Thursday, August 29th 2019

AMD Readies Three HEDT Chipsets: TRX40, TRX80, and WRX80

AMD is preparing to surprise Intel with its 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper processors derived from the "Rome" MCM (codenamed "Castle Peak" for the client-platform), that features up to 64 CPU cores, a monolithic 8-channel DDR4 memory interface, and 128 PCIe gen 4.0 lanes. For the HEDT platform, AMD could reconfigure the I/O controller die for two distinct sub-platforms within HEDT - one targeting gamers/enthusiasts, and another targeting the demographic that buys Xeon W processors, including the W-3175X. The gamer/enthusiast-targeted processor line could feature a monolithic 4-channel DDR4 memory interface, and 64 PCI-Express gen 4.0 lanes from the processor socket, and additional lanes from the chipset; while the workstation-targeted processor line could essentially be EPYCs, with a wider memory bus width and more platform PCIe lanes; while retaining drop-in backwards-compatibility with AMD X399 (at the cost of physically narrower memory and PCIe I/O).

To support this diverse line of processors, AMD is coming up with not one, but three new chipsets: TRX40, TRX80, and WRX80. The TRX40 could have a lighter I/O feature-set (similar to the X570), and probably 4-channel memory on the motherboards. The TRX80 and WRX80 could leverage the full I/O of the "Rome" MCM, with 8-channel memory and more than 64 PCIe lanes. We're not sure what differentiates the TRX80 and WRX80, but we believe motherboards based on the latter will resemble proper workstation boards in form-factors such as SSI, and be made by enterprise motherboard manufacturers such as TYAN. The chipsets made their way to the USB-IF for certification, and were sniffed out by momomo_us. ASUS is ready with its first motherboards based on the TRX40, the Prime TRX40-Pro, and the ROG Strix TRX40-E Gaming.
Source: momomo_us (Twitter)
Add your own comment

51 Comments on AMD Readies Three HEDT Chipsets: TRX40, TRX80, and WRX80

#26
EarthDog
I don't think its fair to compare chips on price that have been out over a year versus these that were just released over 2 months ago with the 3900x currently being not easily found (thus artificially jacking up the price - note your 3900x is 3rd party as well). Performance wise, those TR's are slower by nearly 15% clock for clock as well considering Zen 2's improvements so that should be a consideration too.

kapone32, post: 4106667, member: 181865"
Also quad channel is not a requirement I have been able to boot X399 with 1 and 2 sticks of RAM used.
You missed the single quotes I inserted around 'required' I guess. Obviously you can boot with one/two sticks... that wasn't the point. That said, what's the point of dual channel RAM on a quad channel platform? You don't jump up platforms and not use the benefits... that isn't a fair comparison.
Posted on Reply
#27
efikkan
Moving to 8-channel HEDT would be great, but I don't get why we would need three Threadripper chipsets (if these rumors were true).
Posted on Reply
#28
EarthDog
efikkan, post: 4106689, member: 150226"
Moving to 8-channel HEDT would be great, but I don't get why we would need three Threadripper chipsets (if these rumors were true).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Posted on Reply
#29
kapone32
EarthDog, post: 4106678, member: 79836"
I don't think its fair to compare chips on price that have been out over a year versus these that were just released over 2 months ago with the 3900x currently being not easily found (thus artificially jacking up the price). Performance wise, those TR's are slower by nearly 15% clock for clock as well considering Zen 2's improvements so that should be considered as well.

You missed the single quotes I inserted around 'required' I guess. Obviously you can boot with one/two sticks... that wasn't the point. That said, what's the point of dual channel RAM on a quad channel platform? You don't jump up platforms and not use the benefits... that isn't a fair comparison.
Agreed sort of in terms of the differences. I did include the performance gain but if you were in the market for a 12 core CPU would you be willing to pay that premium for a 15% gain? In terms of the memory I was establishing that because TR4 does not need Quad channel that it makes the RAM prices moot on the vs basis. What it boils down to for me is it is more cost effective to get the current TR4 lineup than looking for the same thing on X570. If you are a gamer looking at this level of computer I would like to think that you would be using at a minimum a 1440P screen much less 4K and we all know the GPU is way more important at those resolutions than the CPU. Using that I could get the 2920X and use the money I saved vs the 3900X to jump from a 2080 Super to a 2080TI.
Posted on Reply
#30
yakk
EarthDog, post: 4106647, member: 79836"
Perfect for the 100 people in the world who would do such a thing. :p
:peace:

Regardless of marketing the TR platform itself isn't a mainstream platform to begin with... Agree on getting it for epeen points is pointless.

I can see companies like Qnap & maybe even Synology (if ending their love affair with Intel) creating turnkey self contained easy to use Servers/NAS units with all that their Linux OS distros are capable of doing now from running Docker services like an oracle database, multiple VMs, cloud services, image & video recognition & cataloging...etc... It's easy to blow right by 16 cores with just a few people or applications. It's fun to finally see this level of hardware potentially being offered directly to consumers at reasonable prices (in Enterprise terms).
Posted on Reply
#31
Tomgang
If this is true. It seems AMD is ready to give intel a shock round two.

A ryzen 9 3950X and a X570 board is really all i need, but that TR40 spec does look very interesting throw. TR80 is litterly overkill for my needs. I mean i come from an i7 980X, so 3950X shut have all the power i need. But as you maybe know, more wants more:D.
Posted on Reply
#32
EarthDog
kapone32, post: 4106724, member: 181865"
Agreed sort of in terms of the differences. I did include the performance gain but if you were in the market for a 12 core CPU would you be willing to pay that premium for a 15% gain? In terms of the memory I was establishing that because TR4 does not need Quad channel that it makes the RAM prices moot on the vs basis. What it boils down to for me is it is more cost effective to get the current TR4 lineup than looking for the same thing on X570. If you are a gamer looking at this level of computer I would like to think that you would be using at a minimum a 1440P screen much less 4K and we all know the GPU is way more important at those resolutions than the CPU. Using that I could get the 2920X and use the money I saved vs the 3900X to jump from a 2080 Super to a 2080TI.
It's just odd we are comparing last years model to this year's and calling it similar.... in a thread that is all about TR 3rd gen...

If we keep thinking frugally (which is also odd on this platform), why not just run X399? What is there really in TRxx for the masses? Not much.

But yeah, I would pay the $200 difference (in the USA) between CPUs for 15% more performance. THe extra cores and threads are irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#34
hellrazor
Oh boy, my decision to hold off until Threadripper is going to pay AMD handsomely.
Posted on Reply
#35
TheGuruStud
kapone32, post: 4106667, member: 181865"
Once again I have to point to the Canadian market. The 3900X is almost 90% more expensive than the 2920X. At these prices it makes no sense to me if you want more cores to pay $376 more for the CPU. By your reasoning that is $125 for every 100MHZ. I am willing to bet that the 3950X will be a $1000 CAD chip when it launches.


https://www.amazon.ca/AMD-Threadripper-24-Thread-Processor-YD292XA8AFWOF/dp/B07JDF4QP2/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=2920x&qid=1567088838&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/AMD-Ryzen-3900X-16-thread-processor/dp/B07SXMZLP9/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=3900X&qid=1567088876&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Also quad channel is not a requirement I have been able to boot X399 with 1 and 2 sticks of RAM used.
Canada doesn't exist except when everyone floods the border to go shopping lol
Posted on Reply
#36
ZoneDymo
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4106818, member: 82332"
Do want, but not likely to ever own, I sad.
considering a 2920x goes for about 350 today? I dont see why not
Posted on Reply
#37
Xuper
tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3000-32-core-castle-peak-4.3ghz,40261.html

oh boy , Tr 32 cores with 128Mb L3 Cache ! Now which do chipset support Tr32 ?
Posted on Reply
#38
dicktracy
TRX40 and TRX80? Sounds like milk mode to me, just like how they introduced the R9 series to raise the mainstream price points. I'm curious to see how TR performs in games since the previous ones were crappy as a HEDT but good as a pure workstation.
Posted on Reply
#39
Mamya3084
My gamble on buying a unknown condition TR4 mb for $150, which ended up working fine may have paid off.

Hopefully they will support the TR4 socket with the same compatibly as epyc.
Posted on Reply
#40
Brusfantomet
efikkan, post: 4106689, member: 150226"
Moving to 8-channel HEDT would be great, but I don't get why we would need three Threadripper chipsets (if these rumors were true).
Differentiator for TR40 and TR80 is half a Rome (32 cores and 4 memory channels)
Mabye WRX80 is mult socekt Threadripper? For when you absolutely, positively need 128 cores so you can crush Intel in cinebench, even with water chillers?

The IO die from Rome already has all the hardware for a two socket system, why not leverage that for the consumer market? Threadripper has always had a bit of “looka at what cool stuf we can do with server hardware”. Why not take it to the extreme?
Posted on Reply
#41
kapone32
EarthDog, post: 4106817, member: 79836"
It's just odd we are comparing last years model to this year's and calling it similar.... in a thread that is all about TR 3rd gen...

If we keep thinking frugally (which is also odd on this platform), why not just run X399? What is there really in TRxx for the masses? Not much.

But yeah, I would pay the $200 difference (in the USA) between CPUs for 15% more performance. THe extra cores and threads are irrelevant.
They are all Ryzen based CPUs. To me it makes sense to compare CPUs with the same core count. The only CPUs that you can actually compare the 3900X is for me are the 1920X and 2920X.

I know that this thread is about 3rd Gen TR4 boards but I don't see why AMD won't support current gen CPUs on their next chipset for TR4. It will likely be the TR40 and the other boards will probably only support the new CPUs.

Agreed X399 boards should fall further in price to help those who want to get into TR4 but couldn't afford it before. I never said that TR4 was for the masses, most people don't buy a 12 core CPU for light computing (web surfing, gaming) but I was talking specifically about the individual that would buy a 12+ core CPU like the 3900X or upcoming 3950X.

This is the beauty of computing in today's age. You can use your money to get whatever you want and since you don't see a need for the extra features I actually commend you for stating that.

TheGuruStud, post: 4106838, member: 42692"
Canada doesn't exist except when everyone floods the border to go shopping lol
Or want maple syrup or hockey skates
Posted on Reply
#42
Vlada011
New Threadripper sound more interesting then Ryzen R9 39XX.
Special models with lower number of cores and higher frequency.
It would be ideal to AMD launch 10 core Threadripper as model with lowest number of core but highest frequency.
I mean on boost frequency for all cores. Becuase I don't understand nothing how Boost new Ryzen 3xxxx.
Posted on Reply
#44
KarymidoN
Octopuss, post: 4106592, member: 74316"
Why would gamers need 4 channel memory and even more cores? (that's what TR is about, right?)
If you wanna just game go for Team Blue or a Console. If you do Real Work Like Heavy Video edition, 3D Simulations/animations, VM's, etc. you might wanna consider TR4.
The Price/Perf ratio is just amazing.

Also, PCI-E gen4 bandwich is not a big deal unless you're using it for this:



lol
Posted on Reply
#45
quadibloc
Since it used to be dual-channel memory for Ryzen, quad-channel memory for Threadripper, and eight-channel memory for Epyc, I was wondering how going from 32 cores to 64 cores on Threadripper could possibly work. So if new chipsets for Threadripper, and the new Threadripper chips, support eight-channel memory, those chips won't be starved for bandwidth. This will be an exciting new era for enthusiast computing.
Posted on Reply
#46
Super XP
efikkan, post: 4106689, member: 150226"
Moving to 8-channel HEDT would be great, but I don't get why we would need three Threadripper chipsets (if these rumors were true).
3 new chip-sets would be great, 4 is better.
It gives people choice and I have no issue with that.

Vlada011, post: 4108537, member: 110294"
New Threadripper sound more interesting then Ryzen R9 39XX.
Special models with lower number of cores and higher frequency.
It would be ideal to AMD launch 10 core Threadripper as model with lowest number of core but highest frequency.
I mean on boost frequency for all cores. Becuase I don't understand nothing how Boost new Ryzen 3xxxx.
Both are interesting, both the Ryzen39XX and the Threadripper HEDT platforms.
Can't wait to see some benchmarks and that monster 8-Channel behemoth.
Posted on Reply
#47
efikkan
Super XP, post: 4111612, member: 8670"
3 new chip-sets would be great, 4 is better.
It gives people choice and I have no issue with that.
Too many, and the motherboard selection will be too sparse, like Intel's current HEDT/workstation lineup; X299, C422 and C621, the last two of which have hardly any motherboards at all.
Posted on Reply
#48
Super XP
efikkan, post: 4111619, member: 150226"
Too many, and the motherboard selection will be too sparse, like Intel's current HEDT/workstation lineup; X299, C422 and C621, the last two of which have hardly any motherboards at all.
You make a valid point.
Hopefully AMD doesn't mess it up lol
Posted on Reply
#49
kapone32
quadibloc, post: 4109052, member: 181913"
Since it used to be dual-channel memory for Ryzen, quad-channel memory for Threadripper, and eight-channel memory for Epyc, I was wondering how going from 32 cores to 64 cores on Threadripper could possibly work. So if new chipsets for Threadripper, and the new Threadripper chips, support eight-channel memory, those chips won't be starved for bandwidth. This will be an exciting new era for enthusiast computing.
I am thinking that the top chipset WRX80 will have 8 channel memory and may be the only of the 3 to support 64 cores. We may even see a 96 core CPU on Threadripper for that too. Though I am not sure what anyone would want with even 64 cores.
Posted on Reply
#50
R0H1T
That is likely, also the TR2 chips - 2970wx & 2990wx - had 2 CCX to go through a couple of hops IIRC to access memory, they couldn't do it directly. This shouldn't be the case with TR2 & the IO die, not to mention memory support & IF have been enhanced. I'd say up to 32 cores should do just about fine for most tasks, & for higher core counts there'd likely be 8 mem channels.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment