Thanks to a few motherboard makers and some good eyes, we now know there will be a Threadripper part without support for AMD's eXtended Frequency Range. The slightly lower frequencies, 3.2-3.8GHz and lack of XFR suggest this part will sell for less than the $800 which the 1920X is slated to be released at. This should not mean the chip will not benefit from any of the features of XFR, only that the frequency increments will be larger and less reactive than on an XFR chip, as Tim explained a while back. There is a benefit to that lack as well, the TDP drops 40W to 140W. This is a leak so it is possible some of the information is wrong; however it was found in several different places and looks to have been posted accidentally as opposed to release to fuel rumours so it is quite likely the information you can see over at PCWorld is accurate.
"Tweakers discovered the Threadripper 1920 listed on websites for Asus, Gigabyte, and ASRock. PCWorld was able to confirm the listing on Gigabyte and ASRock’s sites, though Asus has since scrubbed its support page for the $550 ROG Zenith Extreme entirely."
Here is some more Tech News from around the web:
- Lenovo Switches To Stock Android For All Future Smartphones @ Slashdot
- Raspberry Pi 3 slim sacrifices functionality for sized-down 7mm form @ The Inquirer
- WannaCry-slayer Marcus Hutchins 'built Kronos banking trojan' – FBI @ The Register
- Dumbo: Wikileaks reveals CIA tools used to hijack webcams and microphones @ The Inquirer
- Microsoft breaks Office 365 sign-in pages ahead of surprise update @ The Register
- Toshiba invests $1.76bn in flash fab production line, WD kinda peeved @ The Register
Not having full XFR
Not having full XFR support(if true) does not mean that the chip can not be clocked higher. XFR support just provides for the warrenty supported AMD sanctioned clock/clock-boost/over-boost regimens. And the end users are free to overclock the part and bid farewell to their warrenty if there is no full XFR/Overboost support. Final CPU pricing has to include the cost of warrenty support.
P.S. anyone wanting Threadripper for any lower clocked “Workstation” usage is not spending their money wisely as the Epyc 7401P single socket CPU SKU with 24 cores/48 threads is priced at 76 dollars more($1075) than the Threadripper 1950X’s $999. And looking at the prices on some of the Threadripper motherboards, even some single socket Epyc Workstation motherboard SKUs may not cost as much as some of the TR/Gamimg MBs.
And with the Epyc/platform you will get 128 PCIe lanes and 8 memory channels. The only part of the Epyc 7401P based solution that will cost relatively more is the ECC memory, but with Epyc’s/Epyc motherboard’s support for 8 memory channels those 8 channels can be populated with more of the more affordable smaller capacity 4GB/8GB single rank ECC DIMMs(one to a channel) and still net 32GB/64GB of total system memory at a greater cost savings compared to any CPU/Motherboard platforms that only provide 4 channel memory support. And the Epyc/Motherboard SKUs usually have 3 year warrenties, and extended product lifecycle support and parts availability.
AMD prices its Epyc SKUs so affordably relative to its consumer SKUs that there are not any economic advantages to substatuting a consumer SKU for Real Workstation SKU in order to afford more cores/better features. That 24 cores/48 threads on that Epyc 7401P(8/16 more cores/threads than TR for $76 more on the CPU’s cost), and the 8 channels, 128 PCIe lanes, including the 3 yeary usual warrenty, figure says that Epyc is the better price/performance deal over Threadripper for those looking to do Workstation Graphics workloads where FPS/overclocking ability does not matter as much.
Threadripper is going to have
Threadripper is going to have a much higher clockspeed than Epyc though. I have a feeling that Threadripper will outperform Epyc in most workstation apps.
No! For CPU non gaming
No! For CPU non gaming graphics Rendering the more cores the better.
For animation rendering worklosds lower more power saving clock speeds are prefered and any overclocking will void a CPU part’s warrenty. Animations graphics workloads are run for hours on end and can use all the CPU/GPU cores they can get with the CPU/GPU SKUs clocked lower to save on wear/tear and power. Animiation rendering takes minutes per frame to generate with all the software Ray Tracing settings on high and that’s compute intensive even on GPUs, and esepically CPUs so the more CPU cores the better.
Also Workstations are for real work and should have the workstation CPU/MB hardware that is tested/certified to work with ECC memory. Threadripper CPU/MB SKUs do not have that testing/certification ECC certificate explicitly carried by the CPU/MB makers. That’s ECC listed in the CPU’s/MB’s warrenty/certification as guaranteed to work with ECC memory for workstation workloads and ceritfied to work with that ECC ability on all the major graphics/engineering software packages for the workloads that require ECC ability.
A 16/32 core Threadripper part is going to have a tough time matching a 24 core part on highely threaded workloads that can use all the cores/threads that they can get. And no way is TR’s 4 memory channels going to be able to match the effective bandwidth of Epyc’s 8 memory channels, ditto for TR’s 64 PCIe lanes matching Epyc’s 128 PCIe lanes at twice the available PCIe 3.0 bandwidth over Threadripper.
Threadripper CPUs/MBs do not have the explicit certified hardware for ECC Memory usage Certifications necessary and legally required for some production workloads like structural engineering, aircraft/all transportation engineering, medical, etc. Even for Graphical workloads on tight production schedules where errors can mean missed event deadlines that ECC certification is needed.
7401P: 24/48 cores/threads, 2.00 GHz base, 2.80 all core boost, 3.00 GHz max, 155/170 Watts, 64 MB L3, 8 DDR4 memory channels @ 2400/2666 rated DIMMs, 128 PCIe lanes, CPU price $1075.
With the proper cooling a lower clocked CPU can maintain its clock rates well enough over long hours without the CPU being down-clocked because of thermal issues and get more work done. That’s why more cores/threads clocked lower are better and look to the Pro GPUs as an example with thuosands of cores clocked much lower than CPUs or even Gaming GPUs.
First – very interesting post
First – very interesting post on the ‘legally required’ part for ECC memory for various engineering workloads. That’s actually something really good to know. I’m also a little surprised TR Doesn’t have ECC — do we know this for sure? or is there something we might see a little later that adds ECC to the platform?
As far as performance/$.. the 32 core Epyc will certainly beat TR In certain workloads… I’m not sure about that 24 core / 2.0-2.8 chip. The 1950X base is 3.4 GHz (70% higher), and the all core boost is almost 50% higher (4.0 vs 2.8 ghz). The TR will have less cache but also less latency for inter-chip communications. I don’t think the 24 core 7401P will do more than 5-10% better than the 16-core $999 chip, and in a lot of cases substantially worse..
We don’t need an Epyc
We don’t need an Epyc advertisement in every Threadripper story. Many applications are not going to scale up to 48 (or even 24 threads), so the clock speed advantage of Threadripper could still be important. Epyc IO is probably overkill for most workstation applications. People should check benchmarks before buying. We don’t know yet where these processors will fall, and it could vary significantly between applications.
What we do not need is any
What we do not need is any consumer’s being misslead into thinkig that consumer SKUs are good for any Workstation workloads price/performance wise compred to Epyc. And AMD’s Epyc server/workstation parts represent an even better price/performance value than the Threadripper based consumer parts. Epyc’s effective memory bendwidth is going to be twice that of any Threadripper branded parts, even for the 8 core Epyc parts.
Benchmarks alone do not tell the whole story, and that price per core metric on the Epyc 7401P 24 core part comes in at 44.79 per core, and TR’s(16 core) price comes in at 62.44 per core. And if you price just the extra cores that the Epyc 4701P provides for that 76 dollars more than the TR 1950X SKU’s($999) then the Epyc 7401P offers 8 more cores at $9.50 per Epyc core, above 16 cores, on the 24 core Epyc 7401P.
And it’s the lest costly to spread the lower cost DDR4 smaller capacity 4GB/8GB DIMMS across more channels(8 for Epyc) and net at least 32GB or 64GB(at one DIMM per channel) of total available memory than it would cost to buy smaller numbers of the 8GB-Higher-capicity(at one dimm per channel across only 4 channels) of the higher capacity DIMMS, and with ECC memory the cost of 8GB/16GB DIMMS is way too high so the savings can be relatively more for ECC memory. So with Epyc one could get by with one single/dual ranked 4GB DIMM per memory channel for better memory speeds/performance with each DIMM getting its own non shared DDR4 channel.
The same goes for using more of the lower cost lower capacity NVM SSDs across more available PCIe lanes(Extra available Bendwidth also) while still having enough PCIe lanes remaining for available for GPU/s, other things.
Intel’s uber high pricing on its high core count Xeon/MB SKUs may have justified the using of Intel’s consumer CPUs in an attempt to save thousands, but for AMD its Professional SKUs actually can represent a better price/performance deal than its consumer SKUs, better yet with the Epyc full Workstation feature sets included.
Even the TR gaming motherboards are seeing prices up into the $400-450 price range and I’m seeing 2 socket epyc motherboards that are in the $500-$650 range so the single socket Epyc MB’s will probably run in the $450-$550 range if not lower.
What there needs to be is reviewers saying that for gaming/overclocking Theradripper is best, but for workstation usage Epyc offers the better True Workstation price performance, and feature level, deal for 16 core Epyc and higher.
There will probably be someone with an 8/16/24 core Epyc Parts that may do some benchmarks, even gamng benchmarks for the fun of it so that will be intresting to see. It’s still hard to find any pricing figures for single socket Epyc motherboard SKUs.
TLDR. Who is misleading
TLDR. Who is misleading anyone about Threadripper being a workstation CPU? Does Threadripper sound like a workstation CPU?
For reviewers of
For reviewers of consumer/gaming CPUs/PCs/Laptops/GPUs to even imply ->Without Qualification<- by even mentioning the Workstation name when describing any consumer part as actually usable for workstation workloads is disingenuous on the part of the reviewers. The reviewers need to always caution the consumer CPU/PC user that although the workstation software may run on the consumer part, the consumer parts/SKUs lack the Hardware/Software/Firmware testing/certification that qualify these consumer parts for ANY Production Workstation workload usage. That Qualification should always include cautioning the consumer that any consumer hardware PC/Motherboards/GPUs not certified for ECC/Workstation Production usage in their hardware/firmware/software are no good for production Workstation usage. Even with the years and years of Intel’s overcharging for its Xeon Workstation/Server SKUs it’s still better for reviewers of any Intel Consumer SKUs to NOT state/imply ->Without Qualification<- that any consumer Intel CPU/Motherboard SKUs are good for any workstation grade workloads, and the same goes for AMD’s consumer parts CPU/Motherboard/GPU SKUs compared AMD’s Epyc CPU/Motherboards and AMD’s Pro WX/Instinct GPU SKUs that are Workstation/Server grade certified parts. Workstation Grade has more to do with the professional levels of testing that is done for the Workstation Grade Hardware/software/firmware that involves a bit more complicated process than simply slapping the Workstation Name on any untested/uncertified consumer CPU PC/Laptop/GPU/Motherboard SKUs that are using any NON Certified Explicitly for Workstation production workloads consumer Hardware/Firmware/Software. AMD’s Epyc Workstation/Server grade parts, namely the single socket Epyc parts, have a better Price/Performance metric and Price/Feature metric for Workstation usage than even AMD’s consumer parts, which are not even Workstation Grade or Workstation Production Certified to begin with. So there are better values to be had on AMD’s Real Workstation Grade single socket SKUs relative to any of AMD’s HEDT/Ryzen consumer SKUs.
TLDR.
TLDR.
@Clmentoz,
There will be
@Clmentoz,
There will be another cost to Epyc, the extra cost of the MBs. The MBs for Epyc will be skewed towards the workstation and server use cases, so will have an extra premium.
In fact, the MB premium will likely be larger than the premium for ECC memory (1x8GB 2400Mhz DIMM Non-ECC = $77 CDN, ECC = $86).
“And looking at the prices on
“And looking at the prices on some of the Threadripper motherboards, even some single socket Epyc Workstation motherboard SKUs may not cost as much as some of the TR/Gamimg MBs.” I posted this on August 4, 2017 | 01:44 PM(First post on the article)
Did you not read my very first post, and I’m seeing some 2 socket Epyc motherbiards for $520.00, $610.00. So a single socket Epyc motherboard should be a fair bit cheaper than a 2 socket Epyc MB. I’m not saying the Epyc motherboards will all be less expensive than a Threadripper MBs but look at this article headline from a PCgamer from 8/1/2014:
“This fully loaded E-ATX motherboard for Threadripper costs $550”
So The Epyc motherboards for single socket Epyc SKUs are not going to be priced on average less than most TR motherboards, but the Epyc motherboards will offer that 3 year warrenty, 128 PCIe lanes, 8 memory channels, Full ECC Certified memory support in the CPU/MB, and other features.
So with a 24 core Epyc 7401P priced at $1075 for 24 cores/48 threads that per core cost is low(lower than the per core TR price) and the single socket motherboard is probably going to be 400-550 range, but then the 8 memory channels on the Epyc system can be populated with 8 of the lower cost smaller capacity 4GB/8GB DIMMS(one DIMM to a channel) and still provide the system with 32GB/64GB of total available memory.
“ECC = $86″/CND is a great price for 8GB sticks of ECC memory and I can use 8 across all 8 of the Epyc MB channels and get a total of 64GB of mamory installed(one to a channel) or go with 16 lower cost 4GB sticks and get the same 64 GB(2 DIMMs per channel on Epyc’s 16 Total DIMM slots), while for Threadripper the minimum size necessary 2 DIMMs per channel is 8GB DIMMs for that 64GB total. It’s because TR motherboards only have 4 channels and 8 DIMM slots while Epyc motherboards have 8 channels and 16 DIMM slots.
So the Epyc motherboard has more memory population options. And there are advantages to populating only half of the MB’s DIMM slots at one DIMM per channel, one of them being power related, the other being memory speeds. And remember 8 memory channels offer twice the effective bandwidth as 4 memory channels.
It’s always good to do some price per core calculations, and even price per memory slots/memory channels available, ditto for price per PCIe lane available. Because with more PCIe lanes there is the option of using more of the smaller capacity NVM SSDs across more available PCIe lanes for cost savings that way also, and still have plenty of ramaining PCIe lanes for GPUs, sound cards etc. there are NVME PCIe x16/x8 cards holding(4 gum sticks at 4, x4/PCIe or 4 at 4, x2/PCIe).
So for Epyc it’s that more DIMM slot populating options(lower cost lower capacity DIMMs avross 8ch/16 DIMM slots), more PCIe lanes for more/smaller capacity lower cost NVM/SSDs, And with that new NVM DIMM standard having more available DIMM slots is better. AMD’s Epyc pricing is so affordable relative to even AMD’c consumer SKUs, and Intel’s high margin holy cow Xeon profit milking business is about to go sour like Intel’s high margin Core series high margin business has gone sour high margin wise.
I can understand why so many
I can understand why so many people want TR; If 4 cores are good, then 8 cores is better, and 16 cores gives you the ultimate bragging rights (for now). AMD fans have not had anything to brag about for years, this gives them something, even if Intel is still better overall, they can say, “yeah but, TR is more threads for cheaper. Just like they said with Bulldozer and Ryzen. Well, it’s something, anyway. At least AMD made sure hardware partners have some boards and coolers ready this time.
I don’t consider Intel better
I don’t consider Intel better overall. In fact, I wouldn’t not recommend intel over AMD since Ryzen came out. IPC is close and AMD gives you a lot more cores. For many applications they are close in performance. For well multi-threaded applications, AMD leaves the intel parts far behind.
Maybe the non-XFR version
Maybe the non-XFR version will be found in OEM gaming systems. The number of variants that need to be binned from zeppelin dies is huge. I don’t know if it is likely that there would be defects in the XFR circuitry. They are probably binned by how many functional HSIO lanes it has first. Ryzen parts need a small number of HSIO lanes compared to the total number on the die. Threadripper actually doesn’t need all of them either. Only Epyc processors need fully functional HSIO links. They can use just about any number of cores with they way they have it set up. They don’t seem to have any differentiation based on memory controller functionality. It may be possible that a die has fully functional HSIO links, but defective memory encryption or something that would prevent it from being an Epyc processor. It would be interestinformation to know all of the features that they are binning on. I have wondered if Theadripper are actually Epyc parts that had a failure in the bonding process or something. That would difficult to make work though.
“AMD’s Epyc
“AMD’s Epyc server/workstation parts represent an even better price/performance value than the Threadripper based consumer parts. Epyc’s effective memory bendwidth is going to be twice that of any Threadripper branded parts, even for the 8 core Epyc parts.”
Uh, what?
First of all, Threadripper supports Quad Channel so memory bandwidth is not an issue. You suggest it needs even more which is simply NOT true since Dual-Channel 3200MHz is sufficient for the 8C/16T part at 4GHz.
And the EPYC 7401 you refer to has a Turbo of 3GHz so let’s just assume that a 16C/32T Threadripper CPU has 25% higher frequency. That means in THEORY that you can get 20% more processing out of the EPYC7401 though you need to buy a more expensive motherboard.
That 20% assumes 100% utilization of all 48 threads in WORKSTATION applications?
In reality you’re likely to get LOWER PERFORMANCE on that EPYC CPU due to insufficient thread utilization to overcome the frequency difference.
There’s also likely architectural difference that aren’t optimal for many WORKSTATION applications (i.e. larger cache I assume for EPYC which can actually DEGRADE performance due to cache misses).
You simply can’t say EPYC is a better value as a sweeping statement. Some programs MAY benefit. Most will not.
Not for Blender CPU rendering
Not for Blender CPU rendering workloads, Blender will keep those EPYC 7401P’s 24 cores/48 threads pegged at 100% until the cake pops out of that Easy Bake Oven. And it’s the Epyc 7401P the 7401 is a dual socket SKU.
And as far as high cost MB pricing see my above posts, and concerning Epyc memory populating options across 8 channels 2 DIMM slots per channel, ditto for having 128 PCIe lanes as opposed to 64, and memory bandwidth needs go up as core counts increase the more memory bandwidth the better for more cores.
“There’s also likely architectural difference” no differences between the Zen micro-arch across Ryzen, Threadripper, Epyc, just more features enabled on the Epyc/Zeppelin modular die and the Epyc 7401P at 24 cores/48 threads is only $75 dollars more than the 16 core/32 thread Threadripper 1950X. Epyc 7401P’s Total L3 Cache is 64MB according to the AMD website tech specifications. Use the Google Fu, Google search is rather crappy but with Google Fu skills there is more Epyc info added daily, though there is still no single socket Epyc MB SKU prices listed, but some dual socket Epyc MB SKU pricing in the $500-$600 range for 2 socket Epyc MBs.
“EPYC is a better value as a
“EPYC is a better value as a sweeping statement.”
I said Epyc is a better value than threadripper for WORKSTATION workloads, especially those Workstation workloads that require CERTIFIED ECC hardware, for workloads that need ECC protection. Threadripper/X399 threadripper MB hardware is not TESTED/CERTIFIED for ECC memory usage. Real Workstations are TESTED/CERTIFIED for ECC memory by their CPU/Motherboard makers and for the professional software graphics/engineering packages that need to/are required to run on hardware that have certified ECC abilities.
I may have asked this
I may have asked this already, but how are the CCXs arranged in Threadripper and Epyc processors? Specifically, the 8 core variants. The other variants are going to be either 3 or 4 core CCXs. Will an 8 core Epyc actually be a single core active per CCX or a 2-core CCX active and one completely deactivated per chip? Same for Threadripper. Is it one fully functional CCX and one disabled per chip? They could do two 2-core CCX also it seems. Can we tell by the amount of cache? Does 16 MB L3 per chip mean 2 active CCXs and 8 MB means one?
FYI:
Threadripper Cooler &
FYI:
Threadripper Cooler & Thermal Paste Coverage of IHS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpvGYxaMLc0