Two AMD 16-core Threadripper parts have been listed online

It's crazy to think how so many spent $1700 on a 6950X no more than a year ago and now these are coming out and will likely be below $1000 and outperform it. And people really liked these CPU's. So it's not just that the 6950X was $700 overpriced, it was actually behind in performance as well to what was possible from a company with a much smaller budget.
 
It's crazy to think how so many spent $1700 on a 6950X no more than a year ago and now these are coming out and will likely be below $1000 and outperform it. And people really liked these CPU's. So it's not just that the 6950X was $700 overpriced, it was actually behind in performance as well to what was possible from a company with a much smaller budget.

I need CPUs that can run well above 4.0ghz, the 6950X can do that easy.

Ryzen on the other hand.......
 
Neither of those explanations make sense. A Ryzen 1700X from silicon lottery clocked at 4Ghz for $370 versus a 6950X 10-core clocked at 4.35Ghz for $1500. I don't buy it. A 6950X 10-core clocked at 4.8Ghz for $800-1000, yes, I get that, but that doesn't exist. Yet.
 
Doesn't mean much. CPU intensive games aren't optimized for multiple GPUs anyway. You need those cores because Nvidia's driver needs all the threads it can get to help distribute the load off to multiple GPUs. It is more to do with the Driver, less the CPU.
 
Doesn't mean much. CPU intensive games aren't optimized for multiple GPUs anyway. You need those cores because Nvidia's driver needs all the threads it can get to help distribute the load off to multiple GPUs. It is more to do with the Driver, less the CPU.

Shame you can not even run two GPUs on most Ryzen systems at X16/X16 yet AMD does support quadfire in games.

As to CPU intensive games a lot of them are optimised for mGPU.
 
AMD and Nvidia support quad cards? Although I don't see what Ryzen has to do with a $1700 Intel cpu?

And no, they are not optimized for more than 2. If using Nvidias cards the driver does a lot of the work to spread the load out. AMD relies on the Devs. And scaling is poor and it doesn't help less and less games are supporting even 2 way cards
 
AMD and Nvidia support quad cards? Although I don't see what Ryzen has to do with a $1700 Intel cpu?

And no, they are not optimized for more than 2. If using Nvidias cards the driver does a lot of the work to spread the load out. AMD relies on the Devs. And scaling is poor and it doesn't help less and less games are supporting even 2 way cards

You really need to read up on mGPU

And how many PCI-E lanes does Ryzen support at the moment?

Ryzen is a poor choice for mGPU with its low clockspeeds and lack of PCI-E lanes.
 
You really need to read up on mGPU

And how many PCI-E lanes does Ryzen support at the moment?

Ryzen is a poor choice for mGPU with its low clockspeeds and lack of PCI-E lanes.

I think you need to pay attention to what we were talking about? I never talked about Ryzen. Never mentioned it at all. I don't even know why you keep bringing it up even after I already said I wasn't referring to Ryzen or it's support for mGPU.

I think you should read up honestly. Because I stand corrected. These are not meant for gaming which is my original point. They aren't and so far leaked slides haven't shown them to be marketed as such.
But in your view, you need those cores for gaming when using 4 GPUs. Yet the problem with that is 3 or 4 GPUs is not even a relevant argument. I'd say .1% of the market runs that setup. Especially since nvidia dropped support for it last year outside of certain things and hardly anyone bothers with AMD. As for game supporting it, it's basically none. Cpu intensive games will show better results yes, but that's because it's better optimized for the CPU load, which means it takes advantage of more threads which therefore means it's easier for Nvidias driver to better offload the tasks from the first thread onto the others and let them help the distribution of sending the GPU processes. Therefore, it's mostly the driver that nvidia have that actually gives you the better performance under mGPU. But even with that support, the scaling goes down. PCI lanes is not the end all be all of whether or not it works better.
 
I think you need to pay attention to what we were talking about? I never talked about Ryzen. Never mentioned it at all. I don't even know why you keep bringing it up even after I already said I wasn't referring to Ryzen or it's support for mGPU.

I think you should read up honestly. Because I stand corrected. These are not meant for gaming which is my original point. They aren't and so far leaked slides haven't shown them to be marketed as such.
But in your view, you need those cores for gaming when using 4 GPUs. Yet the problem with that is 3 or 4 GPUs is not even a relevant argument. I'd say .1% of the market runs that setup. Especially since nvidia dropped support for it last year outside of certain things and hardly anyone bothers with AMD. As for game supporting it, it's basically none. Cpu intensive games will show better results yes, but that's because it's better optimized for the CPU load, which means it takes advantage of more threads which therefore means it's easier for Nvidias driver to better offload the tasks from the first thread onto the others and let them help the distribution of sending the GPU processes. Therefore, it's mostly the driver that nvidia have that actually gives you the better performance under mGPU. But even with that support, the scaling goes down. PCI lanes is not the end all be all of whether or not it works better.

I keep talking about Ryzen because these new 16 core CPUs are err Ryzen based.

As to the rest of your arguments they are what should not be mentioned in this err Ryzen thread.

mGPU works exactly the same way for both AMD and NVidia they just have different names for it (SLI or Crossfire). The one big difference is AMD have done away with using bridges, this puts additional work on the system (PCI-E slots) which can cause problems with 3 or 4 cards and the drivers. Don't be surprised if AMD bring back bridges with cards in the future as that is the way things are moving, NVidia could be releasing cards in the future with NVLink for gaming as this has far higher bandwidth and will avoid using the PCI-E 3.0 slots (for connecting cards) which are starting to show their age when used with 4 way crossfire and modern cards.

As to the number of people who uses 3 or 4 way mGPU, that is totally irrelevant as I am talking about what is suitable for my own PC setup and for this the Ryzen CPUs with their 28 PCI-E lane limit and low clockspeed are completely unsuitable.

Something else you missed even though I hinted a few times, the new 16 core Ryzen CPUs do support more PCI-E lanes (44 IIRC) but they will be still stuck with a very low clockspeed (worse than the RZ1800X) which makes them unsuitable for what I need.






Will you be getting the i9 7xxx ?


I will definitely be getting the 12 core 7920X in August as higher clockspeed and IPC are far more important for gaming than 16 cores and a very low clockspeed.:D:)
 
Last edited:
Ah changing your argument now eh? I started off saying these aren't for gaming. You stroll along and insert something not even relevant. So er your argument is the one that is not for this thread.there is no need for further argument. The fact you think they work the same for both, already tells me you don't know how each Driver handles mGPU. So anything from you is just speculation.
Surprised me really, for someone who uses mGPU so much to not know this. So here is a refresher.
https://youtu.be/nIoZB-cnjc0

And while he doesn't cover mGPU in much detail, to connect the dots, the way games are currently developed, the driver for nvidia is more efficient at spreading the load out to more threads, which allows faster delivery to the GPU. Meanwhile AMD drivers suffer in scaling due to the fact it relies on developers doing proper multi threading under dx11 as they rely on a HW based scheduler, not software based like nvidia.

But that's it from me. I don't feel the need nor want to continue. It'll just end up going in circles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top