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

31–40 of 49 posts

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

#31

Post by rubbingalcohol »

driverdan wrote: post #29
bjoli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not useless. Higher TDP means more electricity and more heat. Running costs add up.

True, you'd need a pretty good water cooler to run at max all the time. I would gladly trade electricity for performance though. A lot of the stage gates in my compilation are single threaded, so a highly-threaded chip that consistently boosts up to high frequencies would be worth it to me in terms of initial and ongoing costs.

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

#32

Post by chris11 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #25
adrian_b wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago, when Intel had no competition, going for more than 6 cores meant that you had to sacrifice single-thread performance. Now, if you want more than 8 cores, single-thread performance is not a reason to use less than 16 cores (AMD @ 4.7 GHz) or 18 cores (Intel @ 4.8 GHz). You may want to use less cores for cost reasons, but not for performance reasons. We do not know yet the frequencies for the 24-core T…

I can get 5.2 GHz from Intel using 8 cores. That's like 10% extra performance.

I'd compare CPUs using benchmarks. I don't think clock speed is as good as a measurement, especially between AMD and Intel.

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

#33

Post by SomeOldThrow »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #8
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My development environment has 12 discrete docker processes. The more cores the merrier!

I'd imagine more mem would likely be more helpful? Sure you're not thrashing? Sorry if I'm patronising you... but thrashing is a killer

Why not both?

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

#34

Post by jstrong »

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…

Personally I am very excited for a couple years from now when prices on used dual socket epyc servers come down because I want a workstation with 128 physical cores. It will be glorious.

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

#35

Post by robto »

driverdan wrote: post #28
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)

> Our developers are using PHP, Python, and Visual Basic so none of it gets used. Why aren't they being used? Even for single threaded languages you can spawn multiple processes.

Making programs concurrent is hard, especially if you don't have good support from the language. I, too, would hesitate before attempting to make a highly concurrent application in PHP, Python, or Visual Basic. And even then you're looking at considerable investment rewriting stuff that already works.

Maybe it works out if the cost savings from being able to purchase fewer machines outweighs the rewrite and the risk of new concurrency bugs.

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

#36

Post by phaedrus »

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 have codebases which scale almost linearly with cores. I built a 56-thread Xeon machine. One of my projects compiles in two minutes with single threaded make and two seconds with all 56 threads going.

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

#37

Post by diroussel »

phaedrus wrote: post #36
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 have codebases which scale almost linearly with cores. I built a 56-thread Xeon machine. One of my projects compiles in two minutes with single threaded make and two seconds with all 56 threads going.

Interesting. What language and build tool is this with?

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

#38

Post by tempguy9999 »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #33
tempguy9999 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd imagine more mem would likely be more helpful? Sure you're not thrashing? Sorry if I'm patronising you... but thrashing is a killer

Why not both?

Ah good, a response instead of an unhelpful downvote or 2.

I guess it's from experience, that when there's a bottleneck in my work and in many other areas I've seen it's down to lack of ram hitting VM.

Now lack of CPU is less crippling in a way, the CPU just divides n ways and things run proportionately slower. If paging happens, it can easily be far worse than lack of CPU as disk is so slow (ok, SSDs these days may ameliorate that; I've no experience there).

So why? Experience suggests lack of ram is more common than lack of cpu and the effect is worse. Of course the best thing to do is examine your system before you take anyone's advice, including mine.

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

#39

Post by SomeOldThrow »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #38
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both?

Ah good, a response instead of an unhelpful downvote or 2. I guess it's from experience, that when there's a bottleneck in my work and in many other areas I've seen it's down to lack of ram hitting VM. Now lack of CPU is less crippling in a way, the CPU just divides n ways and things run proportionately slower. If paging happens, it can easily be far worse than lack of CPU as disk is so slow (ok, SSDs these days may…

I would take 64 gigs of memory/4 cores over 16gigs/12 cores any day. The idea of many core is simply less preposterous than it was even a few years ago.

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

#40

Post by tempguy9999 »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #39
tempguy9999 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah good, a response instead of an unhelpful downvote or 2. I guess it's from experience, that when there's a bottleneck in my work and in many other areas I've seen it's down to lack of ram hitting VM. Now lack of CPU is less crippling in a way, the CPU just divides n ways and things run proportionately slower. If paging happens, it can easily be far worse than lack of CPU as disk is so slow (ok, SSDs these days may…

I would take 64 gigs of memory/4 cores over 16gigs/12 cores any day. The idea of many core is simply less preposterous than it was even a few years ago.

Oh heck yes, at least IME. I work in DBs and in a company I worked for were renting 16GB machines for the hosted service for their clients. I almost literally armtwisted them into upgrading to a 64GB dev machine. When they saw how that ran, within 3 days they'd started rolling out 64GB machines to their clients. Perf difference was huuuge because the hot dataset could fit into ram at last.

As ever, it depends on one's needs, but most often that need is greater for memory. IME. YMMV. Measure first as always.

Post reply on HN