Live data from Hacker News

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

zdnet.com

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#11
post #4

Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.

Apparently it is 7nm. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-...

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#12
post #3
post #2

AMD is in a really good position right now. Intel still has the lead in low idle power which is good in laptops. Ryzen lets different cores have different max frequencies so if your code is single threaded and your operating system isn't the newest that could be a reason to go Intel. Likewise if its single threaded and can take advantage of AVX-512 or the Intel Math Kernel Library. But otherwise?

I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good. Is there any software that's commonly used that has a measurable performance boost with it? Or is it more specialised stuff?

One challenge with AVX-512 is that it can actually _slow down_ your code. It's so power hungry that if you're using it on more than one core it almost immediately incurs significant throttling. Now, if everything you're doing is 512 bits at a time, you're still winning. But if you're interleaving scalar and vector arithmetic, the drop in clock speeds could slow down the scalar code quite substantially.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequen...

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#13
post #4

Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.

AMD use 14nm for the IO die and 7nm for the compute chiplets. 10nm won't help much - after all the security fixes that Intel have had to implement, AMD have the IPC advantage.

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#14
I have the original Threadripper 1950X overclocked to 4.1ghz and I’ve been pretty happy with it. As a developer I can’t find much reason to upgrade 2 years after its release. Single core improvements (from AMD or Intel) aren’t game-changing. More cores won’t do anything for me (.NET Core, angular, etc) I’ve considered switching back to intel for their 5ghz processors but based on benchmarks, I wouldn’t see anything but marginal improvements. All in all, competition is good, but I wish they’d focus on single core performance improvements.

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#15

I have the original Threadripper 1950X overclocked to 4.1ghz and I’ve been pretty happy with it. As a developer I can’t find much reason to upgrade 2 years after its release. Single core improvements (from AMD or Intel) aren’t game-changing. More cores won’t do anything for me (.NET Core, angular, etc) I’ve considered switching back to intel for their 5ghz processors but based on benchmarks, I wouldn’t see anything b…

I can still put more cores to work, compiling stuff.

I have a 6 core quad channel intel and I've been waiting for this threadripper to come out.

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#16
post #7
post #4

Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.

What are you talking about? Zen 2(Ryzen 3000) uses 7 nm.

It's a composite chip (chiplets) with different parts made using different processes for various reasons.

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#17

I have the original Threadripper 1950X overclocked to 4.1ghz and I’ve been pretty happy with it. As a developer I can’t find much reason to upgrade 2 years after its release. Single core improvements (from AMD or Intel) aren’t game-changing. More cores won’t do anything for me (.NET Core, angular, etc) I’ve considered switching back to intel for their 5ghz processors but based on benchmarks, I wouldn’t see anything b…

If you ever get into Docker/Kubernetes, being able to spin up a local cluster for testing is a pretty big deal. Having that running in the background and not impacting your usual workload is huge.

I've been testing a Kubernetes cluster built on 32-core AMD servers and it's unreal the workloads you can throw at them. I'm used to 4 or 8-core Xeon chips and this is a whole different game.

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#18

I have the original Threadripper 1950X overclocked to 4.1ghz and I’ve been pretty happy with it. As a developer I can’t find much reason to upgrade 2 years after its release. Single core improvements (from AMD or Intel) aren’t game-changing. More cores won’t do anything for me (.NET Core, angular, etc) I’ve considered switching back to intel for their 5ghz processors but based on benchmarks, I wouldn’t see anything b…

They're doing both. AMD has ramped single-core performance, at least from an IPC perspective, massively. From Excavator (2015) to Ryzen we saw a 52% increase in IPC. From Ryzen 1000 to 2000 (Zen+) we saw a 3% increase in IPC. From Ryzen 2000 to 3000 (Zen2) we saw a 15% increase in IPC.

From 2015 to 2019 we saw a total IPC boost on the AMD side of over 80%, and an increase in max core count in the desktop line of 433%, from 6 to 32.

I'm okay with this progress :)

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#19
post #4

Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.

Their biggest win over Intel was using 14nm IO bridge to connect 7nm CPU cores ("chiplets") in the Ryzen 3000 era. They use 14nm for IO where there's little benefit to the process shrink so they can save the lower-yielding 7nm process for where it counts: cores.

Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel

#20
post #4

Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.

AMD use 14nm for the IO die and 7nm for the compute chiplets. 10nm won't help much - after all the security fixes that Intel have had to implement, AMD have the IPC advantage.

And further, "nm" these days are marketing numbers. It's totally possible that AMD's 7nm isn't directly comparable to a 7nm (or 10nm) Intel process.
Post reply on HN