AMD clarifies why Threadripper uses 4 silicon dies

Intel's 18 core *will* be faster than the 16 core TR. No ifs, no buts. It's got a generation leap over TR (BE to SKYLAKE E) and will, with the right cooling and board, easily surpass the 4ghz barrier.

AMD are going to have to have a response to that, and I truly believe it is going to be more cores.
 
AlienALX said:
Intel's 18 core *will* be faster than the 16 core TR. No ifs, no buts. It's got a generation leap over TR (BE to SKYLAKE E) and will, with the right cooling and board, easily surpass the 4ghz barrier.

AMD are going to have to have a response to that, and I truly believe it is going to be more cores.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bet on that- the monolithic design Intel uses along with the flawed package design that's been trapping significant heat below the IHS means that AMD have a 30% base clock speed advantage and will likely be able to maintain their boost clocks with considerably more active cores. Intel might have higher 1-4 core boost clocks but that means little for most people buying a part like this. Basically the Intel 18 core will have higher single threaded performance, but as soon as you try to use all those threads the performance will plummet with the clock speeds, killing multicore performance to a degree that the increased IPC and 2 extra cores is unlikely to make up for.

Worth noting that moving to 4 dies/32 cores for AMD much of this advantage disappears, with the ability to maintain these high clock rates vanishing as you hit a TDP of around 180W, which is why I see 32 core Threadripper very unlikely- In many metrics in will likely be slower than the 16 core variant and consumer workloads that can make use of that many cores are scarce. Plus it'd likely be memory bandwidth constrained in many of those workloads without a new chipset to bring 8-channel support.
 
Given the controversy surround X299 and the design flaws and inadequacies of many of the mobos thanks to Intel pushing server grade parts into the consumer space on short notice in response to Threadripper, I don't think many will see it as a flaw that AMD are making sure their server-derived parts use server-derived motherboards and components. The overall cost for an equivalent or often faster AMD is still below that of Intels, and without the issues surrounding X299's.
 
I don't get it. The MSI has an enormous package (smirks). Go look at it. Coolers for the M.2, even a PCIE card. And it's nearly £200 cheaper.. I await Der8auer pulling them apart and giving them a good look over :)
 
Their reasoning sounds legit, but if they are just dummies, why bother using TIM on those and having the dies coated with a metal? Not coating the wafers with the dummy dies would mean that the dies are not required to go through the cleanroom, which in return would save AMD quite some money (cleanroomtime=money).
 
32 cores are coming. I absolutely assure you. Intel want two bags of sand for their 18 core. If you think AMD won't want a share of that you are crazy. Seriously. This is just the calm before the storm.
 
Those are some pricey boards indeed.

Edit:
AlienALX said:
32 cores are coming. I absolutely assure you. Intel want two bags of sand for their 18 core. If you think AMD won't want a share of that you are crazy. Seriously. This is just the calm before the storm.
Click to expand...

I think Ryzen was the calm before the storm, and Threadripper and EPYC are the storm for their respective markets. AMD does not need to beat Intel's flagship to sell copious amounts of CPU's and make a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
They aren't aiming for flagship really. They just have the tech/cores so why not?

I think the actual answer will come when we see the Epyc package/socket. Obviously designing two sockets would be far more expensive than just one. However, I am still sticking to my thing. If Intel are going to charge two grand for a CPU AMD are going to want some of that action. It would not surprise me *at all* if AMD released a 32c 64t Threadripper in response to the 18 core Skylake X.

It's funny because I never thought I would live to see AMD playing it cool like Nvidia and having technology waiting to slap Intel back. Ryzen FTW.
 
AlienALX said:
They aren't aiming for flagship really. They just have the tech/cores so why not?

I think the actual answer will come when we see the Epyc package/socket. Obviously designing two sockets would be far more expensive than just one. However, I am still sticking to my thing. If Intel are going to charge two grand for a CPU AMD are going to want some of that action. It would not surprise me *at all* if AMD released a 32c 64t Threadripper in response to the 18 core Skylake X.

It's funny because I never thought I would live to see AMD playing it cool like Nvidia and having technology waiting to slap Intel back. Ryzen FTW.
Click to expand...

Thing is though, AMD already got intel on the run with a 16 core monster that yes clock for clock is unlikely to beat intels 18 core chip, but it is 1000 Dollar less expensive just on the cpu alone, amd doesnt need to respond with a 32core beast because they can already have a good laugh beating intel on value for money.
 
Dark NighT said:
Thing is though, AMD already got intel on the run with a 16 core monster that yes clock for clock is unlikely to beat intels 18 core chip, but it is 1000 Dollar less expensive just on the cpu alone, amd doesnt need to respond with a 32core beast because they can already have a good laugh beating intel on value for money.
Click to expand...

If they can get £1500 for the 32 core CPU for example then why not? that's an awful lot of money.

Intel released a 8 and 10 core right? AMD respond with a 12 core and 16 core. I'm telling you dude this socket is not getting only 3 CPUs. Seriously, do you really think AMD are done on day one?

lol no chance.
 
AlienALX said:
If they can get £1500 for the 32 core CPU for example then why not? that's an awful lot of money.

Intel released a 8 and 10 core right? AMD respond with a 12 core and 16 core. I'm telling you dude this socket is not getting only 3 CPUs. Seriously, do you really think AMD are done on day one?

lol no chance.
Click to expand...
I actually agree and do think a 32 core can be up their sleeve for the consumer market, but i don't think amd needs to answer intel's 18 core with a 24 or 32 core and save's it for when intel musters up something new.
 
Well looking at the cb scores Intel are now a ways behind. They will no doubt retaliate with 14, 16 and 18 core CPUs at some point.. AMD would be daft to be done now.

I have a feeling Epyc may use the same socket, so you may find that Epyc CPUs work in X399 boards, but may not work with ECC etc. Epyc may be locked any way, so there would be little point. Well, unless they were really cheap which I can't see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WYP
AMD unveils Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9000WX pricing and specifications
Replies
0
Views
200
WYP
WYP
WYP
US retailer reveals AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9000 release dates and pricing
Replies
0
Views
383
WYP
WYP
WYP
AMD launches its Ryzen Threadripper 9000 series CPUs with unchanged pricing
Replies
1
Views
159
NeverBackDown
N
WYP
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX achieves 186K score in Cinebench
Replies
1
Views
190
NeverBackDown
N
WYP
AMD confirms Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Specs through its website
Replies
0
Views
218
WYP
WYP
Back
Top