• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** Official Ryzen Threadripper Owners Thread ***

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 66701
  • Start date Start date
lol, Intel are bringing their high end server chip to HEDT in Q4, despite the chip already being in production and sold, they just weren't ready for this and panicked late in the game. TR2 with more cores will be available vastly cheaper and pretty soon. Intel does genuinely have one advantage, 6 channel memory, depending on cost and absurd noise/cooling requirements then potentially it will suit some people doing very bandwidth limited work who can't afford a server platform. Though I suspect an 8 channel EPYC server setup would actually cost less than whatever price Intel will be charging for this.

The big issue for Intel here is they will be so late to this that maybe 6 months after their high end HEDT chip arrives, 4-5 months after AMD and with 4 less cores, AMD will be launching TR3, on 7nm, with probably 20-48 cores, more pci-e, pci-e 4 and anything else that might be new by then.

If you're going to be spending what might well be something like 3k or more on a chip then it being obsolete within 6 months is a huge huge deal. The fact that it will be incredibly power hungry and difficult to cool and require insanely priced motherboards to go with it again, it's going to struggle.

I mean quite obviously this is more of a halo part to say look, we can make big cores on HEDT too, but even then it will struggle to find more than a few derpy overclockers who struggle to compensate who want to buy it.

Honestly Intel could just price it to irk AMD, AMD release a 32 core TR at lets say £2000, Intel release their 28 core at £1500 and get Asus to sell their mobo for £500. We're talking users that will be in the very low thousands. Losing money won't be a big deal if they can come in and upset AMD, steal a few sales but make TR look less enticing in general. Of course that would only work for a short amount of time against TR2, TR3 will be a different ballgame, when the competition has 48 cores and you have 28, for the guys who want/need those machines the 28 core just won't cut it you could cut the price to £500 and the guys who really want 48 cores won't be swayed.
 
drunkenmaster said:
lol, Intel are bringing their high end server chip to HEDT in Q4, despite the chip already being in production and sold, they just weren't ready for this and panicked late in the game. TR2 with more cores will be available vastly cheaper and pretty soon. Intel does genuinely have one advantage, 6 channel memory, depending on cost and absurd noise/cooling requirements then potentially it will suit some people doing very bandwidth limited work who can't afford a server platform. Though I suspect an 8 channel EPYC server setup would actually cost less than whatever price Intel will be charging for this.

The big issue for Intel here is they will be so late to this that maybe 6 months after their high end HEDT chip arrives, 4-5 months after AMD and with 4 less cores, AMD will be launching TR3, on 7nm, with probably 20-48 cores, more pci-e, pci-e 4 and anything else that might be new by then.

If you're going to be spending what might well be something like 3k or more on a chip then it being obsolete within 6 months is a huge huge deal. The fact that it will be incredibly power hungry and difficult to cool and require insanely priced motherboards to go with it again, it's going to struggle.

I mean quite obviously this is more of a halo part to say look, we can make big cores on HEDT too, but even then it will struggle to find more than a few derpy overclockers who struggle to compensate who want to buy it.

Honestly Intel could just price it to irk AMD, AMD release a 32 core TR at lets say £2000, Intel release their 28 core at £1500 and get Asus to sell their mobo for £500. We're talking users that will be in the very low thousands. Losing money won't be a big deal if they can come in and upset AMD, steal a few sales but make TR look less enticing in general. Of course that would only work for a short amount of time against TR2, TR3 will be a different ballgame, when the competition has 48 cores and you have 28, for the guys who want/need those machines the 28 core just won't cut it you could cut the price to £500 and the guys who really want 48 cores won't be swayed.
Click to expand...

Do we know what Threadripper's maximum memory channels are?

Just saying because the reason EPYC has 8 channel memory is because it has 4x Zen dies with 2 memory channels each, just like Threadripper 2.
 
Threadripper (for now) is 4 channel, it wouldn't matter if it could support 8 channels, the motherboards have 4 memory channels. Both AMD need to differentiate between server and HEDT, it probably opens up a few extra salvaged dies where the pci-e/memory controller is the only thing not working and bandwidth costs a LOT of power, more than most people think, saving what could easily be another 30-40W on memory lets them push the clocks higher in the same TDP.

TR3, wouldn't surprise me if they moved to 6 channel, depends honestly if the Intel chip ever shows up in retail in real numbers of if it's a stunt and gets cancelled towards the end of the year. HOnestly though if Threadripper ranges from 20-48 cores on 7nm, then I think bandwidth wise they'd have to be thinking about adding a couple of memory channels but also keep the capability for the chips to run with only 4 channels so they can slot into existing threadripper boards. That's the thing though, the socket is the same as EPYC, both why it can fit 4 dies on the package and why the socket already outwardly supports 8 channel memory, so making a chip that can use 6 channels but can slot into an older board and only use 4 should be pretty easy.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Threadripper (for now) is 4 channel, it wouldn't matter if it could support 8 channels, the motherboards have 4 memory channels. Both AMD need to differentiate between server and HEDT, it probably opens up a few extra salvaged dies where the pci-e/memory controller is the only thing not working and bandwidth costs a LOT of power, more than most people think, saving what could easily be another 30-40W on memory lets them push the clocks higher in the same TDP.

TR3, wouldn't surprise me if they moved to 6 channel, depends honestly if the Intel chip ever shows up in retail in real numbers of if it's a stunt and gets cancelled towards the end of the year. HOnestly though if Threadripper ranges from 20-48 cores on 7nm, then I think bandwidth wise they'd have to be thinking about adding a couple of memory channels but also keep the capability for the chips to run with only 4 channels so they can slot into existing threadripper boards. That's the thing though, the socket is the same as EPYC, both why it can fit 4 dies on the package and why the socket already outwardly supports 8 channel memory, so making a chip that can use 6 channels but can slot into an older board and only use 4 should be pretty easy.
Click to expand...

All right, that makes sense :)
 
Back on topic of threadripper 1... for people that have their 16 core 32 thread systems running all day, i highly recommend downloading Process Lasso and ParkControl.

It's possible to get total system power draw down to just 108W while browsing with many tabs open or jusy have the system under lighter loads. 30/32 cores are parked (sleeping C6) and the system feels as snappy as ever.

As soon as you load a 3d application like a game, Process Lasso switches you to high performance mode and all CPU cores wake up and hit maximum boost clock. Very cool and no need to tweak the default Windows power profiles either.
smJlrct.jpg
 
While TR2 is bigger than I thought they'd go, it's still somewhat, meh, simply because 7nm is one of the biggest process leaps in the past well, decade or more for AMD. It's why I haven't gone back to AMD yet, a 6 core... honestly I forget what a 5820k is, Haswell, 8 core Zen is better but I just moved and wasn't looking for a big outlay. 7nm, 12 cores, higher clock speeds, a big boost in IPC..... 2019 has me ridiculously excited for hardware. Big leap forward in GPU power, big leap forward in processing power. I think with 50% more cores, 10-15% higher clock speeds and I wouldn't bank against 15-20% higher IPC, a 12 core 7nm Ryzen is going to be out of this world amazing. Even if you say 5% higher clock speeds and 10% higher IPC you're looking at 70-80% more processing power in the desktop market.


It's strange, in a way increasing core count so quickly on HEDT pushes it more into the more home professional market rather than crazy high end gamer. 16 cores was already a hard sell for gaming but it wasn't out of the realms stupid, 32 core now and 48 core next year is starting to make HEDT feel more like a home server platform than extreme gamer. Which is fine, it's just, it's making me personally less interested in it from a desire stand point, for a technological standpoint what AMD is doing with multi-die strategies and how that will progress to being on interposers at some point and increasingly complex ways to produce bigger chips is fascinating.
 
AMDMatt said:
Back on topic of threadripper 1... for people that have their 16 core 32 thread systems running all day, i highly recommend downloading Process Lasso and ParkControl.

It's possible to get total system power draw down to just 108W while browsing with many tabs open or jusy have the system under lighter loads. 30/32 cores are parked (sleeping C6) and the system feels as snappy as ever.

As soon as you load a 3d application like a game, Process Lasso switches you to high performance mode and all CPU cores wake up and hit maximum boost clock. Very cool and no need to tweak the default Windows power profiles either.
smJlrct.jpg
Click to expand...


Very cool, just to note, i have had to manually set the minimum power level to 20% to get the CPU to down-clock when idle, this when overclocked, for some reason overclocking locks the CPU to the overclock unless you set the Minimum Processor State yourself. It was set to 100%

uNmHcRT.png
 
humbug said:
Very cool, just to note, i have had to manually set the minimum power level to 20% to get the CPU to down-clock when idle, this when overclocked, for some reason overclocking locks the CPU to the overclock unless you set the minimum Processor state yourself. It was set to 100%

uNmHcRT.png
Click to expand...

You can use the Balanced profile now, all of the optimisations from the Ryzen profile are incorporated into balanced from RS3 onwards. You can even leave the CPU at default 5% now.
 
humbug said:
Very cool, just to note, i have had to manually set the minimum power level to 20% to get the CPU to down-clock when idle, this when overclocked, for some reason overclocking locks the CPU to the overclock unless you set the Minimum Processor State yourself. It was set to 100%

uNmHcRT.png
Click to expand...

Just to note you should be using Windows Balanced now, the AMD power plan is no longer needed.
 
Have just upgraded to 1950x and have a couple of questions:

which software is accurate for temperatures? ... I currently use CoreTemp which shows avg 70°C (oc to 4Ghz) except the Asrock A Tuning software shows 100°C .. there is no thermal throttling so guess this is a false reading?

I know this is like asking how long a piece of string is but is a large blob of thermal paste the best option?

cheers
 
Try many different applications, i would say that AI Tuner is definitely wrong but it seems to work fine for me, HWMonitor always seems to be reliable, try that.

PS: It really is 51c after 10 minutes stress testing, entry level 120mm NZXT AIO and yes the fans are only 1000 RPM :D i love this thing... it uses no power.

I2Zo7DE.png
 
HWinfo seems to work very well giving plenty of info on temperatures, voltages, clock speeds and power usage. Tdie gives an accurate reading of the actual cpu temp and Tctl gives the higher offset temp.
 
ok I see A-Tuning is showing the Tctl reading not Tdie, HWinfo also shows Tdie avg 70-75°C .. ambient temp is around 27°C.

Fans are currently running at 1800rpm (5x Noctua NF-A14) and the air blowing out the top of the case feels cool

I'll remove the overclock until I get the Enermax AIO, temps sit around 60° than.
 
Rensin said:
Have just upgraded to 1950x and have a couple of questions:

which software is accurate for temperatures? ... I currently use CoreTemp which shows avg 70°C (oc to 4Ghz) except the Asrock A Tuning software shows 100°C .. there is no thermal throttling so guess this is a false reading?

I know this is like asking how long a piece of string is but is a large blob of thermal paste the best option?

cheers
Click to expand...
Ryzen Master Tool shows the correct temperature, as does HWINFO Tdie temperature.

Maximum temperature before throttling is around 86-87c. Try to stay at 75c or lower for long term use overclocked.
 
AMDMatt said:
Ryzen Master Tool shows the correct temperature, as does HWINFO Tdie temperature.

Maximum temperature before throttling is around 86-87c. Try to stay at 75c or lower for long term use overclocked.
Click to expand...

thanks for the info.

Have installed the Enermax 280mm AIO and after 1 hour of video encoding max temps were 73°C according to both HWinfo & RMT.

I've also noticed that the BIOS is showing temps at 62°C :confused: ... I've not updated to latest BIOS yet as I still need to do a clean install of window but I'm guessing it is a bug?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom