Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

hothardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#61

Post by dom0 »

paulmd wrote: post #37
loeg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for that?

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R... https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-7-170... http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8072/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-... http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-... (bear in mind the 5820K/6800K/6850K are 6C, the 5960X/6900K are 8C, and the 6950X is 10C) Essentially AMD is rating their TDP under a very light load - like a singl…

TDP is and always was an expressly manufacturer- and product-specific number, though. It mainly exists for OEMs to match parts up with the correctly sized heatsink.

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#62

Post by paulmd »

dis-sys wrote: post #55
paulmd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel did a really shitty job marketing these (maybe the i9 name will help). They are hardly known even amount enthusiasts but they are really good processors for the exact same reasons that people like Ryzen. A moderate tradeoff in gaming for a big gain in productivity tasks. They are even priced essentially the same as the 4C8T i7s. I basically had Ryzen performance at Ryzen prices a year ago when I built my 5820K…

Without the so called incremental improvement offered by Ryzen 7, there is no motivation for Intel to drop its prices on 8 cores chips. Intel now has to answer the challenges both on the 8c16t category and 16c32t as well.

I suspect the answer to the 8C16T category is going to be "Skylake-X".

Intel is still sitting on a ~10% lead in per-core performance in real-world applications, and Broadwell-E is handicapped in a number of ways. Skylake-X is going to be a huge step forward. I think the 6C Skylake-X chips are going to come real close to the 8C Ryzen 7s (let's call it within 5-10%). And that leaves the 8C Intel chips with a pretty solid lead.

(Synthetics like Cinebench are definitely tilting AMD - but I don't see a corresponding lead in real-world applications, on a core-for-core basis)

If Intel can maintain premium performance, they can also maintain premium pricing.

No question the race is on, though. Next year is gonna be interesting, when both companies have sized up the other and fully prepared their responses. There's some obvious fixes for AMD (like the interconnect, or just getting memory stability fixed), and Intel could do something like put the L4 eDRAM back on their dies to get minimum framerates up[0].

[0] http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skyla...

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#63

Post by dom0 »

m-j-fox wrote: post #13

I wonder why it needs so many pins? It only has 4 DDR channels, which is going to be a bottleneck keeping those cores fed. 8 channels would be more appropriate for 16 cores and it would explain why so many pins.

It's probably the same socket as Naples (=four die MCM with 128 PCIe lanes and 8 DDR4 channels).

This would mean that this is a two die (active) MCM with a maximum of 64 PCIe lanes.

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#65

Post by hmottestad »

simcop2387 wrote: post #52

Well damn this looks like it might be in the right spot for what I'm after. It'll depend on price-point to be exact but I've got a semi-server semi-gaming setup that I want to upgrade from an older i5 and have been waiting to see Naples and early adopter stuff get hammered out. 16 cores is a great spot for me to give a few to a gaming VM, while still being able to have plenty left over for running build/smoke VMs and…

For Intel's Xeon processors, the more cores you have the lower the frequency you get. Quad core might give you an extra gigahertz, which might be of more value to games than 12+ cores.

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#66

Post by dom0 »

nanistheonlyist wrote: post #20

I break out in cold sweat when I think about routing a 4094 pin socket. How does anyone layout a motherboard for this in a reasonable time frame?

Many of these will be ground and power, which directly terminate into plane(s) and aren't routed. Things like memory buses are put onto the socket such that they are routable to the memory sockets (the location/orientation of the memory sockets is prescribed by the processor socket!). Other interfaces are arranged to "make sense" as well.

I expect it's pretty much the same problem overall as with the (much smaller) pinouts of SoCs and such.

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#67

Post by mtgx »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #59
jplayer01 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

180W!? That thing is a monster.

Cores come at a power cost. This is why Intel has been hesitant to move to consumer 8 or 16 core CPUs. There's a lot of pushback on using this much power and serious environmental concerns. Intel's engineering has been focused on power savings, so they've actually been going the opposite way for years now on the consumer end. This is also why you won't been seeing these 16c chips on non-specialist Dells and HPs. They…

The main reason they've been doing that is because it's been much easier to lower power consumption per core than increase performance per core. This way they could still claim "significant improvements" year over year.

It's also a way better strategy to make "better server chips", because it means you can add more cores.

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#68

Post by 013a »

stolk wrote: post #28
013a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The i9 isn't new. Its a rebranded Skylake-X/KabyLake-X chip. This has been on their roadmap for over a year [1]; they just changed the name to trick consumers into thinking its something new. The hype between here and reddit about i9 is astounding to me. You've been able to get an i7 in a 10 core variant for a year now [2]. Need 6 cores? Take a time machine back to Q3'11 and pick up an i7 3930k [3]. And if you needed…

The i9 is most definitely something new. It is the first desktop CPU to bring AVX512. If the code is designed for it, that by itself doubles the perf compared to AVX2 CPUs. I look forward to porting my algorithms to 16 wide SIMD.

Of course it is something new. The supposition is that Intel just rebranded something they already had in the pipeline; something which they release every 18 months or so.

AVX512 was already planned for Cannonlake.

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#69

Post by leonlee »

yohui wrote: post #21
013a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The i9 isn't new. Its a rebranded Skylake-X/KabyLake-X chip. This has been on their roadmap for over a year [1]; they just changed the name to trick consumers into thinking its something new. The hype between here and reddit about i9 is astounding to me. You've been able to get an i7 in a 10 core variant for a year now [2]. Need 6 cores? Take a time machine back to Q3'11 and pick up an i7 3930k [3]. And if you needed…

Mostly agree, but AMD's TDP estimates are slightly optimistic and in reality Ryzen's power usage is much closer to its Intel counterparts.

Unfortunately AMD and Intel don't use the same definition for TDP (look up AMD APC). AMD's values are more related to average power consumption during whatever they consider to be typical use. Intel's values on the other hand are more about the upper limit of power usage, "how high can it go" sort of thing. Both the average power and maximum power are useful bits of info, but it's obviously confusing and opaque for the end-user. The only reason that I can think of why AMD hasn't reverted back is because it would highlight how their processors are relatively power inefficient compared to their competitor's.

http://www.amd.com/Documents/43761A_ACP_WPv7.pdf

Re: AMD 16-Core ThreadRipper Enthusiast CPUs to Reportedly Utilize 4094 Pin Socket

#70

Post by robhu »

013a wrote: post #19
robhu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. 6 core 12 thread CPUs came to the mainstream a while ago, AMD brought them. The Ryzen 5 1400 is $160. Intel is playing catchup.

Ever heard of the i7 5820k? It was released Q3'14. 6 cores. 12 threads. i7 name. Around $400. [1] AMD's great revolution was getting the TDP on that core count below 100W, and getting them onto a consumer chipset/socket instead of the enthusiast/server platform. That's it. We keep saying they forced some revolution in price/performance that Intel has had to respond to. Its 80% hype, 20% truth. Intel was complacent on…

Of course there have been 6 core processors before the Ryzen chips, the difference is Ryzen brought them to the mainstream.

The Ryzen chip is a third of the cost of the Intel chip and doesn't require the expensive enthusiast X99 platform.

AMD's great achievement is bringing 6 and 8 core chips /to the mainstream/, affordable by pretty much everyone. Intel's X99 enthusiast platform has been around longer but is massively more expensive.

Post reply on HN