Saturday, May 27th 2017
Two 16-core AMD Threadripper Parts Listed Online
Ahead of their May 29 unveiling at AMD's pre-Computex 2017 show in Taipei, and their scheduled market availability for Summer 2017, two 16-core AMD Threadripper processor SKUs surfaced as online-store listings, on Greek online retailer Skroutz. These include the AMD Threadripper 1998, and the AMD Threadripper 1998X. The listings don't come with price-tags.
Some specifications of the two SKUs were revealed, too. To begin with, both chips feature 16 cores, and SMT enables 32 logical CPUs for the OS to address. The Threadripper 1998 is clocked at 3.20 GHz, with an unknown boost clock; while the 1998X is clocked higher, at 3.50 GHz, with unknown boost clocks. The "X" in the model number could denote XFR, which could unlock higher automated overclocks than the boost clock. Both chips are listed with AMD socket SP3r2 support, AMD's upcoming 4,094-pin LGA socket.
Source:
DigiWorthy
Some specifications of the two SKUs were revealed, too. To begin with, both chips feature 16 cores, and SMT enables 32 logical CPUs for the OS to address. The Threadripper 1998 is clocked at 3.20 GHz, with an unknown boost clock; while the 1998X is clocked higher, at 3.50 GHz, with unknown boost clocks. The "X" in the model number could denote XFR, which could unlock higher automated overclocks than the boost clock. Both chips are listed with AMD socket SP3r2 support, AMD's upcoming 4,094-pin LGA socket.
115 Comments on Two 16-core AMD Threadripper Parts Listed Online
20% penalty, not 1700% and this is a program where there is a lot of main/worker communication. Cutting back on UI updates would improve performance hugely but I decided it strikes a good balance between doing work and informing the user the way it is.
It is also a program where a worker thread is always spawned to prevent the UI from locking up. Async multithreading is required to give users expected behavior.
class thread extends Thread {
public function run(): int {
return 1 + 2 + 3;
}
}
$sum = (new thread)->start();
?>[/PHP]
PHP7 using pthreads, a github project. There's also the Threaded, Worker, Pool, and other classes for thread interactions and management. Requires CLI execution and a thread-safe build of PHP.
Not that I get a lot of use out of it, I'm more on the web side of things.
IMO the most important aspect of PCIe 4.0 is OCuLink-2 - a solid Thunderbolt 3 alternative. Since they are very late in the game (Thunderbolt 3 is already here and it uses USB), I doubt OCuLink-2 will ever be used for mainstream external PC accessories. However, it could be the next storage interface, because we're already way past SATA 3.0 capabilities.
Even if SATAe drives actually existed, the connector is so huge it's almost impossible to put 6-8 of them on a typical motherboard, like we got used to with SATA 3.
OCuLink-2 will utilize a new connector - Molex NanoPitch - which will actually be usable...
OCuLink-2 will succeed SAS in servers. It might just as well replace SATA.
Anyway, most SSD sold connect via SATA and they usually hover around 600 MB/s - the SATA 6 Gbps limit. Just changing the interface would improve performance.
SATAe connector is slighly shorter than 3x SATA (same width).
2x U.2 are larger than 6x SATA.
And if not placed on the edge, it'll need even more space for the cable, because the connector is parallel to PCB. But I assume it is possible to make a horizontal (perpendicular) version as well.
That picture has no SATA Express slots. Here's two SATA Express next to four normal SATA:
M.2 NVMe killed U.2. Good luck finding SATA Express or U.2 devices. Reason: U.2 and SATA Express add latency to the PCI Express lanes. NVMe, being hardwired, prevents that. No M.2 slots? Makes more sense to get a PCI Express to M.2 card than to buy something that supports SATA Express or U.2.
The picture in my post has no SATA Express, but it shows 3x2 SATA cluster. That's enough.IMO temporarily.
A typical setup today is: SSD for OS+apps and HDD for storage (you're a good example, I assume).
But if we're going to shift to SSD-only PCs, a lot of people will need 4, 6... 10 TB. When will this happen? How big and how expensive will be the drives?
I think people will still want the possibility to connect 4+ storage drives - even on a mITX mobo. Where will you pack all these U.2? :-D
And I just can't believe people will be fine with the fact that their drives can do 1000MB/s (if not better), but their limited by a 15-year-old interface.