AMD Rolls Out The Threadripper 1900X: 16 Thread, 4.0GHz Boost

[phoronix]

Phoronix: AMD Rolls Out The Threadripper 1900X: 16 Thread, 4.0GHz Boost

Following the rumors of an eight-core / sixteen-thread Threadripper, the 1900X is now officially available beginning today...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...adripper-1900X

[macemoneta]

Single thread performance is unimpressive.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

[Espionage724]

Single thread performance is unimpressive.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

What use is single-threaded performance nowadays? Aside from some (older?) games, I would assume most things are multi-threaded to some extent nowadays.

[bradlyatc]

Several typos in the second paragraph

[devius]

Single thread performance is unimpressive.

Yeah, when I'm buying an 8-core CPU, single threaded performance if at the top of my priority list as well.... </sarcasm>

[Aeder]

Single thread performance is unimpressive.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

1) That benchmark doesn't list the Threadripper 1900X.

2) If your single concern is single-threaded performance and you're buying a TR, you might just be retarded.

[Peter Fodrek]

What use is single-threaded performance nowadays? Aside from some (older?) games, I would assume most things are multi-threaded to some extent nowadays.

Oh It is missatake

do not think so. It depends on group you are member of.



Parallel programmers not prepared for the glorious revolution
By Wily Ferret
Tue Nov 27 2007, 12:28


INTEL RECKONS barely one per cent of software programmers are prepared to face the challenge of parallel programming, which the hardware giant (unsurprisingly) reckons is the future of development.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...pared-glorious



And is was not changed since that time till today even if no measured last three years


Software needs meaty cores, not thin, stringy ARMs, says Intel
By Simon Sharwood, 26 Feb 2014



“The world has a big issue around vectorisation and parallelisation of code,” Graylish said. “99% of code isn't written that way.” Graylish also feels “defining a workload that can run in 1000 cores is hard.”


Most software, Graylish added, “still requires a big meaty core” and Intel is happy to provide them.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02...ms_says_intel/


But It is nice to see that perecentage of programmers able to produce parallel code nearly equals to percentage of Linux users .

[mmstick]

What use is single-threaded performance nowadays? Aside from some (older?) games, I would assume most things are multi-threaded to some extent nowadays.

Not to mention that single-threaded performance of even a 3GHz Ryzen core is overkill for existing single-threaded software and games. I'd say we already have enough single-threaded performance -- we just need more cores and software designed to take advantage of those cores (easily done with newer languages, like Rust).

[mmstick]

Single thread performance is unimpressive.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Benchmark you've listed is known to be better optimized for the Intel architecture. Hard to take seriously -- find an open source benchmark. And if you think single-threaded performance of Ryzen isn't impressive, you're obviously just trolling. IPC of Ryzen is equal to that of what Intel offers. Any difference in performance can be correlated to a difference in frequency. Naturally, Threadripper will have more cores at a slightly lower frequency than the lower-tier options which offer fewer cores at a higher frequency.

[darkbasic]

Not to mention that single-threaded performance of even a 3GHz Ryzen core is overkill for existing single-threaded software and games. I'd say we already have enough single-threaded performance

Unfortunately this is just bullshit.

IPC of Ryzen is equal to that of what Intel offers. Any difference in performance can be correlated to a difference in frequency.

Ryzen's IPC barely equals Haswell's. Intel still offers better IPC, but just slightly better.