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.)
This reminds me how Edison developed the electric chair to prove AC was dangerous!
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.
Revised Mac Mini, offering an AMD chip.
Maybe even the redesigned Mac Pro...
To me it's been quite odd that Apple is so keen on AMD GPUs, while never using them for primary processors.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But the single core performance seemed underwhelming on the new AMD processors, especially for the price. It seems like virtually everything I do is limited by single thread performance, with multiple cores mostly being good for multitasking. Am I missing something?
It seems for instance I could get a Pentium G5600 and outperform the AMD 1950X in most cases, while saving a ton of money.
While I agree that Apple giving AMD a spin would be welcome, I can also see the reasons why there hasn't been any movement:
- Apple working with ATI is positively ancient. AMD buying ATI didn't affect that. So that explains the continued use of the AMD Radeon line of GPUs.
- The transition from IBM Power to Intel Core CPUs was done in classic Steve Jobs flamboyance. And with that Apple got preferential Intel treatment that had been the domain of Dell. (Whole other story there me thinks.) Apple won't be in any rush to jeopardise this position.
- You'll note also the deal between Intel and AMD for GPU integration. I would expect this deal is at the behest of Apple.
They removed that feature, sadly.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
So long as these hefty core counts per socket don't end up in my Per Core licensed devices, I should be OK....
Reports are that the 9900K draws way more than 95 watts when running overclocked for the fiddled benchmarks. A lot of complaints about cooling problems out there. A lot of doubt about accuracy of benchmarks. And the chip is out of stock everywhere, so a lot of people are calling it a paper release. A lot of talk about cancelling orders and going with 2700X or Threadripper instead.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The GPU integration has me scratching my head. AMD's integrated slaughters Intels in any fair (equal $) comparison. I dont see how the deal with Intel benefits AMD.
Because Intel still sells a lot more desktop chips than AMD. AMD probably won't be making any serious moves in the low to mid-range desktop CPU market any time soon. Intel has that locked up. So you may as well make money selling AMD graphics on those low end chips.
There is something to be said for making strategic decisions on not partnering with potential competition. There is also something to be said for selling as much product as you can to make money.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Are 16 lanes per GPU that important? There was an old benchmark from a few years ago that compared SLI using 2x16 to 1x16/1x8, and there was hardly any difference. Granted this was on relatively old hardware (I think 8xx series GeForce) but from what I remember the important part was bandwidth loading textures into the GPU. Since modern GPUs have gobs of RAM, and the faster SLI bridges let them pool memory better, it's less of an issue.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
About 6 months ago I built a new budget video editing rig. I was torn between going with an i7 8700 or a an AMD2700 but opted for Intel because of QSV.
QSV allows for decoding and encoding H264 and H265 video in hardware using the on-chip video hardware. It's brillant watching my 6-cores idling while rendering 4K video into H265 files at realtime speeds. Try that with your AMD processor :-)
However, these days I'd probably go for the 1950 Threadripper (cheaper and almost as good as the 2950 because those extra cores *are* useful in good video NLEs such as Davinci Resolve.
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.
If you're running true single core workloads then you're missing the core boost advantage of Zen+. Yeah at stock frequency they are outpaced by Intel. However when I look at my own Zen+ Ryzen if I run single core loads I typically see 300MHz over a loaded multi-threadded situation on that core, and over 600MHz above the base clock rate. This is also the reason why overclockers pushing the hell out of the chip don't see much single threadded improvement in their benchmarks.
In terms of peformance vs Intel they are only marginaly behind. In terms of performance over the industry over time well that is a depressing result for the entire industry as a whole when you compare the past 5 years. For instance my recent upgrade from a 5 year old i5 netted me a 20% improvement for single threading. Had I gone intel I would have had a 24% improvment! Hurrah! Mind you I got a 200% increase on multi-threadded workloads though.
Speaking of multithreading, full disclosure:
Posted using Firefox with a single tab open currently running more than 6 threads.
The world isn't as single threadded as you may think.
What matters is cache size, L2 and L1. Losing a few cores and bolstering cache will improve performance in quite a lot of cases.
The Key is that threads don't talk that much. The amount of shared information needed to justify cores in close proximity and a huge shared cache isn't there a lot of the time.
Cheaper SMP - not difficult with PCI-E's design - would leave much more room for the critical L1 cache, reduce the heat burden on a CPU, and potentially quadruple the number of cores (since 4-way SMP is not too bad).
Close proximity on silicon only matters when you're communicating between units. Totally independent computation can be done anywhere. Port Linux to SystemC and compile it to an ASIC if you want. Should run fine, even if taking no cores at all.
There's zero relationship between half the system services on Windows/Linux and the applications being run, so there's no gain through physical proximity. There's no latency issue to resolve.
On the other hand, those same services reduce the L2 cache space your applications have available, so your applications are fetching from main memory more than they have to, just so that the services can poll for any work, scan your computer for viruses, etc. Not essential activity when playing Elite:Dangerous or Kerbal Space Program.
Not dissimilar to splitting off cores that were connected with graphics, now known as GPUs.
I'm thinking back to a model of an Amdahl mainframe. Similar sort of concept, segregated processing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
On the one hand, it is always good to see innovation and improvement in technology. Kudos to AMD and Intel for continuing to develop and evolve new technologies.
On the other hand, am I the only one that thinks that both companies have completely lost the plot when it comes to model/variant naming conventions?
In fairness, a big part of the problem is not entirely the fault of the chip makers... As the core computing world (desktop/mobile/server) matures, we are seeing the most successful companies achieve dominance through an ability to tweak their designs to more closely match the demands of their clients. Everything is up for optimisation - clock speed, core and thread counts, L1 and L2 cache, TDP, power consumption, the works. This generates a *lot* of different processor models.
The problem is that when many of these chip permutations then make their way in to the retail channel, the resultant model naming conventions and "chip families" just result in endless confusion. Whilst it's also fair to say that it is not too difficult to figure out low, medium and high performance models [start by looking at prices within a given range, then dig for details], we're increasingly needing to become chip specialists who have a very clear idea of our intended use cases if we want to have confidence that we've bought the best chip for our desired task profile.
I'm curious to know if slashdot readers think this is a fair criticism and/or whether there would be any interest in having a more uniform way of assessing the relative merits of different chips. For example, if I compare the Intel Core i7-7700T with the Core i7-8700T, not only is the move from 7th generation to 8th generation relatively easy to spot, but when we look at the specifications, then with pretty much everything except the base processor frequency, we can see the improvements delivered by the later generation. That sort of direct comparison just doesn't seem possible with the latest product announcements...
What would you do differently? Or are the current naming conventions from AMD and Intel easy enough to follow?
German magazine c't did some measurements in their current 23rd volume, pages 100 to 102.
Running AVX2 code, the 9900K draws 148 W for up to 28 seconds, 50% over TDP.
The 28 seconds are just enough to complete a run through multithreaded Cinebench.
Previous Intel processors only went 25% over TDP for up to 8 seconds.
"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.
The obsession these days is more cores I guess. I'm sure its somewhat useful for a small percent of PC users. But its sort of like having a 190 MPH car to drive on a 70 mph road. Its there if you need it, but will you ever use it?
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.
Did you know Jack the Ripper has been identified as... the Loch Ness Monster?
Bullshit or not?
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
After having 4 to 8 cores, the extra money would be better thrown towards higher clock rates.
If you're a gamer, that's certainly true. But most heavy tasks are highly parallel today, and if they aren't, they will be tomorrow. If you're doing anything that requires heavy lifting, odds are good that it will benefit more from more cores than from a small increase in single-thread performance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"am I missing something?"
Yes, multi threaded software, we ALWAYS code for multiple CPU's.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
My approach to PCs has been this:
1. Wait. Don't buy the newest tech, it's just not worth it.
2. Figure out my budget
3. Look at benchmarks - by getting older tech they are well established.
4. Get the most #3 for #2
In the last year I bought 3 'new to me' systems, one for me and two for my kids. They are used Dell Inspiron 7010s, with 8GB RAM and i5-3570 processors. They were $100 each. I picked up Nvidia GTX cards (750/460/460ti) for cheap, ~ $25 each. All said I spent less than $400 on 3 computers.
A big bump in performance for them, they play games like TF2, Fortnite, etc. and a multitude of other less-intensive games like Terraria, Mark of the Ninja, etc.
A big bump in performance for me, I run Linux and do various things like video converting, image editing, scripting, and a few games like Unreal Tournament and games from Humble Bundles.
Sure, I drooled over the new AMD offerings, but ultimately I don't need it and quite frankly can't justify the expense. This was the FIRST big-name PC I have ever owned for myself, I have always built my computers from scratch (with the exception of my first one, a 386DX-33 in 1991). But to build a new PC would take all-new EVERYTHING. (my old system was an Intel Q8400 that served me well for many years, and alas technology standards move on.) I did some video conversion timings on my old system and new, and I am seeing 6x performance increase. Could I get more out of a more expensive system? absolutely.. but it's not worth the money to me.
I guess my point is that I don't worry too much about the dizzying array of naming/numbering schemes because I know I will never ever have the fastest best system out there. Build or buy something that is good enough and carry on with your life.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
AMD chips are also great for frying eggs.
Which is a pretty easy trick to achieve given that egg protein already start to precipitate somewhere north of 50~60C - you could achieve the same with the warm water of your faucet, try it ! Note that the egg will not have been thoroughly cooked at a high enough temperature and will not be sterilized : it might not be safe to eat due to bacterial risks.
You could do the same trick as the video with any piece of electronic more beefy that a raspberry pi
And while digging at old stuff, Intel was at the recieving end of such jokes back in the Pentium4 vs Athlon&Opteron 64 era.
(Also, since when are AMD motherboards paired with intel NICs? That seems weird to me...)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That's not just for Intel. That's general recommendations from processor vendors.
That's one of the reasons AMD released "Gamers Profile" for Threadripper chips where half of the cores would be disabled and the extra thermal and electrical headroom dedicated to higher core clock boosts.
Threadrippers get a nice speed boost as a result of this feature. Though benchmarks have shown it is actually a hindrance for many of the games on the market for something like the 2700X which only has 8 cores.
It's called a "paper release". And now "ex-fans".
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Many reports that a normal water cooler can't cool the 9900K in *normal* use. Many. Rage against it if you like, but Intel's attempt to shoehorn 8 cores into a sunset process is shaping up as mere theatre. Not going to end well.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Oh I agree 110% which is why I'm in no hurry to replace my FX-8320e, 8 threads are more than enough for my workloads and with a turbo of 4.1Ghz I've never felt handicapped by GHz and if I get to that point my chip easily OCs to 4.5Ghz. And what matters to me is "how does it feel? Does it do everything I want when I want?" and my FX easily records my game streams while running a browser and background tasks so I'm happy.
But dude was trying to shill for the Pentium G5600, we're talking a dual core with HT with the hyperthreading crippled by the recent OS patches to try to mitigate Intel's lack of giving a crap about security...yeah no, just no. Not only is that chip not hot to start with but the Ryzen 3 is 1.- $10 cheaper, 2.- uses boards that support the entire line from lowest to highest model CPU/APU so has plenty of future upgrade options, and 3.- Doesn't have all the security issues the Intel chips have.
There really is no compelling reason to go for a Pentium in 2018, they are beaten in every metric except for single thread performance in a VERY limited (and growing more so every day) list of programs that can only take advantage of a single thread. I wouldn't tell someone to toss one if they had one they had bought in the past (just as I still have a Q9505s Media Center I use at the shop for looking up parts and converting VHS to DVD) but buying 1 for a new build? In 2018? Yeah really don't see a point unless you are just a Team Blue fanboy.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
some tasks still perform better on Intel
Single threaded only... about 15% better for Intel's high end parts. Not worth the nearly 100% extra cost. Ryzen 2 got nearly even with Intel's 8000 series then more than half a year later Intel puts out the aggressively clocked 9000's and gets ahead 15%. But way behind in value even for single thread, never mind multicore which is what actually matters these days with multicore rendering and video encoding now being the common loads, single core mostly legacy or things that just don't matter with the chips on both sides already so powerful. So, Intel will most probably lose the single thread bragging point in 3 months or so and will be coming from behind on Cannon Lake, which when it finally ships in volume might find itself competing against a Zen 2 increment based on TSMC's initial EUV.
See, it's about value. You need to really stretch to find a single threaded load where 15% actually impacts anybody's experience these days, but it's a no-brainer to save nearly 50% of your processor budget to spend on what actually matters, like more memory. You want buttery smooth game streaming? Get the 2700X with more than enough cores, as opposed to the imaginary 9900K that costs way too much and runs too hot even if it was actually shipping.
Yeah, a lot of talk. Pissed off talk, switching to AMD talk. You know it's true.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Oh, no shilling here. I was just genuinely trying to understand the disparity between the hype/price and the apparently identical single core performance -- I had to be missing something. I also hadn't looked into the cheaper Ryzen processors, and for me they seem like a good deal.
Seems like I was just living in the past where there was some relationship between price and single thread speed. Apparently now, it seems the single thread speed is pretty flat across the price ranges, and you pay more for the extra cores if you need/benefit them.
Personally, I don't, so it's a good time for me to buy fast processors for not much money.
Bingo we have a winnar! The difference in single thread these days between Intel and AMD is really single digits unless you are looking at the absolute top o' the line chips from both and even then you are paying nearly $700 more for a whole 12% faster single thread performance.
Nowadays with the Ryzen 3 at just $90 and the Athlon 200GE APU for just $55? Even on the low end Intel just doesn't have any real compelling choices, not when you figure in the higher cost of boards and what performance you are getting for the cost. If you want to game and don't have a GPU or your budget is super tight? The new Athlon APU can play nearly all the eSports like Rocket League and Fortnite at 1080p above 30 FPS...and that is a $55 chip my dude, and you can later pair it with something like an RX 570 or GT 1030.
Right now if someone came to me and said "I want to buy Intel, what should I get?" honestly? I'd tell them to look into the used workstation market, with so many pros dumping Xeon for Threadripper you can get some crazy good deals on Xeon 6-12 thread boxes that are cheaper than putting together a Ryzen of i5 with the same number of threads, but if all you want is a home gaming box? Ryzen 3 hands down,it has the Vega GPU, it has 4 cores with a boost of 3.7 Ghz, and if you decide you need more down the line you can just drop in a Ryzen 5 or 7 down the line with no issue.
But you were correct when all AMD had was FX, if you didn't do streaming or recording like me and just wanted a solid gaming PC? The Pentiums and i3s were good deals, its just that in 2018 the shoe is on the other foot and AMD has the better deals and the difference in games is so tiny you honestly will never notice which chip is which.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.