Monday, May 15th 2017

AMD Ryzen 9 "Threadripper" Lineup Leaked

Today is an eventful day in the tech world, with two high-impact leaks already offering themselves up to our scrutiny. We had previously covered AMD's upcoming HEDT platform, based on the company's new X399 chipset, as having a quite distinctive lineup of processors, with not only 16 and 12-core offerings hot on foundries presses', but also some 14-core, 28-thread chips as well. Now, a leak has apparently revealed the entire Ryzen HEDT platform, whose processor marketing name, Ryzen 9, sounds really close to Intel's Core i9.

AMD's offerings look to offer an edge at least on core-count, with the Red team's top offerings, the Ryzen 9 1998X and Ryzen 9 1998, bringing in a game-changer 16 cores and 32 threads to the table. Perhaps even more importantly, we have to mention that the 1998X (these names, if true, are quite a mouthful, though) achieves a 3.5 GHz base, 3.9 GHz boost clock, which owes nothing to AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X consumer flagship CPUs. Rumors of AMD's frequency demise on higher core-count Ryzen CPUs have been greatly exaggerated, it would seem. And did I mention that these chips are coming with a TDP of 155 W - 5 W lower than Intel's purported 12-core, i9-7920X offering? Consider that for a moment.
The 14-core parts are reported to be the Ryzen 9 1977X and Ryzen 9 1977. The Ryzen 9 1977X is a 155 W 14-core, 28-thread processor with a base clock speed of 3.5 GHz and a boost clock speed of 4.1 GHz with XFR. The Ryzen 9 1977 brings those speeds down a bit towards 3.2 GHz base and 3.7 GHz boost, with a correspondingly lower TDP of 140 W.

On to the 12-core parts, three different processors are expected: the Ryzen 9 1976X, Ryzen 9 1956X and the Ryzen 9 1956 (strange naming scheme with that 2-algharism difference between two parts with the same number of cores, I'd say.) The Ryzen 9 1976X is a 12-core, 24-thread, 140 W part, with a base clock 3.6 GHz and a boost clock speed of 4.1 GHz with XFR; the Ryzen 9 1956X lowers the TDP to just 125 W, on account of a lower base clock speed of 3.2 GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.8 GHz with XFR. The entry level 12 core part, the 1956, is rated at the same 125 W while running at a base clock speed of 3.0 GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.7 GHz.

There are also supposed to be two 10-core CPUs in this lineup, both rated at 125 W. The Ryzen 9 1955X, which runs at 3.6 GHZ base, and 4.0 GHz boost with XFR, and the Ryzen 9 1955, which runs at a base clock of 3.1 GHz and a 3.7 GHz boost.

I have to say, AMD is doing an amazing job with its Ryzen lineup, and the absolutely bonkers core-count on this X399, Whitehaven platform is most likely than not run circles around its Intel counterparts. Gone are the days of AMD's higher core count at the expense of computational power and IPC; as we've seen, AMD's Ryzen has achieved a great enough boost to its IPC that it can leverage its higher number, svelter cores over Intel's architecture, with absolutely mind-blowing TDP numbers (really, take another look at those TDPs in comparison to Intel's Core i9 series.)
AMD's Whitehaven platform looks to be an attractive prospect. Let's just hope AMD's platform stability and compatibility quirks are fully ironed-out until the expected June release.Source: WCCFTech
Add your own comment

83 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 "Threadripper" Lineup Leaked

#1
Dimi
Who came up with these names? lol
Posted on Reply
#2
TheLostSwede
And that's what I get for jumping the gun...
Oh well, it's not as if I need any of this, nor do I think I'll be able to afford it :p

The 1976X doesn't make sense though, as it's faster than the 1977 and 1977X, yet has the same amount of cores/threads.

Edit: Right, WCCF fucked up, if you read their text, the 1976X is a 12-core part, not 14, as in their table. Something I just noticed TPU fixed.
Posted on Reply
#3
meirb111
they have started a spitting war
Posted on Reply
#4
alucasa
They will be out of my price range for sure, seeing 1800x is already 650 CAD here.

So, those are 1,000CAD+ CPUs?

And it's worthwhile to note that AMD's TDP and Intel's TDP definitions are entirely different.
Posted on Reply
#5
oxidized
What the fck are these names? Also, ryzen 9, really? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
Steevo
Dimi said:
Who came up with these names? lol
Great times, 1998....

Who knows though, but at least it's not a WAFFLESFTW1111111GOAT.
Posted on Reply
#7
mcraygsx
This keeping on getting better and better. AMD is going full force with 44 PCIe Lanes even on the lowest 1955 variant of Ryzen 9. This is something INTEL is still milking consumers on upcoming HEDT. 16 and 28 Lanes on their HEDT platform is just pathetic.

Are we learning yet?
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
No pricing.

And about those TDPs, if they are measured the same way, downclocking intel to AMD level should bring the TDP within the same range. So I'm not seeing anything breakthrough here.

@mcraygsx 1955 is also HEDT.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLaughingMan
At least AMD is bringing the big guns. They are not shying away from Intel on any level and counter anything that Intel seems to have up its sleeve. This seems to be the year of AMD. Just one more key delivery to make.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
bug said:
No pricing.

And about those TDPs, if they are measured the same way, downclocking intel to AMD level should bring the TDP within the same range. So I'm not seeing anything breakthrough here.
All joy ans cheers for the competition I see. Be glad that there is some competition again, it's good for us in the end, as it means either lower prices, better products or both.
Posted on Reply
#11
JDM4LIFE
Well I think both Intel and AMD should stop this "Core War" and focus on IPC improvements. There is no point on adding more and more cores on desktop cpus. They should stop bringing server dies in the desktop market. If someone needs all these cores, then they should consider the Xeon lineup.
Posted on Reply
#12
mcraygsx
JDM4LIFE said:
Well I think both Intel and AMD should stop this "Core War" and focus on IPC improvements. There is no point on adding more and more cores on desktop cpus. They should stop bringing server dies in the desktop market. If someone needs all these cores, then they should consider the Xeon lineup.
There already is i5 and i7 for desktop market. Which is plentiful for average consumers. These are HEDT we are talking about.
Posted on Reply
#13
JDM4LIFE
mcraygsx said:
There already is i5 and i7 for desktop market. Which is plentiful for average consumers. These are HEDT we are talking about.
Yes it is. But I dont think the HEDT series need 16 cores. Why should someone buy a 16 core cpu?
Posted on Reply
#14
bug
TheLostSwede said:
All joy ans cheers for the competition I see. Be glad that there is some competition again, it's good for us in the end, as it means either lower prices, better products or both.
I always spend $200-250 on the CPU. These do nothing for me, but I'll wait to see what trickles down to mainstream.
Posted on Reply
#15
alucasa
I would buy 16 core CPUs, seeing I already have 2 14 core CPUs in dual socket setup.

But certainly not at 1k+ price. I bought mine for 300USD/400USD each.
Posted on Reply
#16
PowerPC
JDM4LIFE said:
Well I think both Intel and AMD should stop this "Core War" and focus on IPC improvements. There is no point on adding more and more cores on desktop cpus. They should stop bringing server dies in the desktop market. If someone needs all these cores, then they should consider the Xeon lineup.
What are you talking about? More cores = more IPC, if used correctly. Why should only servers benefit from more cores? There is also a limit to IPC per core (at least it gets exponentially more difficult to improve with time), but more cores give you limitless IPC, again, only if properly taken advantage of, and there is no reason not to...

I say let the CoreWars commence!
Posted on Reply
#17
Raevenlord
News Editor
TheLostSwede said:
And that's what I get for jumping the gun...
Oh well, it's not as if I need any of this, nor do I think I'll be able to afford it :p

The 1976X doesn't make sense though, as it's faster than the 1977 and 1977X, yet has the same amount of cores/threads.

Edit: Right, WCCF fucked up, if you read their text, the 1976X is a 12-core part, not 14, as in their table. Something I just noticed TPU fixed.
Yeah, noticed that as well, made use of my awesome, ninja Excel skills =)
Posted on Reply
#18
R0H1T
JDM4LIFE said:
Yes it is. But I dont think the HEDT series need 16 cores. Why should someone buy a 16 core cpu?
If you knew who buys the low(er) end Xeons you wouldn't be asking this question, people don't buy a 16 core just to play BF1 multiplayer :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#19
mcraygsx
JDM4LIFE said:
Yes it is. But I dont think the HEDT series need 16 cores. Why should someone buy a 16 core cpu?
Not everyone wants two different PC setup for two different task.
HEDT let you use your PC for entertainment as well as for analysts, designers, content creation professionals, developers or whatever your specific needs are. I am not sure who fed you the idea that HEDT do not need 16 cores? That is the whole point of HEDT.
Posted on Reply
#21
JDM4LIFE
mcraygsx said:
Not everyone wants two different PC setup for two different task.
HEDT let you use your PC for entertainment as well as for analysts, designers, content creation professionals, developers or whatever your specific needs are. I am not sure who fed you the idea that HEDT do not need 16 cores? That is the whole point of HEDT.
Yes I agree that you dont have to own two different setups but what about single core performance? You think these 16 core beasts will do well down there? I am saying that for the gaming part of your pc.
Posted on Reply
#22
JDM4LIFE
The reason saying all these is that I am with a 2600k and now with all that core war and the competition between intel and amd I may be able to upgrade to a new rig. And I am thinking why should I buy a multi core cpu.
Posted on Reply
#23
Gasaraki
JDM4LIFE said:
Well I think both Intel and AMD should stop this "Core War" and focus on IPC improvements. There is no point on adding more and more cores on desktop cpus. They should stop bringing server dies in the desktop market. If someone needs all these cores, then they should consider the Xeon lineup.
That's AMD doing. They are selling people more cores is better and then people complain that the Intel stuff has less cores so they then have to release stuff with more cores.
Posted on Reply
#24
R0H1T
JDM4LIFE said:
The reason saying all these is that I am with a 2600k and now with all that core war and the competition between intel and amd I may be able to upgrade to a new rig. And I am thinking why should I buy a multi core cpu.
Well in case you didn't notice the 2600k is a quad core with 8 threads, if you don't want to upgrade to a 6/8 core then it's totally your choice, the i7 77xx with 115w TDP is perfect for you.
If you're still averse to MCP then there's always the p4 that can be OC beyond SB, with dry ice or liquid helium if need be.
Posted on Reply
#25
DeathtoGnomes
R0H1T said:
If you knew who buys the low(er) end Xeons you wouldn't be asking this question, people don't buy a 16 core just to play BF1 multiplayer :rolleyes:
15 cores for SETI@home crunching, 1 core for BF1?:laugh::rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment