Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Lower Cost 12- and 24-Core 2nd Gen Ryzen Threadripper Chips (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: AMD launched its line of second generation Ryzen Threadripper CPUs over the summer, but the company offered 16-core and 32-core versions of it only at the time. Today however, the company began shipping 12-core and 24-core versions of the high-end desktop and workstation chips, dubbed Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and 2970WX, respectively. All 2nd Generation Ryzen Threadripper processors feature an enhanced boost algorithm that came with AMD's Zen+ architecture that is more opportunistic and can boost more cores, more often. They also offer higher-clocks, lower-latency, and are somewhat more tolerant of higher memory speeds. All of AMD's Ryzen Threadripper processors feature 512K of L2 cache per core (6MB total on the 2920X and 12MB on the 2970WX), quad-channel memory controllers (2+2), and are outfitted with 64 integrated PCI Express Gen 3 lanes. The new Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has a 180W TDP, while the 2970WX has a beefier 250W TDP. In highly threaded workloads, the Threadripper 2920X outpaces a far more expensive 10-core Intel Core i9-7900X, while the 24-core / 48-thread Threadripper 2970WX is the second most powerful desktop processor money can buy right now. It's faster than Intel's flagship Core i9-7980XE, and trailed only AMD's own 32-core Threadripper 2990WX. Pricing for the new chips falls in at $649 for the 12-core 2920X and $1299 for the 24-core Threadripper 2970WX.
Is all you need to know. (Oh yeah, and PCI-E lanes, and they don't have the money to bribe benchmarkers, and their PSP is a far cry from the full Intel IME. Oh yeah, and hyperthreading lol.)
A video from 2014. Great work fanboy. Can't you fins anything newer?
Anyway, with Intel there's no money left to buy the eggs. Hehe.
It seems for instance I could get a Pentium G5600 and outperform the AMD 1950X in most cases, while saving a ton of money.
Maybe...if you are running Win98. Today's OSes are more than capable of multitasking so even if you are just doing nothing but simple browsing those extra threads can come in handy, for example just browsing I also have a temp monitor, AMD Customer Experience (reports if a game has bugs or crashes so they can release patches), several threads for the browser, Steam checking for updates to my games, etc.
So even with my older FX-8320e I've found the extra threads frankly more useful than more single thread performance as I don't have to think "do I have enough oomph for this?", if I suddenly decide to watch a little classic Vincent Price for Halloween (Theatre Of Blood 1973, love 70s Price) while I'm rendering some video? No problem, I just do it. If my AV wants to update itself while I'm gaming? Don't care, never notice. Nothing skips, nothing stutters, The PC can happily do its background tasks even if I'm chopping baddies to sushi in Shadow Warrior 2 or letting go with a full broadsides in World Of Warships and I'll never be bothered,it all "just works".
You try doing that on that G5600 and you are gonna be stuttering so bad you'll think you are on a P4, so if that makes ya happy go for it, but frankly I'd take even a Ryzen 3 over the G5600 any day of the week which just FYI is also $10 cheaper on Newegg than the 5600.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
the single core performance seemed underwhelming on the new AMD processors, especially for the price.
Especially for the price? You've got to be kidding. The 8 core 2700 sells for $265 right now, 6 core 2600 for $160. And single core performance is respectable, I have no complaints at all. Multicore smoothness is great even if you aren't running compiles for a living. You never get some out of control web page slowing down everything the way it used to be. Mind you, I'm looking forward to the Zen 2 announce, less than 3 months from now. Most likely equivalent IPC to Intel parts while soundly beating them by every other measure.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"Running AVX2 code, the 9900K draws 148 W for up to 28 seconds, 50% over TDP."
That is meaningless. Intel TDP is for base clocks only.
Look at the cooling recommendation (130W) for a better idea of medium term power usage.
It can burst above this for short periods.
Modern OS kernels handle multi-threading better too. Because it can allocate threads to the most free cores, it substantially reduces latency. And as you've pointed out, a far more responsive user environment and experience.
There is a balance however. At a certain point (for your average user workload), there's no need to continue pouring money in additional cores. After having 4 to 8 cores, the extra money would be better thrown towards higher clock rates. For example, I'd much rather have the fastest clocked i5 over the slowest clocked i7. That's because many problems can only be calculated sequentially (non multi-threaded), and a faster clock rate will burn through those problems much faster.
Life is not for the lazy.