Originally posted by NM64
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Launches The Ryzen Threadripper 7000 Series: Up To 96 Cores, DDR5 RDIMMs, PRO & HEDT CPUs
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by stesmi View Post
However, the Max Boost is not Max All-Core Boost, so if you're idling 22 out of 24 or 30 out of 32 and full enchilada on 2 of them, the 24- and 32-core versions aren't going to behave any differently and boost the same. I expect, if we would look at the boost tables, that they will start differing the more cores are used.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
Sorry, what is "the middle model" ? Maybe we are looking at different slides, or maybe I am taking non-boost clocks into consideration while you are not. I don't think TDP is just "base or average"... power-limiting factors into boost as well (with the caveat that I'm on the GPU side and not up on the nuances of CPU power management).
If you are talking about 32 vs 24 core it's probably a mix of "yeah 24 core probably draws less power than 32 core but not enough difference to go through the exercise of qualifying a different TDP" and "the more efficient bins tend to get used in the higher core count SKUs".
Comment
-
Originally posted by guglovich View Post32 and 24 I mean average. But anyway, this is the first time I've seen such a thing, that in one lineup the same amount of TDP between different models. If anyone has an example from the past, I'd be interested.
If you look at Zen4 consumer parts you will see a similar pattern - 12 and 16 core parts are both 170W, while 6 and 8 core are both 105W. Remember that we still have 4 CCDs on the 24 core TR parts - we disable 2 cores on each CCD but the rest of the chip including data fabric and the big L3 cache remains fully active.
You see a similar pattern with EPYC parts - the high clock 32, 24 and 16 core parts all have the same TDP, but they also have roughly the same cache. We offer lower TDP EPYC parts with reduced cache and lower clocks, but TR parts are generally max everything.Last edited by bridgman; 20 October 2023, 06:26 PM.Test signature
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by guglovich View Post
That's what I'm writing about. Maybe my translator got it wrong.
One have to benchmark the actual power usage to make any determination regarding consumption.
E.g the 5800x3d have a TDP of 105W while the 7800x3d have a TDP of 120W. In actual measurement with all cores on max usage for Blender the 5800x3d draws 108W of power but the 7800x3d draws only 86.4W:
edit: not sure how to get the timestamp feauture in YT to work with Phoronix, the chart is at 07:03
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by pong View PostSo my point is that one could probably in many relevant use cases refactor the system architecture so that a "CPU" could almost be a peripheral of the GPU if not handled BY the GPU (assuming a future modified SW / system design permitting that holistically)...WS-HEDT
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
In general as the core count goes down the clock speed goes up, so total power doesn't vary much. The 32 core part has a 4.0 GHz base clock while 24 core is 4.2 GHz. I'm sure there are minor differences in power between the SKUs but the overall approach is to have a range of parts that can all function within the same power envelope.
If you look at Zen4 consumer parts you will see a similar pattern - 12 and 16 core parts are both 170W, while 6 and 8 core are both 105W. Remember that we still have 4 CCDs on the 24 core TR parts - we disable 2 cores on each CCD but the rest of the chip including data fabric and the big L3 cache remains fully active.
You see a similar pattern with EPYC parts - the high clock 32, 24 and 16 core parts all have the same TDP, but they also have roughly the same cache. We offer lower TDP EPYC parts with reduced cache and lower clocks, but TR parts are generally max everything.
Comment
Comment