AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review • Hacker News Board

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#31

Post by xzel » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #26

karangoeluw wrote: post #2

Honest q: What home-use workstation would use 32 cores? (Excluding home labs or servers).

Digital audio workstation workloads are massively multithreaded, with hundreds or thousands of DSP processes. Performance scales almost linearly with core count.

These recentish AMD core improvements alone have made me considering rebuilding my VST collection for Windows and moving off mac for production. I'm not looking forward to tracking down windows VST versions of tiny apps. I can't imagine spending 3k for another Macbook when I can get way more interesting performance in Windows these days. I'd love to have a desktop for very heavy synth and processing work, freeze those tracks, and then be able to take it on the go with a similarly set up laptop (set up DAW that is, not 32 cores).

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#32

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

nv-vn wrote: post #16

ekianjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the tests in this article are hardly convincing.

The 2990wx blew everything out of the water in rendering. It's like 37% faster than the 7980xe in the Blender benchmark.

Faster with 2x more cores and twice more power consumption. Hardly a win in my book - it means each core is way weaker and power hungry. Intel will easily match that sometimes soon without sweating.

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#33

Post by qaq » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

This looks like a nice part for a server

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#34

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

drewg123 wrote: post #24

It is interested that the review is not yet finished. The author writes in the comments section: Hey everyone, sorry for leaving a few pages blank right now. Jet lag hit me hard over the weekend from Flash Memory Summit. Will be filling in the blanks and the analysis throughout today. I am disappointed in that, as I was looking forward to reading the test setup and power draw sections, as I have a 2990WX on order, an…

[deleted]

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#35

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #27

ekianjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the tests in this article are hardly convincing.

What metric are you considering? The rendering tests show the 2990WX to be both faster and cheaper than the i9.

Slightly faster yes. Cheaper? For now. Price is elastic. The i9 could be priced at any price point because there was no competition until now. Do you think Intel will keep it overpriced for long?

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#36

Post by mort96 » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

karangoeluw wrote: post #2

Honest q: What home-use workstation would use 32 cores? (Excluding home labs or servers).

I'm literally sitting here waiting for glibc to compile, because I need a version with debug symbols, which the version from Arch Linux' repos lacks. Right before that, I compiled valgrind from the git head, because the current release (3.13) doesn't support glibc 2.28. I have compiled Chromium a couple of times for work.

It's very apparent that my 2-core 4-thread i5 5200U is a bit too weak; I'd love to be using a 16- or 32-core machine.

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#37

Post by zzzcpan » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

karangoeluw wrote: post #2

Honest q: What home-use workstation would use 32 cores? (Excluding home labs or servers).

You are right, uncovering potential of a system like that is almost impossible for home use. With most software unable to use efficiently even a couple of cores, 32 is certainly something for the future.

Personally I'm looking forward to something based on 2200GE for home use.

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#38

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

chaosbutters314 wrote: post #23

karangoeluw wrote: post #2

Honest q: What home-use workstation would use 32 cores? (Excluding home labs or servers).

with 32 cores, I can run 32 small simulations (e.g. CFD, FEA, etc) in parallel for optimization problems or run 1 medium sized simulation. And anything in between. My ideal workstation likely actually uses ~128 cores but that isn't practical for home use yet. A board with 4 2990wx would be heaven.

[deleted]

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#39

Post by deadbunny » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #29

zaarn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VMs, lots of them. Atm I'm running about 15 VMs on about 8 cores in a dedicated box somewhere and it's definitely noticable. I would love to shove some core services at home and have 32 cores to play with to give some more headroom

Why not use containers instead of VMs? You can run about 10x more Docker instances than VMs on the same hardware.

Because contrary to the hype, containers aren't the right solution to everything.

Re: AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32-Core and 2950X 16-Core Review

#40

Post by srcmap » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

Two additional benchmarks I like to see from Anandtech:

1) some VM base tests for these kind of CPU - 32, 64, 128 VM all running some kind of web/db/redis benchmarks inside.

2) Some compilation testing - time the clean build of AOSP, BSD, some very complex linux app - use max jobs setting for parallel compile and time how long it take to finish the jobs. ( measure the over CPU usages at the same time. )