Tuesday, June 6th 2017

AMD's Entry-Level 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper to Reportedly Cost $849

AMD has recently announced that at least nine models are in preparation for their new HEDT line-up, which will, for now, feature processors with up to 16 cores and 32 threads. The entry-level 16-core chip, the Threadripper 1998, will come in at 3.20 GHz with 3.60 GHz boost, 155 W TDP, and is absent of XFR.

If recent reports hold true, this entry-level Threadripper 1998 will come in at $849. Now, let's be honest - this seems like an immensely optimistic value, undercutting even Intel's 10-core 7900X, which has been announced at $999 (in tray quantities.) That's over 6 more cores and 12 more threads for $150 less. And let's just say that AMD's IPC isn't that much lower than Intel's to justify such an aggressive undercutting, a high-volume approach to the market.

Source: ETeknix
Add your own comment

128 Comments on AMD's Entry-Level 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper to Reportedly Cost $849

#1
_larry
AMD IS BACK IN THE GAME.
Posted on Reply
#2
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
@Knoxx29

$849,-
:peace:
Posted on Reply
#3
Knoxx29
P4-630 said:
@Knoxx29

$849,-
:peace:
You are lucky there is not an emoticon showing the middle finger:slap:

Joke.

Btw, i wouldn't spend not even a penny for that thing.


_larry said:
AMD IS BACK IN THE GAME.
Whatever

:kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#4
Aenra
Assuming i read this right, we're talking about the non-X variant here.
Assuming (again) that the difference between X and non-X variants will be similar to that of R7s (17ish %), we're looking at $993 for the 1998X.

A 16c/32t XFR SKU $7 cheaper than intel's 10c/20t. I approve :)
Posted on Reply
#5
wiak
well makes sense, ryzen 1800X was priced $499 and that competes with 6900K

$999 = 16 core threadripper
$849 = 16 core threadripper
$749 = 14 core threadripper
$649 = 10 core threadripper
$499 = 8-core ryzen

thats what i think
Posted on Reply
#6
Evildead666
wiak said:
well makes sense, ryzen 1800X was priced $499 and that competes with 6900K

$999 = 16 core threadripper
$849 = 16 core threadripper
$749 = 14 core threadripper
$649 = 10 core threadripper
$499 = 8-core ryzen

thats what i think
I would expect :
10 core @ $599
12 core @ $699
14 core @ $799
16 core @ $899
16c/XFR @ $999

or somewhere thereabouts.
I wouldn't expect a major jump from 8 core to 10 core price. At least I hope not. That entry level chip needs to be entry level.
Posted on Reply
#7
OSdevr
Intel's top HEDT processor has long been a $1000 part, it makes perfect sense for AMD to line their stuff up this way (especially PR wise).
Posted on Reply
#8
9700 Pro
Gotta love the aggressive pricing, Intel has a hell broke loose with AMD's pricing and competition.
Posted on Reply
#9
Hugh Mungus
wiak said:
well makes sense, ryzen 1800X was priced $499 and that competes with 6900K

$999 = 16 core threadripper
$849 = 16 core threadripper
$749 = 14 core threadripper
$649 = 10 core threadripper
$499 = 8-core ryzen

thats what i think
You forgot the 12-cores.
Posted on Reply
#10
Knoxx29
9700 Pro said:
pricing and competition.
About Pricing agree, competition:confused: nah, however, i am fine with Intel's prices.
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLaughingMan
First off, this is not confirmed by AMD. Second, if this is true then it looks like AMD is seriously not trying to cut into their own server market potential and minimize confusion. I don't think they will work though because I don't remember any difference between Threadripper and Epyc other than support for multiple sockets or am I wrong?
Posted on Reply
#12
OSdevr
TheLaughingMan said:
First off, this is not confirmed by AMD. Second, if this is true then it looks like AMD is seriously not trying to cut into their own server market potential and minimize confusion. I don't think they will work though because I don't remember any difference between Threadripper and Epyc other than support for multiple sockets or am I wrong?
Threadripper goes up to 16 cores. EPYC (aka Naples) maxes out at 32 cores in one package. I think it uses 4 full dies.

I'm really curious to see how EPYC competes with Intel's monsters at the ultra high end.
Posted on Reply
#13
Hugh Mungus
OSdevr said:
Threadripper goes up to 16 cores. EPYC (aka Naples) maxes out at 32 cores in one package. I think it uses 4 full dies.

I'm really curious to see how EPYC competes with Intel's monsters at the ultra high end.
Probably well if clockspeeds are half-decent. Skylake-x xeon clockspeeds drop off rapidly after x amount of cores.
Posted on Reply
#14
Patriot
OSdevr said:
Threadripper goes up to 16 cores. EPYC (aka Naples) maxes out at 32 cores in one package. I think it uses 4 full dies.

I'm really curious to see how EPYC competes with Intel's monsters at the ultra high end.
Naples will have single socket boards as well allowing 128pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram and 32c/64t. I doubt they will be compatible with the thread ripper boards... and even if they were... probably limited to 64 pcie lanes and quad channel.
By reducing the core count AMD can clock these higher and target a prosumer/workstation workload. The 32c chips are clocked very low... 1.4ghz 2.8ghz turbo.

Intel 2066 is also limited to single socket and will only launch with up to 12 cores... the 14/16/18 xeon transplants won't be available this year, they were a pure kneejerk response to threadripper.

It will be interesting to see how much AMD x399 boards cost... G34 boards were and stayed incredibly pricey compared to 2011 and g34 had 1944 contacts, these have 4094.
The chips will have to be somewhat cheaper just to make the system cost competitive.

Naples will be competitive if for nothing other than NVME storage boxes. Intel simply can't compete with 128pcie lanes off a single chip.
Posted on Reply
#15
Kursah
Let's keep the personal jabs out of conversation, post something constructive and useful or move along.

Frankly I hope AMD does release at this price, I would love nothing more than to see more competition from them as Ryzen continues to develop. Not sure it is going to be there yet...those that want the best will pay the price, those that can settle for something good enough can save a nice chunk of change. Seems simple enough to me.

:toast:
Posted on Reply
#16
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Raevenlord said:
That's over 6 more cores and 12 more threads for $150 less.
I don't think it is over 6 more cores, I believe it is exactly 6 more cores. :D
Posted on Reply
#17
Knoxx29
Frick said:
Serious question at this point: why?
simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.
Posted on Reply
#18
ERazer
$849 with 64 lanes? i do not mind at all :clap:
Posted on Reply
#19
OSdevr
Patriot said:
Naples will have single socket boards as well allowing 128pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram and 32c/64t. I doubt they will be compatible with the thread ripper boards... and even if they were... probably limited to 64 pcie lanes and quad channel.
By reducing the core count AMD can clock these higher and target a prosumer/workstation workload. The 32c chips are clocked very low... 1.4ghz 2.8ghz turbo.

Intel 2066 is also limited to single socket and will only launch with up to 12 cores... the 14/16/18 xeon transplants won't be available this year, they were a pure kneejerk response to threadripper.

It will be interesting to see how much AMD x399 boards cost... G34 boards were and stayed incredibly pricey compared to 2011 and g34 had 1944 contacts, these have 4094.
The chips will have to be somewhat cheaper just to make the system cost competitive.

Naples will be competitive if for nothing other than NVME storage boxes. Intel simply can't compete with 128pcie lanes off a single chip.
I never said anything about the sockets. I agree that there will be one for each processor 'class'. As for the high core count low frequency chips, I always assumed that this was because they needed to respect the TDP.
Posted on Reply
#20
GoldenX
So nice, but I want mah APUs!
Posted on Reply
#21
Patriot
OSdevr said:
I never said anything about the sockets. I agree that there will be one for each processor 'class'. As for the high core count low frequency chips, I always assumed that this was because they needed to respect the TDP.
(shrugs) just informing. And yes, it is to maintain tdp. I am curious what the clocks on the 16c APUs will be to maintain that 180w tdp.
Posted on Reply
#22
Steevo
Knoxx29 said:
You are lucky there is not an emoticon showing the middle finger:slap:

Joke.

Btw, i wouldn't spend not even a penny for that thing.




Whatever

:kookoo:
We get it, you love Intel and would pay anything to make your epeen bigger. Is there anything you feel like contributing to the conversation, or do you just feel like thread crapping?

Personally I would pay more than a cent for one, and am glad for competition as no matter who or what you are or think, competition is good for everyone. The logical fallacy of confirmation bias and the Dunning Kruger effect is strong with some though.
Posted on Reply
#23
Hugh Mungus
Patriot said:
(shrugs) just informing. And yes, it is to maintain tdp. I am curious what the clocks on the 16c APUs will be to maintain that 180w tdp.
AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.
Posted on Reply
#24
ERazer
Hugh Mungus said:
AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.
APU ryzen/vega mmmmm...
Posted on Reply
#25
9700 Pro
Knoxx29 said:
About Pricing agree, competition:confused: nah, however, i am fine with Intel's prices.
This ain't FX.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment