First Benchmarks, CPU-Z Screenshots of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 32-core CPU Surface

[ShurikN]

4GHz on all 32 cores is very impressive. Yet the 250W TDP is also something that will require exotic cooling methods which average users can't afford.

Average user doesnt know about Threadripper, let alone buys it or worry about cooling. People who buy stuff like this know what they are getting themselves into.

 

[deu]

Dead on, if we as consumers start losing single threaded performance in exchange for cores we all lose, just look at the xeon phi 64 core (not as a future hedt cpu but as an anology for what the car war could turn into). No one wins when single core starts going down as most apps would take 8 cores with higher clocks/ipc than having a 28 cores (intel) that are mission impossible to power at high speeds, if intel/amd made a new uArch for high core count that has immensely more ipc then having lots of cores is actually doable because you wont have to aim for high overclocks which makes heat output and power usage go exponentially higher (intel again)

Again this CPU is in no way aimed at gamers or mainstream consumers; its a EPYC-cpu released for HEDT at a premiumprice (at least compared to 8700K/2700X prices.) Im pretty sure AMD understand that IPC is key in games, thats also why the ryzen 2 is said to improve on not cores but IPC (and properbly clock since the fab is 7nm)

 

[Vya Domus]

This won't exist because you can't have symmetrical CCXs.

You mean asymmetrical ?

You could have just read the source

Who has time for that ? Better to just pump out a meaningless uniformed comment as soon as you get the chance.

 

[Pure Wop]

Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.

Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweetspot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.

Working on "3D benchmarking" is understandable, but calling that "real world performance" for this cpu is ridiculous. I'm definitely getting this cpu and for my uses of development and rendering (which I guess is well among its intended uses), Cinebench IS (well, very close to in many cases) real world performance. It is also much more power efficient than 16*4.8GHz.

 

[T1beriu]

You mean asymmetrical ?

Indeed. Edited.

 

[mumar1]

My hobby is overclock and benchmarking, BUT i dont Want to go minus C, i like to stay over The ambait temps, I have played with LN2, but The other is more Fun to see What you Can Do with normal “water” cooling. Im just saying, i wish We could Get cpus that are higher clocks. Not that it would happen right now, maybe with amd 7 nm, or intel next gen, We Can only wait and see

Then you will like this water cooler, water direct on the IHS of the CPU

 

[Avlin]

Guys, developer here. We are approaching an inflexion point where many core programming and hardware becomes the new rule. When you need 3+ Ghz today it means either the software is not properly multithreaded or the task itself is not suited for paralleling. Well you have to admit that today everything can be multithreaded, even rendering a webpage. But still, developers need new tools new softwares and frankly speaking multithreading is f. hard even for senior developers in financial IT.

Go for a quad core @4,5Ghz or a 32cores@ 2Ghz. Really 32 cores @4ghz is non sense for me, just an elegant way to produce heat. Now you say gaming, alright but which game do support more than 6or 8 cores ? And even it was, linux or windows are not designed for many cores. Both AMD and Intrl try to put a lot of core but really software needs to keep up with this.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Guys, developer here. We are approaching an inflexion point where many core programming and hardware becomes the new rule. When you need 3+ Ghz today it means either the software is not properly multithreaded or the task itself is not suited for paralleling. Well you have to admit that today everything can be multithreaded, even rendering a webpage. But still, developers need new tools new softwares and frankly speaking multithreading is f. hard even for senior developers in financial IT.

Go for a quad core @4,5Ghz or a 32cores@ 2Ghz. Really 32 cores @4ghz is non sense for me, just an elegant way to produce heat. Now you say gaming, alright but which game do support more than 6or 8 cores ? And even it was, linux or windows are not designed for many cores. Both AMD and Intrl try to put a lot of core but really software needs to keep up with this.

It's for rendering. Content creators are going to buy this instantly if they have a brain. Time spent waiting on effects and encoding have just shrank, again. And if they only want one rig to work on then they can do multiple jobs at once and each one is still faster than on their currently used, overpriced, Intel hedt.

 

[Jism]

Guys, developer here. We are approaching an inflexion point where many core programming and hardware becomes the new rule. When you need 3+ Ghz today it means either the software is not properly multithreaded or the task itself is not suited for paralleling. Well you have to admit that today everything can be multithreaded, even rendering a webpage. But still, developers need new tools new softwares and frankly speaking multithreading is f. hard even for senior developers in financial IT.

Go for a quad core @4,5Ghz or a 32cores@ 2Ghz. Really 32 cores @4ghz is non sense for me, just an elegant way to produce heat. Now you say gaming, alright but which game do support more than 6or 8 cores ? And even it was, linux or windows are not designed for many cores. Both AMD and Intrl try to put a lot of core but really software needs to keep up with this.

I could put such baby's to work on hosting scale for example. Rent our pure AMD powered VPS servers with scalable cores for users.

Linus Tech tips did a build with 4 or 5 water cooled Nano's just to have 5 different workstations all hooked onto one mother machine.

Those who really need the computing power can put such baby's to work. There is market for it. And no, consumers dont need a 32 cores / 64 threads CPU. It would be idle for 9/10th of it's life.

But this is a cheaper approach to a system with multiple chips in it. Remember that some licences need to be paid for per psysical processor and not core count.

 

[Caring1]

Then you will like this water cooler, water direct on the IHS of the CPU

Nah, stupid idea.
Even using a sealed unit increases risk, the oops factor with that unit = $$$$$

 

[RealNeil]

Nah, stupid idea.
Even using a sealed unit increases risk, the oops factor with that unit = $$$$$

It looks like a spin-on oil filter for a car engine.
Those don't leak if properly installed, but I wouldn't consider it for my multi-thousand dollar rig either.
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't use it on any PC in my house.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

What are you so angry over? I just Want less cores with more clock speed. But fair, you gave me a laugh. Im not a intel fan, but your clearly a amd fan boy wich you Cant have a Real talk with.



Idd it is, i just thing this have go to far, they are only putting more cores In there cpus to fight, instead of incresse clock speed.

(been busy, late getting back to this)

I no fan boy for either side, I own what I own good or bad. I asked you legit questions and you blew them off and have the nerve to accuse me of being angry? LOL I admit I was trying to be sarcastic but someone left this brick out and I tripped over it in a time of need.

Guys, developer here. We are approaching an inflexion point where many core programming and hardware becomes the new rule. When you need 3+ Ghz today it means either the software is not properly multithreaded or the task itself is not suited for paralleling. Well you have to admit that today everything can be multithreaded, even rendering a webpage. But still, developers need new tools new softwares and frankly speaking multithreading is f. hard even for senior developers in financial IT.

Go for a quad core @4,5Ghz or a 32cores@ 2Ghz. Really 32 cores @4ghz is non sense for me, just an elegant way to produce heat. Now you say gaming, alright but which game do support more than 6or 8 cores ? And even it was, linux or windows are not designed for many cores. Both AMD and Intrl try to put a lot of core but really software needs to keep up with this.

You are right about one thing, Software developers need to step their game and learn to do more multi-thread programming. There are a few games that do some multi-core, not a lot. Game Developers are not trained well enough to do that kind of performance work, most prolly never went to school and just did internships to learn.

 

[gamerman]

well,we all know amd.

intels 24.core beat TR2 32.core for sure. and intel have much mower TDP.

..also where you need more than 6-core gpu?? its waiste of money,heat and power.
...also #2, you need for must with that watercool,and its out of this days.

rendering,cinbench and so you must use intels cpu,they are much powerfull,and support much higher mes and lower timing.


all 3dmarks done intels cpus, not seen there amd cpus...few only,bu not top 25.

 

[Keullo-e]

well,we all know amd.

intels 24.core beat TR2 32.core for sure. and intel have much mower TDP.

..also where you need more than 6-core gpu?? its waiste of money,heat and power.
...also #2, you need for must with that watercool,and its out of this days.

rendering,cinbench and so you must use intels cpu,they are much powerfull,and support much higher mes and lower timing.


all 3dmarks done intels cpus, not seen there amd cpus...few only,bu not top 25.

You remind me of one dude from Finnish IT forums, who just had to diss AMD with more or less shitty arguments. When AMD finally has hardware which isn't crap instatly when it was released (like the FX CPU series), still some people just need to complain about something with more or less trolling. And what's a bad thing about watercooling? I myself just started moving into the world of custom watercooling (some modifying with my Alphacool Eisbaer).

edit: I'm pretty sure that you're exactly that dude, since that avatar of yours seems too familiar. It's hard to understand what you're saying, doesn't matter is the text in Finnish or English.

/ot

 

[GoFigureItOut]

I can totally use this. May be a good time to start my small business of personal genome sequencing and analysis.

This 10c20t is totally maxed out. Time to go big

View attachment 102651

*Rubbing my eyes* Am I seeing things or do you really have 128 GB of RAM...

 

[xkm1948]

*Rubbing my eyes* Am I seeing things or do you really have 128 GB of RAM...

And another one for lab workstation.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/1950x-goes-full-blown-128gb-ram.244400/

 

[Nkd]

Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performace is a other story, clock speed is to low.

Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweetspot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.

What you need to understand is this isn't just for gamers. This is more for people that need more cores, such as content creation etc. So slow clock speed is only relative to what you are using it for. For the purpose i stated its plenty and its a beast and hits home run where it matters. Wait for 7nm and you will likely get your wish of 16 cores at 4.5ghz+ with an OC.

 

[grunt_408]

4GHz on all 32 cores is very impressive. Yet the 250W TDP is also something that will require exotic cooling methods which average users can't afford.

My guess is , if one can afford this cpu they can surely afford a cooler for it.

 

[londiste]

4GHz on all 32 cores is very impressive. Yet the 250W TDP is also something that will require exotic cooling methods which average users can't afford.

250W TDP is for the stock 3.0 or 3.4 GHz. That thing running at 4.0 or 4.12 GHz is somewhere in the (usable) OC Intel range of power consumption

Edit:
For some theorycrafting, Zen's power consumption is a known figure and so far it has scaled linearly with the amount of cores for Threadrippers. GamersNexus has a table/graph for the R7 2700X (alongside the slightly less efficient R7 1700): https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3290-exponential-ryzen-voltage-frequency-curve
Both from my own experience as well as results in reviews and forum threads, it's accurate enough.
4 such dies in the 32-core threadripper will use 4x as much power.
4.0 GHz: 10.5 A@12 V - 126 W *4 = 504 W
4.1 GHz: 12.9 A@12 V - 154,8 W *4 = 619,2 W
Definitely not precise and will have variance for each CPU but should be close enough for the range.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well is quite nice, but is only cinebench, real world performance is a other story, clock speed is to low.
Hate this Core War,16 cores is the perfect sweet-spot, give us 10-16 Cores @ 4.8Ghz out of the box instead.

That depends on your usage model. While some might do a bit of gaming on this CPU, such an activity will not be the primary focus and use for a CPU like this. And for the record, I'll take 32 core at 4ghz over a 16 core at 4.8ghz any day. While price is a thing, if the need for that much CPU power is there...

What you need to understand is this isn't just for gamers.

It isn't at all for gamers. No games need 32 core. Most game barely even need 4 cores. This is number crunching CPU and while can run games, easily, that is not the purpose of this CPU.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Average user doesnt know about Threadripper, let alone buys it or worry about cooling. People who buy stuff like this know what they are getting themselves into.

Exactly correct. Even elitists are going to look at this CPU and drool, then get something else. I could be wrong on that though, especially if AMD releases it for an affordable price.