Threadripper on Zen+ 32 Cores - Launching Q3 2018

[Panos]

Not quite sure what you mean here, if you mean the 1900X was only produced to use up failed chips perhaps you have a point but then why did the 1900X clock the best out of all the gen 1 threadripper line up? I don't know, just disappointed as I wanted an 8 core 2900X, cheaper with higher oc potential could have been a good gaming monster and would have been easier to cool under water than the 16 core model.

The reason is that 8 core TR means each CCX is 2 core effectively.
So AMD could have decided that ain't worth to release a 8 core TR because they could use the salvaged 2+2 CCX per chip to the quad cores where the market is bigger.

As for your second point, because they were 2+2 per chip they could clock higher due to internal thermals being better.

 

[lowdog]

Ok, still, an 8 core model would have been a monster overclocker then, just a bummer there won't be one. Oh well. Kay Sera Sera.

 

[Silent_Scone]

1900X = 8c 16t
1920X = 12c 24t
1950X = 16c 32t

8 cores are easier to overclock than 12 or 16, right?

Pretty much.

 

[Marak]

The reason is that 8 core TR means each CCX is 2 core effectively.

Im pretty sure the 1900x was two full 4 core CCX’s not 2x2x2x2.

 

[Panos]

Im pretty sure the 1900x was two full 4 core CCX’s not 2x2x2x2.

Where I wrote that?

I wrote that each CCX had 2 working cores on the 1900X. I didn't wrote a chip had two working cores. Because each chip has 2 CCX. So effectively 1900X was 2 quad core chips together.
That bellow is an 8 core chip of 2 CCX of 4 Core each.

On the 1900X 2 cores per CCX were working only, and that is why could clock higher, because the thermal was less.

And I could put a bet if AMD was releasing a 2900X it could do 4.8Ghz, given that we know 4.5Ghz is achievable on AM4 given all the mobos limitations.
Also I won't be surprised if the 2920X can do 4.5-4.7Ghz either with custom cooling.

All the mobos are far superior to AM4 in all way including overclocking features, power delivery and VRM cooling.

 

[AMDPower]

Where I wrote that?

I wrote that each CCX had 2 working cores on the 1900X. I didn't wrote a chip had two working cores. Because each chip has 2 CCX. So effectively 1900X was 2 quad core chips together.
That bellow is an 8 core chip of 2 CCX of 4 Core each.

On the 1900X 2 cores per CCX were working only, and that is why could clock higher, because the thermal was less.

And I could put a bet if AMD was releasing a 2900X it could do 4.8Ghz, given that we know 4.5Ghz is achievable on AM4 given all the mobos limitations.
Also I won't be surprised if the 2920X can do 4.5-4.7Ghz either with custom cooling.

All the mobos are far superior to AM4 in all way including overclocking features, power delivery and VRM cooling.

if any of these numbers are true, then i am going to regret not going threadripper. My original plan is use AM4 for now and then jump on threadripper when the 7nm chips are out with better thermal and clock profiles. But a 4.5ghz 2920x would make me jump on threadripper again and seriously regret all the money i just spent on AM4 and a ryzen 2700x. But then avian I don't really do anything with my PC that needs that much horsepower.

 

[Marak]

Where I wrote that?

You wrote it in the part I quoted:

The reason is that 8 core TR means each CCX is 2 core effectively.

If each CCX has 2 working cores then it's 2x2x2x2 - which is what you wrote expressed a different way.

Except that's wrong, the 1900X has two full CCX's of 4 cores, with two fully disabled CCX's, not 2 cores per CCX enabled.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-cpu,5222.html

"There are vast architectural differences between the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, as well. In a nutshell, the larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across two dies and all four of the quad-core CCXes. But in a bid to mitigate a layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die."

 

[DarrenM343]

Pretty much.

Screw overclocking when you have 32 cores to play with .
I've not even overclocked my 1950X, just let the built in XFR do its thang.

Looking good

 

[Panos]

You wrote it in the part I quoted:



If each CCX has 2 working cores then it's 2x2x2x2 - which is what you wrote expressed a different way.

Except that's wrong, the 1900X has two full CCX's of 4 cores, with two fully disabled CCX's, not 2 cores per CCX enabled.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-cpu,5222.html

"There are vast architectural differences between the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, as well. In a nutshell, the larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across two dies and all four of the quad-core CCXes. But in a bid to mitigate a layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die."

Mea culpa then Had forgotten that bit.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

And I could put a bet if AMD was releasing a 2900X it could do 4.8Ghz, given that we know 4.5Ghz is achievable on AM4 given all the mobos limitations.
Also I won't be surprised if the 2920X can do 4.5-4.7Ghz either with custom cooling.

There is no chance of any Threadripper doing 4.5ghz unless on LN2.

 

[BongoHunter]

I understand the 2990 is going to have 16 cores without direct memory access - bit do we expect the 2950 to follow the same pattern, or would all cores have direct memory access?

 

[Minstadave]

I understand the 2990 is going to have 16 cores without direct memory access - bit do we expect the 2950 to follow the same pattern, or would all cores have direct memory access?

2950x should be 16c32t with all cores having direct access I suspect. Just like the current 1950X.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

2950x should be 16c32t with all cores having direct access I suspect. Just like the current 1950X.

I was reading an article that claimed this chip would be aimed at HEDT gamers and clocking around 4.5GHz.

Is this looking like a X99-5960x upgrade? (X299 is irrelevant )

 

[Panos]

I understand the 2990 is going to have 16 cores without direct memory access - bit do we expect the 2950 to follow the same pattern, or would all cores have direct memory access?

We shall see on this how it affects performance on daily stuff.
Speculation on this area is bit dangerous.

@String 5960X could be compared with the 2700X mate. 2950XW is twice as fast on multithread apps.
Also if you have X99 get a 6950X but forgot it's cost even used is so bad, you can get 16 core CPU for less

 

[Minstadave]

I was reading an article that claimed this chip would be aimed at HEDT gamers and clocking around 4.5GHz.

Is this looking like a X99-5960x upgrade? (X299 is irrelevant )

It’s where I’m heading from my current 5820K I think depending on price/clocks.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

It’s where I’m heading from my current 5820K I think depending on price/clocks.

Cool, I'll keep an eye on it.

 

[ToTheMax]

Looking at the current marketing the X variants they are trying to target high end gamers, 16 core good for gaming really? Their marketing department lost the plot?

 

[Mauller]

4.4GHz on the 2990WX, Ez Pz with this.

 

[Minstadave]

Beast!

 

[NinjaCool]

AMD France lists Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX + Cinebench score!
Edit: This might have been a accidental leak by AMD themselves so not sure if we can talk about it here until it's back up.