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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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 ]
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.