Threadripper on Zen+ 32 Cores - Launching Q3 2018

[smilingcrow]

So AMD shouldn't have bothered with the 2000 Ryzen chips, because Intel can't offer competitive alternatives?

Intel have been selling high performing, high core counts chips for years, but it has taken AMD waking up to force them to lower prices.
The Ryzen APUs are a way to open up a new market and focus on AMD's unique strengths.
In the same way that Intel focused on their strengths and built high performing, high core counts chips even though there was no competition.
If you'd wanted 16+ cores in HEDT you could have had it 4 years ago with a Xeon.
The competition is mainly about pricing.
As good a Zen is, the best thing about it is the price.
If it was priced the same as Intel it wouldn't nearly be such a big deal.

 

[Hagar]

Intel have been selling high performing, high core counts chips for years, but it has taken AMD waking up to force them to lower prices.
The Ryzen APUs are a way to open up a new market and focus on AMD's unique strengths.
In the same way that Intel focused on their strengths and built high performing, high core counts chips even though there was no competition.
If you'd wanted 16+ cores in HEDT you could have had it 4 years ago with a Xeon.
The competition is mainly about pricing.
As good a Zen is, the best thing about it is the price.
If it was priced the same as Intel it wouldn't nearly be such a big deal.

AMD needed a commercial competitive design, Bulldozer / Piledriver failed in its shared FPU core design but a bold try nevertheless to shake things up (I still think there was mileage in software design but it never really reached fruition and it was too hot.

IF and scalable zen has given a needed boost to CPU designs and provided a cheapish multicore capability for AMD, everything from desktop, APU, HEDT and server.

As long as innovation, investment and much needed software development continues, I am optimistic. I have always been an early adopter on AMD and this time, I am content to be.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Has it been discussed that clockspeed is down for the 24 and 32 cores. At least the paper clock speeds.

Clocks are still a work in progress.

 

[jigger]

Intel have been selling high performing, high core counts chips for years, but it has taken AMD waking up to force them to lower prices.
The Ryzen APUs are a way to open up a new market and focus on AMD's unique strengths.
In the same way that Intel focused on their strengths and built high performing, high core counts chips even though there was no competition.
If you'd wanted 16+ cores in HEDT you could have had it 4 years ago with a Xeon.
The competition is mainly about pricing.
As good a Zen is, the best thing about it is the price.
If it was priced the same as Intel it wouldn't nearly be such a big deal.

The thinking in your previous post is backwards. This industry isn't like any other as it's all based around innovation and technology with other industries making money from pushing the limits of what those can offer.

 

[nashathedog]

Are you blaming Intel because AMD didn't have 8+ cores 18 months ago!

They've had them for years, unfortunately they couldn't compete with anything beyond Sandybridge which is why Intel became complacent.

The mainstream CPU market stagnates for years primarily because AMD were lost for a decade and all that is Intel's fault!
The only reason Intel dragged their heels for so long was because AMD gave them no competition.
Intel still produced the best CPUs for many years yet AMD get a free ride for producing crap during that period.
I love it that there is choice again in the CPU market but let's keep a sense of perspective.

No-one should get a free ride. I moan about them all, Right now I'm focusing on Intel's refusal to go beyond 4 cores with the mainstream ranges even though the feedback was showing them the demand was there.

 

[hyperfighting]

Wow..AMD starting to hurt Intel in the server arena also.. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-ceo-amd-server-market,37273.html

 

[Hotwired]

Wow..AMD starting to hurt Intel in the server arena also.. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-ceo-amd-server-market,37273.html

he only indicated that it was Intel’s job to not let AMD capture 15-20% market share.

Uhuh... so how you gonna do that.

a) get good
b) dirty tricks

Been a while since Intel has had to put effort in fighting off a competitor when it comes to servers. Are they in any position to keep AMD from grabbing 20% market share with honestly pitched products?

 

[Minstadave]

Uhuh... so how you gonna do that.

a) get good
b) dirty tricks

Been a while since Intel has had to put effort in fighting off a competitor when it comes to servers. Are they in any position to keep AMD from grabbing 20% market share with honestly pitched products?

My money is on B)

 

[4K8KW10]

My money is on B)

I was going to ask - who are Intel to define how much market share the others will have?
Intel is pure evil, I am disgusted by them.

 

[jigger]

Uhuh... so how you gonna do that.

a) get good
b) dirty tricks

Been a while since Intel has had to put effort in fighting off a competitor when it comes to servers. Are they in any position to keep AMD from grabbing 20% market share with honestly pitched products?

From what I'm seeing it will probably take both to slow the take up of AMD. Maybe Intel will need a little blackmail too. I would say Intel are in no position to do anything until they can at the very least produce fully functioning chips.

 

[kitfit1]

From what I'm seeing it will probably take both to slow the take up of AMD. Maybe Intel will need a little blackmail too. I would say Intel are in no position to do anything until they can at the very least produce fully functioning chips.

This is my thought as well. The server/data center market has taken a very big hit from Intel's cpu bugs, it affects them much much more than us as home users. Because the whole issue is so endemic with all Intel Xeon cpu's, the only proper answer is a complete re-design of the cpu architecture. That could be a minimum of 3 years away and more than likely 5 years. In that time AMD should have a hell of a lot more than 20% of the market. And yes, dirty tricks and blackmail will be used.........................i just hope that AMD have a strategy in place to counter this, because they certainly didn't have when Intel did it to them last time round.

 

[jigger]

This is my thought as well. The server/data center market has taken a very big hit from Intel's cpu bugs, it affects them much much more than us as home users. Because the whole issue is so endemic with all Intel Xeon cpu's, the only proper answer is a complete re-design of the cpu architecture. That could be a minimum of 3 years away and more than likely 5 years. In that time AMD should have a hell of a lot more than 20% of the market. And yes, dirty tricks and blackmail will be used.........................i just hope that AMD have a strategy in place to counter this, because they certainly didn't have when Intel did it to them last time round.

Even forgetting the pretty important that every chip Intel sell is broken, AMD also have Intel beat on just about every metric.

AMD got very complacent with the Athlon64 and Intel had terrible culture at that time and suffered from the same arrogance. This situation now is very different as AMD have genuinely beat Intel on merit. In the A64 days AMD's success was as much down to Intels incompetence and greed as the engineers had a better design (Core*) that the boardroom refused to back.

 

[Journey]

Looks like the Threadripper prices are starting to move down to make way for these 24/32C beasts, 1950X's at <£600, that is staggeringly good value for a CPU with that core count.

 

[Kelt]

Looks like the Threadripper prices are starting to move down to make way for these 24/32C beasts, 1950X's at <£600, that is staggeringly good value for a CPU with that core count.

I paid that for a 486DX2-66

 

[SupraWez]

Looks like the Threadripper prices are starting to move down to make way for these 24/32C beasts, 1950X's at <£600, that is staggeringly good value for a CPU with that core count.

Crazy pricing, keeping an eye on them to see how low they go

 

[subbytna]

@humbug I think Gavin87 will be having sleepless nights wondering how to put AMD down....

 

[humbug]

@humbug I think Gavin87 will be having sleepless nights wondering how to put AMD down....

 

[Rainmaker]

The 1900x is cheaper now than the 1800x was. Yes it's 'only' the 8/16 but you still get quad channel memory and the extra PCIe lanes. I'm actually seriously considering selling my 8Pack delid (does 5GHz all cores and 5GHz cache/ring with no AVX offset, 1.35v) to get one of the new TR CPUs later this year. I was in two minds when CL and Zen came out, but the TR would suit my workload more really, especially now the IPC and speeds are closing up.

 

[BongoHunter]

Am so tempted by one of these for an additional dev box at home, my 1950X performs like an absolute champ - but need to see what motherboards get realeased I think, Epyc might be a better choice depending on TR2 memory limits

 

[Orcvader]

US only but: https://www.amd.com/en/campaigns/threadripper-exchange

Exchange that 8086K for a 1950X . I guess that's one way of clearing stock to make way for TR2.