to replace my current system (peripheral speeds being the main driver).

The chipset functionality that AMD has made available is very good for my preferences (and at least no worse than ~Z270-WS, which I have been considering, with possible exception of Thunderbolt 3.0).

I will happily be spending $4k-$5k (AUD) early next year on an AMD 1900x / Asus X399 Zenith Extreme system at about May 2018 (my current system's 9th birthday). I am likely to invest in GTX1050 Ti and Dell U2718Q (this may vary depending on what is available then). All storage will be ssd (probably M.2 and PCIE), this is the slowest part of the system and the changes will eliminate the slow transfers (300GB directories of files replacing archives etc) with current standards.

Thinking about the future and how that might change things I expect that the recognition of the importance of multithreading by developers will be a trend (where possible, perhaps not so, much in gaming)

I plan that the system I buy will meet my needs for 15 years. My preferences might best be summarised as:
Processor speed to be no worse / better than the current system (Nehalem core i7 965),
All slow parts of the system eliminated (transfer via USB / SATA, backups), and a
Better visual experience within the limit of visual acuity (20/20 = 177ppi @ 20').

Rgds

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Enable what? Silicon dummies? huuu performance, maybe on Ryzen 5 1600 to Ryzen 7 1700 would be nice.

I remember 550BE chips you could enable certain settings and... nvm.

 

[R0H1T]

mother of bios....

what a disaster.... basically a died cpu with the 25% of working parts...


nope nope nope

What's a died CPU, one with colored hair?

 

[Solidstate89]

How do you think they are getting the 6-core Ryzens and 12-core Threadrippers?

By disabling cores and their associated cache architecture in series of 2. You can't do that to get to 10 cores.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

By disabling cores and their associated cache architecture in series of 2. You can't do that to get to 10 cores.

disabling known failed cores.

 

[newtekie1]

By disabling cores and their associated cache architecture in series of 2. You can't do that to get to 10 cores.

Disabling just 2 cores IS disabling only part of a CCX. You're original statement was that can't happen, but obviously it can, because they are already doing it. They just have to disable a single core of a CCX instead of 2. There is no reason they can't do that. They only thing that is shared between the cores is the L3 cache, and we already know they can disable cores without disabling any L3, because the L3 is independent of the cores. This isn't Bulldozer, cores don't have to be disabled in pairs.

 

[Solidstate89]

Disabling just 2 cores IS disabling only part of a CCX. You're original statement was that can't happen, but obviously it can, because they are already doing it. They just have to disable a single core of a CCX instead of 2. There is no reason they can't do that. They only thing that is shared between the cores is the L3 cache, and we already know they can disable cores without disabling any L3, because the L3 is independent of the cores. This isn't Bulldozer, cores don't have to be disabled in pairs.

I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying I don't think AMD wants to. If you look at how the 8-core is laid out like that, I'm not sure they'd want to add 2-cores to one of the active dies, or 1 core to each active die to achieve the 10-core layout.

Time will figure that out, but I don't see them going back to the days of tri-core designs and such.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying I don't think AMD wants to. If you look at how the 8-core is laid out like that, I'm not sure they'd want to add 2-cores to one of the active dies, or 1 core to each active die to achieve the 10-core layout.

Time will figure that out, but I don't see them going back to the days of tri-core designs and such.

Speculating and knowing for a fact what AMD wants and will do is not the same. Guessing carries little weight in these types of arguments here. Besides the fact, you area bit off the mark since all these types of decisions were made and noted in AMD's roadmap with the except of Threadripper since it was never planned. Its a good thought but still speculative.

 

[newtekie1]

I'm not saying they can't

You can't get to 10 that way

Sure sounds like you were saying they can't to me...