Tuesday, June 5th 2018

AMD Announces 2nd Generation Ryzen Threadripper with 32 Cores

AMD at its Computex 2018 presser unveiled the 2nd generation Ryzen Threadripper high-end desktop (HEDT) processors. These processors are multi-chip modules of four 12 nm 8-core "Pinnacle Ridge" dies, with up to 32 cores, and SMT enabling up to 64 threads. Much like the first-generation Threadripper family, there could be 16-core, 12-core, and 8-core SKUs; in addition to 24-core, 28-core, and 32-core ones. AMD did mention that these chips are backwards compatible with X399 motherboards, although it remains to be seen how AMD wires out the memory of two extra dies on the X399 platform. In all likelihood, there could be a new wave of motherboards that retain the TR4 socket with backwards-compatibility with 1st generation Threadripper proccessors, but having 8-channel memory slots.

The 2nd generation chips feature higher clock-speeds, and all of the "Zen+" features introduced by "Pinnacle Ridge," including Precision Boost II and XFR 2.0. AMD put up a demo of the chip challenging Intel's top-dog Core i9-7980XE, which has two more cores than it. This probably explains why Intel revealed a 28-core HEDT SKU yesterday. AMD stated that the lineup is en route Q3-2018 launch.
Add your own comment

39 Comments on AMD Announces 2nd Generation Ryzen Threadripper with 32 Cores

#1
dwade
AMD pulled their Cinebench score last minute LOL. Uses Blender instead because Intel didn't test theirs with it.
Posted on Reply
#2
xkm1948
AMD forgot to bring in their LN2 tank, so they probably yanked their CB15 comparing to 28core56threads@5GHz
Posted on Reply
#3
Caring1
"up to 16 cores, and SMT enabling up to 32 threads."
Yet the slide shows 32 Cores/64 Threads.
Posted on Reply
#4
R0H1T
"Caring1 said:
"up to 16 cores, and SMT enabling up to 32 threads."
Yet the slide shows 32 Cores/64 Threads.
The OP didn't have his chai today ;)
Posted on Reply
#5
ShurikN
They tested the 24 core against 7980XE and beat it, and they heavily emphasized it was running on air, on a currently available x399 mobo, while i9 was water cooled.
The 32 core part wasn't tested against anything, just a regular blender run wuth volumetric lighting.
Posted on Reply
#6
R0H1T
"ShurikN said:
They tested the 24 core against 7980XE and beat it, and they heavily emphasized it was running on air, on a currently available x399 mobo, while i9 was water cooled.
The 32 core part wasn't tested against anything, just a regular blender run wuth volumetric lighting.
They'd probably want the 32core TR pitted against a regular (non OC) 28c Intel part & they didn't have one, but both of these chips will be limited to moderate clocks when all the cores are taxed. This is basically a cheap server replacement, with Intel you get the same but no ECC mem.
Posted on Reply
#8
dj-electric
"ShurikN said:
They tested the 24 core against 7980XE and beat it, and they heavily emphasized it was running on air, on a currently available x399 mobo, while i9 was water cooled.
The 32 core part wasn't tested against anything, just a regular blender run wuth volumetric lighting.
If theres any cpu that can handle air, its tr. Those things are just massive in size
Posted on Reply
#10
chaosmassive
I KNEW IT, I didn't believe any of it when she said that other two dies just a dummy and not functional
they just need to disable two of four dies from rejected EPYC products to create Threadripper 1xxx SKU
Posted on Reply
#11
TheGuruStud
"R0H1T said:
They'd probably want the 32core TR pitted against a regular (non OC) 28c Intel part & they didn't have one, but both of these chips will be limited to moderate clocks when all the cores are taxed. This is basically a cheap server replacement, with Intel you get the same but no ECC mem.
And mega virtualization hit if someone is stupid enough to think they can do that...

Anyone see any intel party balloon immediately go limp after this announcement?
Posted on Reply
#12
dj-electric
...

Why is no one asking where's the R5 2500X and R3 2300X.
These are important, arguably more than the monster here
Posted on Reply
#13
Komshija
Although for an average and even for advanced user anything more than 8C/16T is overkill, this CPU if paired with acceptable price might become a good for a budget server for small and even some medium companies. Clearly, this 32-core CPU is aimed at Intel's 28-core CPU and all I know (I assume with 100% certainty) is that it will be cheaper than Intel's and offer similar, slightly better or negligibly lower performance. I also assume that this CPU will be clocked somewhat lower than Intel's.
Posted on Reply
#14
R0H1T
"TheGuruStud said:
And mega virtualization hit if someone is stupid enough to think they can do that...
I don't think it's a bad choice for home server or SME business, though YMWV depending on what it's used for.
"Komshija said:
Although for an average and even for advanced user anything more than 8C/16T is overkill, this CPU if paired with acceptable price might become a good for a budget server for small and even some medium companies. Clearly, this 32-core CPU is aimed at Intel's 28-core CPU and all I know (I assume with 100% certainty) is that it will be cheaper than Intel's and offer similar, slightly better or negligibly lower performance. I also assume that this CPU will be clocked somewhat lower than Intel's.
According to AT these are 3GHz base with 3.4GHz all core Turbo. The Intel part demoed had 2.7GHz base clock, of course that might change before an official launch.
Posted on Reply
#15
B-Real
Very nice, AMD doesn't seem to stop in the CPU segment. :)
Posted on Reply
#16
las
I doubt it's faster than Intel's 28C/56T 5 GHz boost chip.
It's better perf/value tho...
Posted on Reply
#17
TheGuruStud
"las said:
I doubt it's faster than Intel's 28C/56T 5 GHz boost chip.
It's better perf/value tho...
IDK, I hear whispers of Chernobyl 2 in the air. :D
Posted on Reply
#18
Melvis
"las said:
I doubt it's faster than Intel's 28C/56T 5 GHz boost chip.
It's better perf/value tho...
Umm its not a 5GHz boost clock its a OC, and most likely using a very high end water cooling which pretty much no one will ever use 24/7. The base clock of all cores is only 2.7GHz, so out of the box at stock clocks for both parts I cant see the intel beating the AMD 32core honestly in mega tasking programs.
Posted on Reply
#19
las
"Melvis said:
Umm its not a 5GHz boost clock its a OC, and most likely using a very high end water cooling which pretty much no one will ever use 24/7. The base clock of all cores is only 2.7GHz, so out of the box at stock clocks for both parts I cant see the intel beating the AMD 32core honestly in mega tasking programs.
Maybe not, but why did AMD pull their Cinebench result then?

I don't recall Intel overclock their CPU's on stage?
Posted on Reply
#20
springs113
"Melvis said:
Umm its not a 5GHz boost clock its a OC, and most likely using a very high end water cooling which pretty much no one will ever use 24/7. The base clock of all cores is only 2.7GHz, so out of the box at stock clocks for both parts I cant see the intel beating the AMD 32core honestly in mega tasking programs.
Yea it was definitely using high end cooling...a chiller to be exact.
Posted on Reply
#23
springs113
The best part is, we win. Think about it, in a matter of a years time we've got access to 32 cores. There's a core count for just about everyone. There's literally a CPU in every price segment for us regardless of which brand you prefer.
Posted on Reply
#24
Vya Domus
"las said:
Maybe not, but why did AMD pull their Cinebench result then?

I don't recall Intel overclock their CPU's on stage?
It was overclocked , you could see the clocks as they benchmarked it , all cores were reaching 5 Ghz. They didn't show any Cinebench scores because they figured Intel already stole the show with their ridiculous multi-stage phase cooling keeping that monstrosity from burning up.
Posted on Reply
#25
las
"Vya Domus said:
It was overclocked , you could see the clocks as they benchmarked it , all cores were reaching 5 Ghz. They didn't show any Cinebench scores because they figured Intel already stole the show with their ridiculous multi-stage phase cooling keeping that monstrosity from burning up.
Well 56 threads running 5 GHz is pretty impressive tho.

AMD should overclock their 32C/64T and try to beat it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment