AMD Announces 32-core / 64-threads Ryzen Threadripper (12nm Zen+)

[Kenrou]

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-announces-32-core-64-threads-ryzen-threadripper.html

TLDR: "AMD will be launching several new models including a staggering 32-core and 64-threads processor. The new 32-core processor fits into the current SP3 socket with your existing X399 motherboard, likely accompanied by a firmware update. It has four eight-core dies under that heat spreader, these would be the new 12 nm 8-core "Pinnacle Ridge" dies that bring the advantages of Precision Boost II and XFR 2.0."

 

[EarthDog]

Didnt click.. did they mention tdp on that monster?!!

Wait until we see the 28c/56t 5ghz (turbo) from intel.....

300W tdp anyone?!

 

[Kenrou]

Not yet, but this was released at Computex, i was hoping for a OC.com cover feels like we gone back to Voodoo days, "lacking power ? add more cores to it"

 

[WhitehawkEQ]

Well, as with the AMD EPYC 7601 32-Core 2.2 GHz (3.2 GHz Turbo) Socket SP3 180W, I would expect to see the same 180W TDP. As for what speeds they will run at may push that TDP a little higher.

 

[Kenrou]

But this one is 12nm, wouldn't that impact TDP as well ? also - "AMD will apply the same Zen+ tweaks to the processors; including memory latency optimizations and higher clock speeds."

 

[Woomack]

Didnt click.. did they mention tdp on that monster?!!

Wait until we see the 28c/56t 5ghz (turbo) from intel.....

300W tdp anyone?!

I've seen that photo but somehow I don't believe it runs on all cores at 5GHz. Cinebench was showing 2.7GHz. I guess we have to wait on official release.
There will be also anniversary edition of 6 core CL/1151 with turbo up to 5GHz. I guess this one will be selling good.

That 32 core may have 180W TDP but under full load it will be more like 300W+ ... 1920X at 4GHz 1.35V under full load is over 300W and auto voltage is up to 1.45V on all Ryzens.

If these new TR will OC like refreshed AM4 chips then it won't change anything on the market. I have 2600X for tests and it's overclocking worse than my 1920X. Also many users are reporting higher clocks at auto settings/XFR than after manual overclocking. If the same will be with refreshed TR then I won't even think about replacing my 1920X.
Memory is not overclocking better on Zen+ chips. IMC is exactly the same in all Ryzens (in TR too but is quad channel). Zen+ is a lot of noise about little changes.
It doesn't change fact that I wish to play with 32 cores+

 

[Alaric]

Wait until we see the 28c/56t 5ghz (turbo) from intel.....

Yeah, I'll wait until I actually see that one before I get too excited. I have to pace myself, what with my age and all the excitement of the 10 nm chips rousing success...LOL

 

[EarthDog]

but somehow I don't think it runs on all cores at 5GHz.

i dont think anyone did... and why i said turbo.

Im expecting around 2.7-3ghz on all cores/threads.

 

[Woomack]

Yeah, I'll wait until I actually see that one before I get too excited. I have to pace myself, what with my age and all the excitement of the 10 nm chips rousing success...LOL

I guess you can see some more about it in next days as it was presented 2 days ago or something. It's still server socket and no motherboards designed for OC and gaming for these chips.

Edit:
this is what I meant ... even though they are showing it, it's hard to believe it works like that under full load


Other thing is that cinebench on so many cores will finish in couple of seconds.

 

[custom90gt]

I guess you can see some more about it in next days as it was presented 2 days ago or something. It's still server socket and no motherboards designed for OC and gaming for these chips.

Edit:
this is what I meant ... even though they are showing it, it's hard to believe it works like that under full load
View attachment 199267

Other thing is that cinebench on so many cores will finish in couple of seconds.

*looks at 7920x*
*looks at photo*
*throws 7920x in trash*

That would be awesome, but like you said, I have no idea how they could do 5ghz without some serious cooling on it...

These core counts are getting crazy, I sure hope software starts catching up.

 

[mackerel]

On the Intel system: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12907/we-got-a-sneak-peak-on-intels-28core-all-you-need-to-know
Water chiller, custom mobo with a ton of power delivery. Cinebench score was apparently generally consistent with where it would be at 5 GHz.

 

[Woomack]

I have clients who have 8-10 core Xeons in their servers and they're boring ... like 20-30 users on SQL databases + other stuff and CPU is loaded till about 30% max for most of the time. Who needs more cores at home ? We buy 8 cores+ because we are weird and just feel the need of new toys but 16+ core CPU as a toy is already too much, not to mention 28-32 cores.
Recently I look more at additional features and that is not changing much. Even though we hear about new, magical technologies, then most of them are not working good. I can only mention Optane, VROC or any drive caching released by AMD/Intel. Everything else is pretty much without bigger changes for last 3-4 years.

 

[custom90gt]

On the Intel system: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12907/we-got-a-sneak-peak-on-intels-28core-all-you-need-to-know
Water chiller, custom mobo with a ton of power delivery. Cinebench score was apparently generally consistent with where it would be at 5 GHz.

Wow look at the VRM and VRM cooler! That's pretty sweet, I wonder what power draw was like on that guy.

 

[Woomack]

I wonder what they will recommend for cooling if it hits the stores. 10-16 cores already need water cooling under full load @4.5GHz. Threadripper is not so hot under load but also can't OC much above stock. I guess that higher Noctua cooler will be enough for 32 core TR while for 28 core Intel ( without OC ) not really.

 

[mackerel]

It is a good question. Who really uses all these cores/threads in a single socket? For mainstream uses, 8 cores is probably more than sufficient for the vast majority of people looking forward even a few years. The niche cases that can use it certainly wouldn't complain at having more options than before (mainly Xeons), especially if at a lower cost.

To me, it feels like AMD are doing this because they can. It is their main attack on Intel as they can scale core counts more easily and at a lower cost. Software needs time to catch up though.

 

[Woomack]

I feel like all recent Intel CPUs are in some way desperation to shine in the press. They have nothing really new and push not really new products under new names. It changes nothing as users don't need new processors.
Good would be 6 core 75W TDP or 8 core 4.5GHz+ chips at 100W TDP. What we get are high core count chips which are hard to keep cool with the best available water cooling. Power saving/turbo boost technologies are only covering dull truth about these chips.

 

[Janus67]

It is a good question. Who really uses all these cores/threads in a single socket? For mainstream uses, 8 cores is probably more than sufficient for the vast majority of people looking forward even a few years. The niche cases that can use it certainly wouldn't complain at having more options than before (mainly Xeons), especially if at a lower cost.

To me, it feels like AMD are doing this because they can. It is their main attack on Intel as they can scale core counts more easily and at a lower cost. Software needs time to catch up though.

The only circumstances I can think of is heavy duty cpu-based rendering or virtualization servers to have higher density.

 

[mackerel]

Don't under estimate the value in a halo product. One that establishes your position at the top, and hope it trickles down and you sell more of the ones people actually buy. Intel's advantage (for now) is in clocks, so they're pushing that. AMD's advantage (for now) is in cores, so they're pushing that.

For threaded workloads, you generally do get more performance from more cores within a given power budget. e.g. a 100W 8 core part should give you more performance than a 100W 4 core part. It just isn't double the performance unless you equalise clocks, and then you're no longer at power parity. You do more work in equivalent per-core operating conditions, you use more power. We've had this in the server space since forever. The problem with this is increased cost (more silicon area) and that most software can't use it.

 

[EarthDog]

Wow, that Intel at 5GHz was all cores and threads under a chiller... damn!

I bet it doesn't run that way normally, but, still impressive, even if it is only for a couple of seconds on Cinebench.

 

[Dolk]

I'd like to see them have a 2-Die variant of the 2000 series Threadripper. I won't need the cores, but I do need the PCIe lanes for future proofing my system.