Thursday, June 1st 2017
AMD Readies Nine Ryzen Threadripper Models
AMD, which announced its Ryzen Threadripper HEDT processor at its 2017 Computex show, closely followed by certain motherboard manufacturers' unveiling of their compatible AMD X399 chipset motherboards; is readying nine SKUs based on the dual "Summit Ridge" MCM. This includes 10-core (3+2+3+2), 12-core (3+3+3+3), 14-core (4+3+4+3), and 16-core (4+4+4+4) models, all of which have SMT enabled, resulting in 20, 24, 28, and 32 threads, respectively; full 64-lane PCI-Express gen 3.0 root-complexes; and full quad-channel DDR4 memory interfaces. Some of these models with the "X" brand extension feature XFR (extended frequency range), which adds 200 MHz to the boost clock, if the cooling is sufficient.
The lineup is led by the 16-core/32-thread Ryzen Threadripper 1998X, with a healthy clock speed of 3.50 GHz, and 3.90 GHz boost, a TDP of 155W, and XFR. This is closely followed by the 16-core/32-thread 1998, clocked lower, at 3.20 GHz with 3.60 GHz boost, 155W TDP, and lack of XFR. The 16-core chips are followed by 14-core models. The 14-core/28-thread Ryzen Threadripper 1977X ships with 3.50 GHz core clock speed, but 4.00 GHz boost, XFR, and the same 155W TDP as the 16-core parts. This is closely followed by the 14-core/28-thread 1977 (non-X), with lower clocks of 3.20 GHz core, 3.70 GHz boost, and again, the same 155W TDP.AMD could trounce Intel's HEDT lineup in terms of TDP from its 12-core lineup and below. The 12-core/24-thread Ryzen Threadripper 1976X ships with a staggering 3.60 GHz core, and 4.10 GHz boost, XFR, and "only" 125W TDP. In comparison, everything 6-core thru 10-core in Intel's Skylake-X HEDT lineup is 140W. The next 12-core/24-thread Threadripper part is the 1956X with 3.20 GHz core, 3.80 GHz boost, XFR, and 125W TDP. Its smaller sibling, the 1956 (non-X), ships with 3.00 GHz core, 3.70 GHz boost, and no XFR, but the same 125W TDP.
We now move on to AMD's 10-core/20-thread lineup. The Ryzen Threadripper 1955X ships with 3.60 GHz core and 4.00 GHz boost, and XFR adding further to the boost clock. The 1955 (non-X) will be the cheapest Threadripper you can buy. This 10-core/20-thread chip is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost. Both 10-core parts have their TDP rated at 125W.
The company didn't disclose cache structure, or pricing. We expect the 10-core Threadripper models to take on Intel's 4-thru-6-core "Kaby Lake-X" and "Skylake-X" parts; the 12-core Threadripper on Intel's 8-thru-10 core parts, the 14-core Threadripper on Intel's 10-thru-12 core parts; and the 16-core Threadripper, bolstered by its high clock speeds, on Intel's 16-thru-18-core parts.
Source:
OCaholic.ch
The lineup is led by the 16-core/32-thread Ryzen Threadripper 1998X, with a healthy clock speed of 3.50 GHz, and 3.90 GHz boost, a TDP of 155W, and XFR. This is closely followed by the 16-core/32-thread 1998, clocked lower, at 3.20 GHz with 3.60 GHz boost, 155W TDP, and lack of XFR. The 16-core chips are followed by 14-core models. The 14-core/28-thread Ryzen Threadripper 1977X ships with 3.50 GHz core clock speed, but 4.00 GHz boost, XFR, and the same 155W TDP as the 16-core parts. This is closely followed by the 14-core/28-thread 1977 (non-X), with lower clocks of 3.20 GHz core, 3.70 GHz boost, and again, the same 155W TDP.AMD could trounce Intel's HEDT lineup in terms of TDP from its 12-core lineup and below. The 12-core/24-thread Ryzen Threadripper 1976X ships with a staggering 3.60 GHz core, and 4.10 GHz boost, XFR, and "only" 125W TDP. In comparison, everything 6-core thru 10-core in Intel's Skylake-X HEDT lineup is 140W. The next 12-core/24-thread Threadripper part is the 1956X with 3.20 GHz core, 3.80 GHz boost, XFR, and 125W TDP. Its smaller sibling, the 1956 (non-X), ships with 3.00 GHz core, 3.70 GHz boost, and no XFR, but the same 125W TDP.
We now move on to AMD's 10-core/20-thread lineup. The Ryzen Threadripper 1955X ships with 3.60 GHz core and 4.00 GHz boost, and XFR adding further to the boost clock. The 1955 (non-X) will be the cheapest Threadripper you can buy. This 10-core/20-thread chip is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost. Both 10-core parts have their TDP rated at 125W.
The company didn't disclose cache structure, or pricing. We expect the 10-core Threadripper models to take on Intel's 4-thru-6-core "Kaby Lake-X" and "Skylake-X" parts; the 12-core Threadripper on Intel's 8-thru-10 core parts, the 14-core Threadripper on Intel's 10-thru-12 core parts; and the 16-core Threadripper, bolstered by its high clock speeds, on Intel's 16-thru-18-core parts.
73 Comments on AMD Readies Nine Ryzen Threadripper Models
Prepare your suits guys... this gonna be a slaughter fest...
16C/32T, 3.2 Ghz base, 3.6 Ghz boost, No XFR, 849 U$S
Source:
semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=290705&postcount=594
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/20.html
Stock X1800 is 6% slower than 7700K at 1440 and 1% at 4K
Youtube is full of those guys. On top of it all, a 1070 is nowhere near strong enough to bottleneck a Ryzen CPU in the first place, even if its a 4c/8t.
In the real world actual performance matters. i7-6800K provides better overall performance than Ryzen 7 1800X. It doesn't matter that it has more cores when it's beaten by one with fewer. It's the same useless argument which was used for Bulldozer back in the day; Bulldozer was "better" due to higher core count, even though it was beaten by a quad core. Ryzen 7 1800X is a competitor to Intel's 6-cores. Ryzen doesn't offer any new features games needs to be optimized for, so that's 100% BS. How would putting more of the same dies in a CPU improve single core performance?
Broadwell-E is >20% faster per core. Intel claims Skylake-X will be >15% on top of that, which might be a stretch, but it's certainly not going to be slower.
In the end clockspeed often still matters if core count us the same, but really if you need a 8-core ryzen and/or have the gpu for it to bottleneck, you should be gaming in 1440p at least where there is no noticeable difference in game (although some say ryzen 7 gives a smoother experience than a 6900k). 6800k/7800x aren't ryzen competitors. They're basically for those few people with 1080p monitors and 1080 ti's, where everything is bottlenecked including the gpu. 1440p is the way to go for normal gamers and if you're doing professional stuff, you're probably better off having two more cores than higher clockspeeds. Also tdp is lower and there's no need to delid or any chance even delidding isn't going to stop dangerous temperature spikes, so yet another reason sane people should buy into AMD for extra cores rather than intel for more clockspeed.
Ryzen's infininty fabric and other things mean it works a little different and optimization goes a long way in games like AOTS for example.
More of same cores? Probably not. Clockspeeds are sometimes higher than ryzen 5x and 7x, so there have been some optimizations. Also, 3200mhz memory is supported by AMD themselves, which is considerably higher than ryzen 5 and 7 ram speed support, so I suspect a few things were improved there as well.
As for clockspeeds, well it seems that baseclocks are sometimes higher and boostclocks aren't that for off with xfr. If IPC has improved slightly as well, which it probably has, it should be an evenly matched fight for the HEDT platform, untill you overclock of course, but most don't want to loose their warranty on such expensive components and delidding is probably necessary with intel to stop your cpu getting even hotter with that most likely rubbish thermal paste. Was there something else? O wait, threadripper is going to be a few percent slower in worst case scenarios now zen support is pretty good and it might beat intel in some other scenarios, so on average about the same non-overclocked and threadripper should be considerably cheaper!
If you want to optimize a game in terms of CPU load, it would be eliminating overhead in the rendering code. Those optimizations have nothing to do with the CPU, and would benefit both. "multi-threaded pro stuff"?
Ryzen is not better at multithreaded workloads in general, just specific benchmarks. In some workloads, even i7-7700K beats Ryzen 7 1800X, such as Photoshop. Performance is much more complicated than clockspeed, especially with more efficient architectures. Ryzen are in fact running at higher speed than Broadwell-E, so you guys needs to stop claiming it's lack of clock scaling for Ryzen.
Ryzen have a inferior prefetcher, which means it's unable to feed the execution ports efficiently for workloads that are not cache optimized. That's why you see Ryzen crush it in Blender and some encoding and compression workloads, while it's crushed in important loads like Photoshop, games, web browsing, etc. Now you're just silly. Delidding is just done for extreme overclocking, that's not even remotely relevant. That makes no sense whatsoever. There are no improvements in architecture in Threadripper over Ryzen 7.
You know very well that both AMD and Intel CPUs are able of that memory speed, and more. You are ridiculous. Stop your delidding nonsense. IPC is better for Broadwell-E, and will be even better for Skylake-X. As I've mentioned, AMD need a better prefetcher for Zen2, because higher boost can't make up for cache misses, since the penalty is a constant.
New games would already be optimized.
What does that tell you about the relative performance.
I guess you just suck at googling.
And about that IPC crap.
Ryzen is not behind.
Simple fkin math 7700k 4.2GHz is clocked 20% higher than 1500x 3.5GHz.
But beats it by only 12% in games. Provable not even that now, in the TPU review Tomb Raider is not patched.
How does that tell you that Ryzen has lower IPC ?
Source