Two 16-core AMD Threadripper Parts Listed Online

[Rehmanpa]

No you are not. If you think a 16-core should ever cost double an 8-core, you clearly are NOT aware of how prices scale lmao: Literally by definition buddy.


In fact I would say there are a couple of points you haven't realized:

1) One of the main reasons Ryzen is priced so insanely competitively so far is that one of their main points of competition in the $100 - $450 market is gaming, and this is the one place Intel is still competitive. Thus AMD had to make their CPU's an aggressive bargain.

At the $599 - $2000 market it is all about professional work, and AMD is crushing Intel is this realm. Thus AMD can price there chips much higher if they want to.


2) Intel is forced to clock their chips lower the more cores they have. Go look how lowly clocked their 10-core i7 is. This is not the case with AMD due to the CCX design of their architectures. AMD will be bringing 16 cores of 4.1 GHz against 12 cores of 3.6GHz. Furthermore AMD's CPU's are more efficient, which is again more important in this realm.

It will be a bloodbath. AMD could charge $2000 for the 12-core version and it would be completely justified. I doubt they will, but maybe reality check some of your hopes on pricing

Wow rude much? My guess is a guess, just like yours. And we don't know pricing yet so it's all guesses

 

[evernessince]

16 cores 32 threads.. assuming these things will occasionally be expected to fire on all cylinders i do wonder how they are going to be cooled.. i struggle keeping my lowly 4 core 8 thread 7700K vaguely cool when its firing on all cylinders..

it all sounds good but i see much benefit for average gaming enthusiast.. but i could be wrong.. he he

trog

ps..

First, this chip will be easier to cool because AMD actually uses solder. Second, this is obviously not a gaming CPU and people need to stop coming to threads asking for it. This CPU could easily run four modern games at once if it wanted to but that would be a waste.

 

[FR@NK]

Yeah I just read somewhere that these chips will do 5GHz on air. I cant wait!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I so doubt that, unless you're talking 200w+ power consumption.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Wow rude much? My guess is a guess, just like yours. And we don't know pricing yet so it's all guesses

No what I said was not a guess at all. I estimated the pricing based on what Intel charges, what AMD charges, and the competitiveness of the products.

It's common sense.

 

[Captain_Tom]

I so doubt that, unless you're talking 200w+ power consumption.

I honestly wouldn't be completely surprised if the 14-core and 16-core variants were 180-200w. Wouldn't matter if they were considering they would blow Intel's 160w 12-core out o the water by a safe 30-40% lol.

 

[Rehmanpa]

No what I said was not a guess at all. I estimated the pricing based on what Intel charges, what AMD charges, and the competitiveness of the products.

It's common sense.

Estimating and guessing are literally the same thing.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Estimating and guessing are literally the same thing.

Ok buddy here's the difference:

-"I hope this is cheap so I can buy it. Maybe it will be!"

-"Based on previous products and the competitive landscape this is the logical price".


^You can call them both guessing if you want, but one of those people put some thought into what he/she said. The other just sounded like a 12 year old making a Christmas list for Santa.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Ok buddy here's the difference:

-"I hope this is cheap so I can buy it. Maybe it will be!"

-"Based on previous products and the competitive landscape this is the logical price".


^You can call them both guessing if you want, but one of those people put some thought into what he/she said. The other just sounded like a 12 year old making a Christmas list for Santa.

If you say so. It's still your guess/opinion, not a fact. You can base it upon whatever you want, nobody cares.

 

[Captain_Tom]

If you say so. It's still your guess/opinion, not a fact. You can base it upon whatever you want, nobody cares.

I will be right. You can call it a guess, but is it a guess if I estimated correctly? No.


Doesn't matter anyways, the R5 1600 will continue to be the better choice for gaming (Unless the 14-core can hit 4.2 GHz).

Not sure why you started an argument.

 

[[XC] Oj101]

You should see the physical size of these CPUs

 

[Rehmanpa]

You should see the physical size of these CPUs

Especially the epyc chip. The thing was like half a hand size iirc

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

Especially the epyc chip. The thing was like half a hand size iirc

These will use the same socket I believe

 

[Rehmanpa]

These will use the same socket I believe

If I remember correctly, naples would have single cpu socket for threadripper and dual cpu socket for epyc? Is this correct?

 

[nemesis.ie]

Post 2915:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1348347&page=59

 

[[XC] Oj101]

Especially the epyc chip. The thing was like half a hand size iirc

Uh, depends on the size of your hand I guess, I'm going to say bigger for most. Big enough to need new coolers.

 

[Ahhzz]

"Threadripper" heheh. That's an excellent name for a multi-threading processor

 

[fullinfusion]

Alot of 7700K have heat issues even delided. Expect 7700K-gate soon...

only if done wrong, plus 1.28v @4.8 way to much

 

[Mr.Scott]

No you are not. If you think a 16-core should ever cost double an 8-core, you clearly are NOT aware of how prices scale lmao: Literally by definition buddy.


In fact I would say there are a couple of points you haven't realized:

1) One of the main reasons Ryzen is priced so insanely competitively so far is that one of their main points of competition in the $100 - $450 market is gaming, and this is the one place Intel is still competitive. Thus AMD had to make their CPU's an aggressive bargain.

At the $599 - $2000 market it is all about professional work, and AMD is crushing Intel is this realm. Thus AMD can price there chips much higher if they want to.


2) Intel is forced to clock their chips lower the more cores they have. Go look how lowly clocked their 10-core i7 is. This is not the case with AMD due to the CCX design of their architectures. AMD will be bringing 16 cores of 4.1 GHz against 12 cores of 3.6GHz. Furthermore AMD's CPU's are more efficient, which is again more important in this realm.

It will be a bloodbath. AMD could charge $2000 for the 12-core version and it would be completely justified. I doubt they will, but maybe reality check some of your hopes on pricing

And what you're not taking into consideration is 10+ years of failed buyer confidence in AMD products that has to be overcome. AMD cannot charge whatever they want. It will have to be cheaper, much cheaper, and perform at least on par with the current Intel offerings to regain some of that market confidence. It will take years to do that.
I expect AMD's 16c/32t to go for under 1K.
Think like a Heroin dealer. You basically give your stock away until your customer's are hooked. THEN, you can jack the pricing a little.

 

[net2007]

800$

 

[Grings]

I cant see them leaving the cheaper 6-8 core intel hedt chips without competition, i wouldnt be surprised to see a 12c variant for not much more than an 1800x (which i also think will drop in price when these release)

I know some will say the r7's compete here, but they are just too pci-e limited, if their chipset was pci-e 3 maybe..

 

[Rehmanpa]

I cant see them leaving the cheaper 6-8 core intel hedt chips without competition, i wouldnt be surprised to see a 12c variant for not much more than an 1800x (which i also think will drop in price when these release)

I know some will say the r7's compete here, but they are just too pci-e limited, if their chipset was pci-e 3 maybe..

That's why I'm waiting on my ryzen build. Either hoping for a better more core cpu or a cheaper ryzen 7 processor.

 

[Mr.Scott]

I highly doubt you'll see a cheaper Ryzen 7 processor. They're already competitively cheap. Besides, the Threadripper's are a different platform and nobody knows what the boards will cost, or their availability.

 

[trog100]

only if done wrong, plus 1.28v @4.8 way to much

my 4790K needed 1.28 to be stable at 4.6 ghz.. 1.28 for a 7700K at 4.8 ghz aint too far out but my main point was.. if 4 core 8 threads generates xxxx amount of heat imagine what 16 core 32 threads is gonna generate..

it probably would not bother the average gamer they would only be running 4 of them at max if that.. he he

it does kind of remind me of when quad core chips first appeared.. looked good in benchmarks but in reality 3 of the 4 cores sat there doing bugger all..

trog

 

[Rehmanpa]

my 4790K needed 1.28 to be stable at 4.6 ghz.. 1.28 for a 7700K at 4.8 ghz aint too far out but my main point was.. if 4 core 8 threads generates xxxx amount of heat imagine what 16 core 32 threads is gonna generate..

it probably would not bother the average gamer they would only be running 4 of them at max if that.. he he

it does kind of remind me of when quad core chips first appeared.. looked good in benchmarks but in reality 3 of the 4 cores sat there doing bugger all..

trog

My 4790k is 88w I believe and a 1700 is 60w