AMD Details 3rd Gen Threadripper, Ryzen 9 3950X + Their New $49 USD CPU

[CochainComplex]

I hate to break it to you, but the 200GE does not support EEC. It will accept unbuffered ECC RAM, but it runs it in non-ECC mode. You can use dmidecode or memtest86 to verify this.

Thats exactly what I m missing on my 200GE and I hope that the 3000 Gen APUS wil support it without PRO. I dont care about open multi.

[bridgman]

It's not wasted silicon, because it's there. But I think it's usefulness is very little. You can see on the Iris Pro or even Power 7, it promised a lot, delivered little. I think in most scenarios you would see very little performance difference if it was removed.

My recollection was that Power7 didn't *add* L3 cache, just moved it on-chip to help deal with the higher core count (8 per chip vs 2 per chip), and the on-chip L3 was partitioned across the cores rather than being a single pool. I didn't think there was an expectation of higher per-core performance from this, just the ability to support more cores.

When you say "promised a lot, delivered little" in the context of Power7 do you mean that Power7 underperformed Power6 on a per-core clock-for-clock basis, or was there some expectation of much higher per-core performance from moving L3 on-chip that I missed ?

[foobaz]

Well 49$ is nice. I have the 200GE ...what im really missing is not an official unlocked multi....i would rather have ecc support for my nas...it is not possible to buy the pro version as consumer so...i have to buy some recycled pro from chinese sources. IMO failed marketing. that 50 buck cpus are great for nas or small settop tv boxes...or as in my case both in one....

I hate to break it to you, but the 200GE does not support EEC. It will accept unbuffered ECC RAM, but it runs it in non-ECC mode. You can use dmidecode or memtest86 to verify this.

[AndyChow]

It's useful on bandwidth-constrained situations, e.g., a truckload of cores being fed by dual-channel DDR4 SDRAM. They've taken other measures as well, like reducing bottlenecks in the fabric, but the cache isn't wasted silicon. The CPUs would surely perform worse if it was reduced or removed.

It's not wasted silicon, because it's there. But I think it's usefulness is very little. You can see on the Iris Pro or even Power 7, it promised a lot, delivered little. I think in most scenarios you would see very little performance difference if it was removed. Apart from synthetics, the performance improvement just isn't there. Threadripper is quad channel.

It's not bad to have more L3 cache, but I don't think it really ever really helps either. The miss rate just isn't high enough.

[NateHubbard]

The point is that similar code might fail somewhere else, so it's worth bringing up.

No, it really isn't. The game is old and assumed things about CPUs that caused problems later. This kind of thing happens when you're looking at old code.
If anyone actually buys a brand new high end processor to play an old game, they can look into that quick hack to fix the game.
This is all super edge case, and the reason it isn't being talked about is because largely, nobody cares.

[Random_Jerk]

Follow this site and your work daily Micheal. Congrats on your new baby. Stay away from Phoronix some time, the new baby is going to suck your sleep for at least a week.

[Danny3]

Congratulations Michael!
I wish good health for your child and for the parents!

[DoMiNeLa10]

The wonky old code here is in Max Payne, not in the AMD chips. What's next, you'll complain that Ryzen won't boot OS/2 Warp?

The point is that similar code might fail somewhere else, so it's worth bringing up.

[bug77]

I don't think those numbers are accurate. They say it's only 105W, BUT they recommend water cooling. Something's not right here. Older 125W CPUs from AMD worked just fine with air cooling.

105W is for the 3950X. Threadrippers will draw more than that.

[torsionbar28]

I don't think those numbers are accurate. They say it's only 105W, BUT they recommend water cooling. Something's not right here. Older 125W CPUs from AMD worked just fine with air cooling.

Perhaps the rated TDP is only for base freq, and boosting will exceed it by some amount? I'm speculating here, however this is true for intel's new 9900KS, TDP is 127 watts, but intel only guarantees *base* frequency at that TDP. At the boosted Ghz levels, 9900KS TDP goes through the roof (180+ watts).