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

Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#41

Post by sudosysgen »

api wrote: post #25
revanx_ wrote: post #24

Imho if cpu manufacturers figure out how to slap a large cache on the same die (something like amd 3D V-Cache but much more) we may actually see graphic cards become obsolete in favor of software rendering.

Specialized silicon will always beat general purpose silicon. It is true that a chip like this probably could render pretty decent 3d in software though. I wonder if combining this with the GPU in a clever way could allow more people to experience real time raytracing?

Possibly - there are a lot of ray tracing algoeithms that don't really work well on GPUs (anything MCMC, for instance). But context and time aware denoising seems to be able to compensate.

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#42

Post by bluescarni »

lostmsu wrote: post #39
bluescarni wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and measure it yourself, if you have one :) https://github.com/Mysticial/Flops/ You can also get a theoretical computation of the Flops, which matches nicely with the experimental measurement. You have to take into account: - the clock frequency (~3.9 GHz on multithreaded workloads on my machine) - the number of cores (16) - the reciprocal throughput of the FMA instruction (~.5, that is, 2 instructions per clock c…

2 TFlops or 5 TFlops does not matter much. 3090Ti does 160 TFlops, e.g. at least 30x (!) times faster.

Those are Tensor flops, the numbers for the Zen CPU are "general-purpose" flops (sometimes called "vector flops" in marketing material).

The vector flops for the 3090Ti are 33 TFlops for single precision, 0.5 TFlops for double precision. So, 16x faster than the 5950x in single precision, 2x slower for double precision. At almost 3x the price and >4x the power consumption.

Of course, if all you care about is AI, then there's no argument - but then we are not really talking about a general-purpose device any more.

The narrative of GPUs being "hundreds of time" faster than CPUs is vastly blown out of proportion for general-purpose computing.

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#43

Post by lostmsu »

bluescarni wrote: post #42
lostmsu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 TFlops or 5 TFlops does not matter much. 3090Ti does 160 TFlops, e.g. at least 30x (!) times faster.

Those are Tensor flops, the numbers for the Zen CPU are "general-purpose" flops (sometimes called "vector flops" in marketing material). The vector flops for the 3090Ti are 33 TFlops for single precision, 0.5 TFlops for double precision. So, 16x faster than the 5950x in single precision, 2x slower for double precision. At almost 3x the price and >4x the power consumption. Of course, if all you care about is AI, then…

I think you missed that this whole discussion is in the context of deep learning, therefore your comment does not apply. It is 30x slower that 3090Ti for that purpose.

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#44

Post by mrguyorama »

api wrote: post #25
revanx_ wrote: post #24

Imho if cpu manufacturers figure out how to slap a large cache on the same die (something like amd 3D V-Cache but much more) we may actually see graphic cards become obsolete in favor of software rendering.

Specialized silicon will always beat general purpose silicon. It is true that a chip like this probably could render pretty decent 3d in software though. I wonder if combining this with the GPU in a clever way could allow more people to experience real time raytracing?

When the second generation of EPYC came out, linus ran a "software rendered" version of crysis that did all rendering on CPU cores instead of GPU shader units. At 640x480 it ran alright.

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#45

Post by jakuboboza »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #12
jakuboboza wrote: post #2

Anyone is using 64 cores besides Linus :) I'm much more excited for 7900x on 12 cores rather than 64 cores. But I understand the limited amount of people that needs this power on desktop can also be excited.

But then if 64 is not useful to you, why the 7900X instead of the 7700X and it's 8 cores? The 7700X is way less power hungry and boosts to nearly the same speed as the 7900X. Genuinely asking as I plan to replace my Ryzen 3700X with a 7700X.

im on 3900x and i was planning to upgrade to 7900x i tend to run few VMs. But I'm not sure yet. Would be cool to get on DDR5 but it feels like this time it is just to have upgrade. So not sure.

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#46

Post by bitL »

bluescarni wrote: post #33
bitL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be a bit overoptimistic: https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9uswbz/how_much_gflops...

Go and measure it yourself, if you have one :) https://github.com/Mysticial/Flops/ You can also get a theoretical computation of the Flops, which matches nicely with the experimental measurement. You have to take into account: - the clock frequency (~3.9 GHz on multithreaded workloads on my machine) - the number of cores (16) - the reciprocal throughput of the FMA instruction (~.5, that is, 2 instructions per clock c…

I've tried it on 10980XE (18-core) that got between 600GFlops-1.6TFlops depending on the instruction in quad channel mode. Will try later on a 32-core Threadripper. The challenge there is to keep all cores busy during training while not repeating the same gradient computation I guess (both scheduling and memory stuff).

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#48

Post by bitL »

Tenoke wrote: post #32
bitL wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to wait for 7900X3D based on what we see with 5800X3D vs the latest Zen4...

I'm actually considering upgrading to 5800x or 5800x3d as a cheap temporary upgrade since the newest generation (which I initially planned on) just seems too expensive given the need for new DDR5, and new very expensive motherboards which will likely need at least another year to mature. So far I've been leaning towards the pretty cheap 5800x (280e vs 450e for 5800x3d) since the difference actually doesn't look that…

X3D seems to shine in gaming but likely helps with other code that is not computation-heavy as well. If you don't need AVX-512 or higher memory bandwidth, either 5800 CPU is probably good. X3D is going to be a bit more future-proof, requiring a later upgrade, based on how well 5775C holds up even today.

Re: Threadripper 7000 Storm Peak CPU Surfaces with 64 Zen 4 Cores

#49

Post by bitL »

revanx_ wrote: post #24

Imho if cpu manufacturers figure out how to slap a large cache on the same die (something like amd 3D V-Cache but much more) we may actually see graphic cards become obsolete in favor of software rendering.

GPU is a bandwidth monster, CPU is a latency monster. You can't have both on the same silicon.
Post reply on HN