AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 Series Lineup Revealed

[btarunr]

AMD is expected to launch its Ryzen Threadripper 7000 series processors soon, and we have basic specs of the lineup. Apparently there are two distinct classes of Threadripper processors, similar to the Threadripper 3000 series—one caters to the HEDT segment, and is based on the new AMD Socket TRX5, and the other caters to the workstation market under the Threadripper PRO 7000WX series, and uses a derivative of Socket SP5. There are as many as 7 processor models, all of which are based on the latest AMD "Zen 4" microarchitecture.

The HEDT lineup (Socket TRX5), includes the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X (100-100001352WOF), the Threadripper 7970X (100-100001351WOF), and the Threadripper 7980X (100-100001350WOF). The 7960X is a 24-core/48-thread processor with a maximum boost frequency of 5.30 GHz, and 152 MB of total cache (L2+L3). The 7970X is a 32-core/64-thread model with the same 5.30 GHz maximum boost frequency, and 160 MB of total cache. Leading the pack is the 7980X, a 64-core/128-thread processor that tops out at 5.10 GHz boost, and with 320 MB of total cache. All three models in the HEDT series come with a TDP of 350 W.



Moving onto the Threadripper PRO 7000WX series, and we have four processor models—the PRO 7995WX (100-100000884WOF), the PRO 7985WX (100-100000454WOF), the PRO 7975WX (100-100000453WOF), and the 7965WX (100000885WOF). All four are high core-count models. The PRO 7995WX leads the pack with a mammoth 96-core/192-thread core-count, 5.10 GHz maximum boost, and 482 MB of total cache. The PRO 7985WX is 64-core/128-thread, with 5.10 GHz maximum boost, and 320 MB total cache. The PRO 7975WX is 32-core/64-thread, with 5.30 GHz maximum boost, and 160 MB total cache. Lastly, the 7965WX is 24-core/48-thread with 5.30 GHz maximum boost, and 152 MB of total cache. What sets the HEDT series apart from the PRO WX series is the memory channel count. The sTRX5 platform features a 4-channel DDR5 memory interface, whereas the PRO WX platform features an 8-channel interface.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[dj-electric]

A leak post 6 minutes ahead of the full disclosure

 

[Keullo-e]

Wonder that is AMD going to use 3D chips on their HEDT line? That would totally smash Intel on the HEDT/server lineup.

 

[datnoz]

Wonder that is AMD going to use 3D chips on their HEDT line? That would totally smash Intel on the HEDT/server lineup.

Could be good, but servers prefer power efficiency over power, so maybe it is just not worth it.
Otherwise they already would have done it.
Am I wrong ??

 

[dj-electric]

Wonder that is AMD going to use 3D chips on their HEDT line? That would totally smash Intel on the HEDT/server lineup.

Could be good, but servers prefer power efficiency over power, so maybe it is just not worth it.
Otherwise they already would have done it.
Am I wrong ??

Technically you both are. A quick visit to any review that includes productivity / data heavy benchmarks can show you that more often than not none 3DVC CCDs do a better job than ones that do have 3DVC.
So, when it comes to server workloads, you want it without the added cache, both to save money and to keep the performance alive.

 

[Keullo-e]

Could be good, but servers prefer power efficiency over power, so maybe it is just not worth it.
Otherwise they already would have done it.
Am I wrong ??

A solution like 7950X3D where some of the chiplets are 3D and others aren't could be a working solution?

Technically you both are. A quick visit to any review that includes productivity / data heavy benchmarks can show you that more often than not none 3DVC CCDs do a better job than ones that do have 3DVC.
So, when it comes to server workloads, you want it without the added cache, both to save money and to keep the performance alive.

Yeah, a hybrid solution could work there.

 

[Nostras]

Could be good, but servers prefer power efficiency over power, so maybe it is just not worth it.
Otherwise they already would have done it.
Am I wrong ??

AMD has already released these variants, they are postfixed with an X.

Epyc - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They probably don't think it's worth it for TR.

Epyc's are marketed for servers btw, threadrippers are more for extreme workstations.
What the user does AMD doesn't care of course, but AMD makes the distinction.

 

[unwind-protect]

According to benchmarks by phoronix.com the larger cache of the EPYC X chips is a great advantage for many technical/scientific workloads. Which are often done on the individual workstation of the worker.

It would make a lot of sense to bring that cache to Threadripper.