Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Switches To AMD Ryzen Threadripper After 15 Years Of Intel Systems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Threadripper is a great platform. It's neat that Linus is using it. It does have one major issue at the moment: No RDIMM/LRDIMM support. That basically means most Threadripper systems are limited to 256GB of memory capacity. Enough for just about any purpose, but there are quite a few HEDT applications that require more ram. People with heavy rendering loads typically can make use of 512GB or even 1TB of RAM.

    The TR CPU is physically capable of supporting it, but they artificially limit it to stop it from encroaching on Epyc territory.

    Comment


    • If I ever buy new CPU in the near future, I would go with renoir (ryzen 4000G).
      A leak: https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/1428...h9H_2RFD-eales
      LEAK! Cores / Threads Base Clock Turbo Clock TDP Graphics Cores
      Ryzen 7 4700G 8C/16T 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 65W 8
      Ryzen 7 PRO 4700G 8C/16T 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 65W 8
      Ryzen 7 4700GE 8C/16T 3.1 GHz 4.3 GHz 35W 8
      Ryzen 5 PRO 4400G 6C/12T 3.7 GHz 4.3 GHz 65W 7
      Ryzen 5 4400GE 6C/12T 3.3 GHz 4.2 GHz 35W 7
      Ryzen 3 PRO 4200G 4C/8T 3.8 GHz 4.1 GHz 65W 6
      Ryzen 3 4200GE 4C/8T 3.5 GHz 4.1 GHz 35W 6

      Comment


      • Originally posted by t.s. View Post
        If I ever buy new CPU in the near future, I would go with renoir (ryzen 4000G).
        A leak: https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/1428...h9H_2RFD-eales
        LEAK! Cores / Threads Base Clock Turbo Clock TDP Graphics Cores
        Ryzen 7 4700G 8C/16T 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 65W 8
        Ryzen 7 PRO 4700G 8C/16T 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 65W 8
        Ryzen 7 4700GE 8C/16T 3.1 GHz 4.3 GHz 35W 8
        Ryzen 5 PRO 4400G 6C/12T 3.7 GHz 4.3 GHz 65W 7
        Ryzen 5 4400GE 6C/12T 3.3 GHz 4.2 GHz 35W 7
        Ryzen 3 PRO 4200G 4C/8T 3.8 GHz 4.1 GHz 65W 6
        Ryzen 3 4200GE 4C/8T 3.5 GHz 4.1 GHz 35W 6
        AMD has lost their minds if this leak is true. This means they just copied Intel on every single thing and just compete on price. So now the G parts just have a weak igpu just for the UI and pixel art gaming, just like Intel was doing all along. What is the point of getting an 8core with such a weak igpu? Boring, trash product, only a tiny niche might be interested in it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

          Just write more bloated code, anything for the coffee!
          Add some sleep calls here and there. Problem solved!

          Also doubles as future "performance optimization"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

            Please someone get him a Navi gpu.
            Hey! R9 390 first.

            I've been waiting 5 years along with other 390 owners.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AmericanLocomotive View Post
              Threadripper is a great platform. It's neat that Linus is using it. It does have one major issue at the moment: No RDIMM/LRDIMM support. That basically means most Threadripper systems are limited to 256GB of memory capacity. Enough for just about any purpose, but there are quite a few HEDT applications that require more ram. People with heavy rendering loads typically can make use of 512GB or even 1TB of RAM.

              The TR CPU is physically capable of supporting it, but they artificially limit it to stop it from encroaching on Epyc territory.
              If it's a "major issue", you're using the wrong tool for the job. TR memory interface is only quad channel, while EPYC is eight channel. If you are in need of >256 GB, you would be better served with EPYC's 8 channels. Also, if you're in need of >256 GB, that's more "workstation" than "HEDT" market segment anyways, and the price difference between TR and EPYC is negligible at that point. There are a number of standard ATX sized single-socket EPYC boards out there, from which to build a workstation from. Contrast with Intel, where many Xeon chips are hobbled with a 32 GB max, and it becomes even harder to justify 256 GB limit as a "major issue".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                What is the point of getting an 8core with such a weak igpu?
                It's for doing work. You don't need a mega GPU for Outlook and Word. Or for coding and compiling. Or for managing cloud services and general IT administration. Or for financial work with Quicken and Excel. Or for web browsing and video conferencing. In fact, almost nothing requires a strong GPU outside of 3D games. And if you're a l33t gam3r on a budget, the 8 Vega cores will handle most games at 1080p and low detail settings, and certainly be faster than any competing iGPU from Intel. The 8 Vega cores also work quite well at video transcoding under Linux, using VAAPI.

                Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                Boring, trash product, only a tiny niche might be interested in it.
                According to whom? This sounds like it fits the broadest possible market, and brings the powerful Zen2 cores to the APU segment. With both a faster CPU, and faster GPU than the Intel competition, I'm not sure you can justify your opinion.
                Last edited by torsionbar28; 26 May 2020, 11:34 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                  It's for doing work. You don't need a mega GPU for Outlook and Word. Or for coding and compiling. Or for managing cloud services and general IT administration. Or for financial work with Quicken and Excel. Or for web browsing and video conferencing. In fact, almost nothing requires a strong GPU outside of 3D games.


                  According to whom? This sounds like it fits the broadest possible market. Except maybe one. The l33t gam3rz on a minimum wage budget building an iGPU gaming rig. That sounds like a niche market if I ever heard one. And it's still faster than Intel's iGPU, so your point is lost here as well.
                  1) The point is, 8 core ryzen cpus already exist, also tiny dgpus for those who just need a basic output already exist. Why introduce this product?

                  2) This product fits no niche at all. People can already buy 8 cores ryzens today, IIRC with better clocks and obviously cheaper. And they get the benefit of picking whatever cheap dgpu they fancy to pair with it. And they don't need a specific mobo with graphical outputs.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                    1) The point is, 8 core ryzen cpus already exist, also tiny dgpus for those who just need a basic output already exist. Why introduce this product?
                    Ryzen is a CPU. These products are APU's. An APU is CPU+GPU in the same package. It sounds like you don't understand the market for APU's. The added cost of a dGPU, even a low-end basic one, is significant and prohibitive in many markets. Corporate desktops, for example.

                    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                    2) This product fits no niche at all. People can already buy 8 cores ryzens today, IIRC with better clocks and obviously cheaper. And they get the benefit of picking whatever cheap dgpu they fancy to pair with it. And they don't need a specific mobo with graphical outputs.
                    Again, being forced to buy a dGPU is not a benefit. It's a strong negative in many markets.

                    If you want a dGPU, there is regular Ryzen. If you want an iGPU, there are these APU's. You have the choice to pursue whatever solution suits you best. I'm not sure how having the choice can be interpreted as a negative to complain about.

                    Do you really think you understand the global APU market better than AMD? And how about intel, who offers even weaker iGPU's on many of their products, did they get it wrong too? Everyone got it wrong, except for you?
                    Last edited by torsionbar28; 26 May 2020, 11:51 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                      If it's a "major issue", you're using the wrong tool for the job. TR memory interface is only quad channel, while EPYC is eight channel. If you are in need of >256 GB, you would be better served with EPYC's 8 channels. Also, if you're in need of >256 GB, that's more "workstation" than "HEDT" market segment anyways, and the price difference between TR and EPYC is negligible at that point.
                      TR's 256GB limit is suitable for 90% of uses, but there are still quite a few HEDT/Workstation users (especially who utilize 3D and video rendering) where they will have multiple programs running at the same time, all hogging up tons of memory. Those users can and do make use of 512GB - 1TB of RAM.

                      HEDT and "Workstation" are more or less synonymous these days. EPYC isn't ideal for workstation use for a variety of reasons.

                      A big one is the TDP difference between Threadripper and EPYC. TR chips have a much higher TDP of 280w (vs 225), allowing them to have higher base/boost speeds. A TR 3970X 3.7 GHz base speed, and a 4.5 GHz boost. The fastest 32C EPYC part is the 7F42 with a 2.9 GHz base and a 3.4 GHz boost - that's dramatically slower. The same also applies the 3990X. The 3990X has a 2.9 GHz base and a 4.3 GHz boost - the EPYC 7H12 has a 2.6 GHz base and a 3.3 GHz boost. The 7H12 is significantly slower than the 3990X, Those clock speed differences will be noticeable in many HEDT/Workstation type applications.

                      Then there is the price difference. The EPYC 7F42 costs $3600 vs the $2000 3970X. This is even more extreme on the 64c side, where the 3990x is $3990 and the 7H12 is $8,600. Even for professional workstation users, an extra $4600 is a serious chunk of change.
                      There are a number of standard ATX sized single-socket EPYC boards out there, from which to build a workstation from.
                      There selection for EPYC ATX boards is extremely limited. Many of those boards lack a lot of useful features that HEDT and Workstation users can utilize, and are more "server" oriented. Server boards are a real pain to use for everyday things. For example, most server boards typically take 1-2 (or more_ minutes to complete POST, which gets annoying if you frequently have to reboot for testing software/hardware, etc...
                      Contrast with Intel, where many Xeon chips are hobbled with a 32 GB max, and it becomes even harder to justify 256 GB limit as a "major issue".
                      I'm not sure what Xeons have a 32GB memory limit? I just checked Intel's site, and all of the "real" Xeons have at least a 1TB memory capacity, with the higher end SKUs going up to 3TB. The Embedded and low-end Desktop Xeons (fit in standard LGA1151 sockets) Xeons have a 128GB UDIMM limit though).

                      Intel dramatically slashed the prices on their Xeon parts, and basically now offer up to 2TB of RAM capacity in the same price-bracket is the newer TR parts.
                      Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

                      1) The point is, 8 core ryzen cpus already exist, also tiny dgpus for those who just need a basic output already exist. Why introduce this product?

                      2) This product fits no niche at all. People can already buy 8 cores ryzens today, IIRC with better clocks and obviously cheaper.
                      Those tiny DGPUs still incur extra cost and hassle. No iGPU means the current Zen 2 Ryzen chips are basically a non-starter for the majority of OEM desktop systems. Almost no OEM systems these days come with DGPUs by default to save money. They need these APUs to compete in that segment.

                      There are also many customers who have zero need for a GPU. The improved Vega CUs on Renoir are quite performant, and will allow for moderate 3D gaming at low settings. Nothing ground breaking, but completely suitable for the vast majority of users. Why buy a $40 dGPU, when you can an APU for $25 less (than the combined CPU + dGPU cost) that performs nearly as well?

                      And they get the benefit of picking whatever cheap dgpu they fancy to pair with it. And they don't need a specific mobo with graphical outputs.
                      Having a graphical output is basically part of the AM4 spec. Of the 73 AM4 motherboards for sale on newegg, 66 of them have some form of video output.
                      Last edited by AmericanLocomotive; 26 May 2020, 12:23 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X