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

AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#11

Post by strangenessak »

dTal wrote: post #9
vbezhenar wrote: post #2

I wonder what's the good core count for development workstation. While it's obvious that increase from 4 cores to 12 cores is useful, for me it's not obvious that increase from 12 cores to 32 cores is similarly useful. Sure, if I'm compiling huge project from the scratch, every core will be loaded, but that's more suitable for CI machine. For everyday development people usually use incremental compilation and in my e…

And yet, GPUs have hundreds to thousands of cores, and we find them very useful... There are many, many useful tasks which are embarassingly parallel or nearly so. For those tasks, doubling the core count doubles the performance. Single core gains have stagnated, so a performance doubling is a huge win. There's no other way to just up and double performance for any class of problem. And even outside those tasks, more…

> GPUs have hundreds to thousands of cores

That's not exactly true. The GPU equivalent of a CPU core is called a Streaming Multiprocessor (in NVIDIA language), and it's latest GPU, GTX 2080 has 72 of them.

Each of these SMs can run hundreds of threads, but they run the same code in lock-step.

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#12

Post by bjoli »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #10

I'm curious about the 280 watt TDP, especially for the 16 core part. The 16 core Threadripper 2 had a 180 watt TDP, so what are they doing with the extra hundred watts on a smaller process? Could these chips be running at much higher frequencies? We might really be at the brink of no-compromise super high end workstation computing!

Isn't the ryzen 9 3950x 16core as well, but with a much lower TDP? (Whatever that means in this case). Comparing tdp is pretty useless.

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#13

Post by [deleted] »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #10

I'm curious about the 280 watt TDP, especially for the 16 core part. The 16 core Threadripper 2 had a 180 watt TDP, so what are they doing with the extra hundred watts on a smaller process? Could these chips be running at much higher frequencies? We might really be at the brink of no-compromise super high end workstation computing!

[deleted]

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#14

Post by paol »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #10

I'm curious about the 280 watt TDP, especially for the 16 core part. The 16 core Threadripper 2 had a 180 watt TDP, so what are they doing with the extra hundred watts on a smaller process? Could these chips be running at much higher frequencies? We might really be at the brink of no-compromise super high end workstation computing!

280W is for the 32 core chip. Rumor has it that there won't be a 16 core TR, but if there were the TDP would certainly be much lower.

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#15

Post by alecmg »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #10

I'm curious about the 280 watt TDP, especially for the 16 core part. The 16 core Threadripper 2 had a 180 watt TDP, so what are they doing with the extra hundred watts on a smaller process? Could these chips be running at much higher frequencies? We might really be at the brink of no-compromise super high end workstation computing!

Ryzen 3900X (and probably 3950X) would agressively limit all core boost to fit in the TDP.

A Threadripper with a higher TDP limit (and better cooling) will be able to boost all core to same levels as single core, ideal for workstation workloads.

Some of that TDP is also spent on driving additional memory channels and PCIE 4.0 lanes. There were rumors of TR having 8 channels now. And judging from active cooling on X570 chipsets, PCIE 4.0 is hot.

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#17

Post by stingraycharles »

alecmg wrote: post #15
rubbingalcohol wrote: post #10

I'm curious about the 280 watt TDP, especially for the 16 core part. The 16 core Threadripper 2 had a 180 watt TDP, so what are they doing with the extra hundred watts on a smaller process? Could these chips be running at much higher frequencies? We might really be at the brink of no-compromise super high end workstation computing!

Ryzen 3900X (and probably 3950X) would agressively limit all core boost to fit in the TDP. A Threadripper with a higher TDP limit (and better cooling) will be able to boost all core to same levels as single core, ideal for workstation workloads. Some of that TDP is also spent on driving additional memory channels and PCIE 4.0 lanes. There were rumors of TR having 8 channels now. And judging from active cooling on X57…

As a Threadripper user, this makes me happy. I don't care about the TDP too much, as long as I can compile large C++ codebases as fast as possible (for which short-term, all-core boosts is very useful).

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#18

Post by bluedino »

vbezhenar wrote: post #2

I wonder what's the good core count for development workstation. While it's obvious that increase from 4 cores to 12 cores is useful, for me it's not obvious that increase from 12 cores to 32 cores is similarly useful. Sure, if I'm compiling huge project from the scratch, every core will be loaded, but that's more suitable for CI machine. For everyday development people usually use incremental compilation and in my e…

I wish core counts hadn't gone crazy. Our developers are using PHP, Python, and Visual Basic so none of it gets used.

A 6-core system is perfect. However, we end up buying 12, 14, 16 cores.

And to make it worse, we buy dual CPU's on the servers. The buyer has determined core count > *

Give me 8 cores and all the clockspeed I can get (for our workloads)

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#19

Post by ahbyb »

bluedino wrote: post #18
vbezhenar wrote: post #2

I wonder what's the good core count for development workstation. While it's obvious that increase from 4 cores to 12 cores is useful, for me it's not obvious that increase from 12 cores to 32 cores is similarly useful. Sure, if I'm compiling huge project from the scratch, every core will be loaded, but that's more suitable for CI machine. For everyday development people usually use incremental compilation and in my e…

I wish core counts hadn't gone crazy. Our developers are using PHP, Python, and Visual Basic so none of it gets used. A 6-core system is perfect. However, we end up buying 12, 14, 16 cores. And to make it worse, we buy dual CPU's on the servers. The buyer has determined core count > * Give me 8 cores and all the clockspeed I can get (for our workloads)

That's the trick: they can't make single cores faster so they just throw more cores at the problem and call it a day. Obviously that doesn't work but who cares? It looks good in benchmarks.

Re: AMD Lists Threadripper 3000 CPU with 32 Cores, Possible New Socket

#20

Post by plopz »

ahbyb wrote: post #19
bluedino wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish core counts hadn't gone crazy. Our developers are using PHP, Python, and Visual Basic so none of it gets used. A 6-core system is perfect. However, we end up buying 12, 14, 16 cores. And to make it worse, we buy dual CPU's on the servers. The buyer has determined core count > * Give me 8 cores and all the clockspeed I can get (for our workloads)

That's the trick: they can't make single cores faster so they just throw more cores at the problem and call it a day. Obviously that doesn't work but who cares? It looks good in benchmarks.

Thats why they should sell cpus that sacrifice security for speed. I'll take a cpu thats vulnerable to spectre/meltdown if its 20% faster.
Post reply on HN