61–70 of 144 posts
64 lanes would be good for something like 4-6 GPUs @ 8 lanes per, and some high speed storage/networking? Anxiously awaiting Intel's "I am not left handed either" response.
Intel already supports a significant number of PCIe 3.0 lanes with their Xeon E5 chips. If I recall supermicro sells a dual socket Xeon board with 10, 8xPCIe 3.0 sockets.
I was of the opinion that Intel will only face real competition when arm reaches parity with desktop class cpu. Nice to see AMD rise back up again. Hope Intel is not able to strong arm the oems like last time when AMD had design wins but Intel using anti competitive practice stalled its growth till it was able to catch-up and later go ahead.
I doubt we'll be seeing desktop ARM systems any time soon, especially high end workstation or enthusiast systems. The problem is that the ARM64 architecture is completely different from x86-64, which almost every desktop application is compiled for exclusively . Remember when Microsoft launched an ARM Surface? It had a special version of Windows, and almost nothing would run on it, as very few applications are compil…
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2017/P4171
As for "never reaching the same performance" as desktop Intel/AMD chips, I would say that depends. It's not that they can't do it with ARM chips, is that nobody has bothered to do it until now, because there was no point with so few UWP apps. The market would be way too small. What would be the point in making a Core i7-level ARM chip just for the Surface RT? The risk would be too big.
But now that Microsoft opened up the PC market to ARM -- truly -- ARM chip makers can begin to make some real desktop-class ARM chips. Chips that require 15, 30, 45, or even 90 watts of power.
But I do think this will happen gradually over several years, because first they need to see how ARM chips work under Windows 10 this time around and how people accept them. Then if that goes well, they need to start designing those 15-90W ARM chips, and then start selling them.
Someone like Qualcomm needs to be sure that if it does design a 90W ARM chip that's highly competitive with a desktop class Intel or AMD chip (at least in terms of performance/dollar), more than 10 million people will buy it.
Salient point: > all 64 lanes being enabled for all ThreadRipper SKUs. This will be broken up into 60+4: 60 lanes directly from the CPU for feeding PCIe and M.2 slots , and then another 4 lanes going to the chipset And > the 16 core processor will for most purposes be half of an Epyc processor Epyc (formerly Naples) is the server-grade arch with 8 memory channels, 32 cores and 128 PCIe lanes per socket.
I wonder if it's the same silicon as Epyc, just ThreadRipper gets the worse bins. Or maybe there's one less chip in the package?
But I believe it only when I see it. Especially since the rumors said Threadripper will only have 44 PCIe lanes like Intel, which as we now know was false (and was weird previously because Naples has 128 PCIe lanes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if it's the same silicon as Epyc, just ThreadRipper gets the worse bins. Or maybe there's one less chip in the package?
ThreadRipper has 2 CPUs in its MCM, and Epyc has 4.
Salient point: > all 64 lanes being enabled for all ThreadRipper SKUs. This will be broken up into 60+4: 60 lanes directly from the CPU for feeding PCIe and M.2 slots , and then another 4 lanes going to the chipset And > the 16 core processor will for most purposes be half of an Epyc processor Epyc (formerly Naples) is the server-grade arch with 8 memory channels, 32 cores and 128 PCIe lanes per socket.
>32 cores >128 PCIe lanes Well shit... what am I going to do with this pair of useless Xeon E5s I just bought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ThreadRipper has 2 CPUs in its MCM, and Epyc has 4.
Ah, so the high-end ThreadRipper would contain the same chips as a high-end Epyc, just twice as many, and likewise for the lower-end variants, I guess? That makes sense.
Half. Epyc gets 4 MCM[0], ThreadRipper gets 2 (with each MCM containing 8 Ryzen cores)
I didn't see pricing info in the article. Has that been announced anywhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't fully understand. So 1 SSD need 1 lane. How many lanes need something like NVisia 1080Ti? What use of the remaining lanes? If I want to build something like 1 CPU/1 GPU/1 SSD configuration without additional peripherals, 62 lanes will be effectively wasted?
The newer M.2 SSDs suck up 4 lanes. That's 16 lanes for four drives, burning through all available lanes on a Kaby Lake CPU.
Don't you also get something like 4x via the chipset through DMI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enthusiast here - can confirm, an array of nvme's makes a huge difference over single standard SSD. I set this up last year, check the benchmark results, it's night and day. http://imgur.com/a/N4FpD note: be sure to note the scaling at the bottom. 4-500MB/s old vs 3000+ MB/s new
Do games actually load any faster? I went from a Samsung SSD(I think the 850 pro) to an Intel nvme ssd, and load times in games didn't seem much faster. I definitely notice it when booting up VS though.
The threadripper is not targeted at gamers. It is targeted at people who make money from using their machines, these people can, therefore, afford to upgrade.
Consider a user who does video work. (most modern films and tv is filmed in 8k know) if this is in Raw format as it comes off the camera for a 90 min episode that is 6000 GB. Working on this data (tone mapping, cutting, etc) needs all this data to be fed in and out of the (CPU and or GPUs) so all these PCI lanes are there so you can have very fast access to the raw data and still have space for 2 or 4 full speed GPUs to do that work for you.
Forget games no game developer optimizes their games for 4 GPUs these days even Nvida have said that they dont realy want people to do more than 2GPUs in SLI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumers tend to be limited by not having many PCIe SSDs in RAID0? Who are these people and what do they need galactic disk bandwidth for?
I've been shopping for a future proof workstation (10Gbps Ethernet 8x + 2 16x video cards) that couldn't quite fit on a Xeon E3.