AMD Threadripper 7980X Kernel Benchmarks On Linux 6.5 / 6.6 / 6.7

[Paradigm Shifter]

Well, at work I have room on my desk for two systems, not sixteen and a switch to run a cluster (even ignoring cluster scaling, etc). If these Zen 4 Threadrippers had been available when we had budget earlier in the year, I probably would have ordered one as close to maxed out as I could. It's a continual source of irritation for me that our order deadlines are always just weeks (sometimes days) before suppliers can officially say, "We can sell you this"...

At home for (work related) proof of concept and tinkering I have a much more sedate system - 5700G, 128GB RAM, 16GB A4000 - but that's as much because my apartment is ancient and the wiring won't take a PC drawing 2KW out of a socket as it is my lack of desire to drop 5M JPY on a system.

[sophisticles]

Instead of all this fighting, can we just agree that AMD makes overpriced, garbage processors that only succeed because the manufacturing process used allows them to squeeze in large amounts of stupid wide cores?

Intel will show the world the way on 2024 when it releases its E-core only Xeon and then follows up with a 50 E-core desktop that blows everyone's nips away with it's incredible performance and frugal power consumption.

[andyprough]

can we just agree that AMD makes overpriced, garbage

For a second there I thought you said nVidia.

[mSparks]

Ignore the old Opterons. The 7980X is 2x as fast as the 7950X, has 2x TDP, and costs 10x the money.

Does this make any sense to you? What's the point of this CPU? I honestly don't understand. Why would you NOT build 2 7950X rigs instead of buying just one 7980X? Even if you factor in the collateral costs of having to buy 2 motherboards, etc., you'll be still WAY better off financially. Especially given the fact that you'll have to buy a more powerful PSU due to twice alrea TDP, TR mobos have astronomical prices ($700+), plus the 7950X comes with an iGPU while the 7980X does not, so you'll even have to throw in some budget dGPU.

This is an incredibly performant CPU - that no one with a brain will buy.

If it's not been pointed out already

because the cost of the CPU is nothing compared to the electricity to run and cool it.

____
tbh, great to see the linux scheduler getting yet more loving. Already leagues above anything else available, In 10 years these specs will be a low end consumer CPU....

[sharpjs]

I bought a 7960X for ECC, PCIe lanes, and memory bandwidth. I could make do with a much-less-capable machine, but I don't want to. It's my work machine. I want a nice work machine. Not everything I do will use all the machine's capability, but some things will. Most recently I was able to test a new feature with a bunch of huge test databases in parallel, finding fifteen bugs that customers now will never see, and quickly rerun to verify the fixes didn't create regressions.

[DavidBrown]

Ignore the old Opterons. The 7980X is 2x as fast as the 7950X, has 2x TDP, and costs 10x the money.

Does this make any sense to you? What's the point of this CPU? I honestly don't understand. Why would you NOT build 2 7950X rigs instead of buying just one 7980X? Even if you factor in the collateral costs of having to buy 2 motherboards, etc., you'll be still WAY better off financially. Especially given the fact that you'll have to buy a more powerful PSU due to twice TDP, TR mobos have astronomical prices ($700+), plus the 7950X comes with an iGPU while the 7980X does not, so you'll even have to throw in some budget dGPU.

This is an incredibly performant CPU - that no one with a brain will buy.

One thing often forgotten is the cost for software. $5k for a processor sounds a lot to most people, but for those paying $50k per year for high-end engineering software (say, the stuff used for designed cpu chips) it is much less relevant. And if the software is licensed "per socket", as some is, then two 7950x chips now cost you $50k more than on 7980x.

Chips like this don't make economic sense to many people, but for some they make a great deal of sense.

[skeevy420]

One thing often forgotten is the cost for software. $5k for a processor sounds a lot to most people, but for those paying $50k per year for high-end engineering software (say, the stuff used for designed cpu chips) it is much less relevant. And if the software is licensed "per socket", as some is, then two 7950x chips now cost you $50k more than on 7980x.

Chips like this don't make economic sense to many people, but for some they make a great deal of sense.

No shit. Qt alone is $3800 a year. And that's the starting price. It goes up.

As as consumer, a $5000 processor is a lot. Simple as that. Hell, I bought a 7800X3D for $306 ($366 with tax) and consider that a bit pricey for just an 8 core CPU. It's one hell of an 8 core CPU, but still...

For a professional, $5000 for a processor of this grade is easily worth it. Not to mention, if you put it into the numbers I did earlier you'd have to buy $4448 worth of 7950x CPUs, 8 of them, to have the same amount of ram as a single 7980X. By the time someone factors in 8x power supplies, 8x motherboards, 8x everything except ram, and all the power used to run and cool it all, the 7980X makes a hell of a lot more sense financially.

[marlock]

tweaked your post for maximum didactical effect

One thing often forgotten is the cost for software. $5k for a processor sounds a lot to most people, but for those paying $50k per year for high-end engineering software (say, the stuff used for designed cpu chips) it is much less relevant. And if the software is licensed "per socket", as some is, then two 7950x chips now cost you $50k more per year (!) than on 7980x (which cost you less than that once).

Chips like this don't make economic sense to many people, but for some they make a great deal of sense.

commercial geoprocessing software is often in that realm of thousands of dollars per year per user/machine and is often not in the realm of "i can distribute this workload across several machines in a practical manner"