Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X 64-Core Chip Launched, Benchmarking a Beast CPU (hothardware.com) 99

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
MojoKid writes: In January at CES 2020 in Las Vegas, AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su took to the stage during a press conference and revealed the company's forthcoming Ryzen Threadripper 3990X 64-core processor. Dr. Su disclosed the 3990X's speeds and feeds and showed the beastly chip taking down a pair of 28-core Xeons worth about $20K, in a 3D rendering benchmark, despite its much smaller price tag. Today, however, the company has lifted the veil on full details of the chip as well as its complete performance profile across a myriad of benchmarks, fresh off embargo lift. Thought it's packing 64 cores capable of processing 128 threads in SMT, the 3990X's TDP is still rated at 280W when it's configured at stock frequencies (2.9GHz base / 4.3GHz boost). As you might expect, Ryzen Threadripper 3990X was an absolute beast all of the multi-threaded tests that scale properly to leverage all of its cores. In fact, Threadripper 3990X stands head and shoulders above every other desktop processor on the market currently, besting competing many-core Intel solutions by more than 2X in some cases. However, because Threadripper 3990X has relatively high clocks for such a high core count chip, it also offers relatively strong performance for day-to-day use cases in lightly threaded workloads and gaming as well. There's no question, at $3990 MSRP, AMD's Threadripper 3990X isn't a mainstream desktop chip, but for those who need serious workstation performance and throughput, nothing on the desktop even comes close right now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X 64-Core Chip Launched, Benchmarking a Beast CPU More

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X 64-Core Chip Launched, Benchmarking a Beast CPU

Comments Filter:

  • Nice to see AMD at the top... (Score:5, Informative)

    by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @11:24AM (#59701710)

    after a decade of Intel subverting security by designing for speed over data containment

    • Re:Nice to see AMD at the top... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @11:25AM (#59701720)

      My next gaming PC upgrade is going to be AMD, you can be sure of that. Intel's prices are insane and their constant socket changes just pisses me off.

      • If by the time you get your next gaming PC AMD falls behind again?

        I have been tracking AMD for over 23 years now, and how their chips compare to Intel.

        What seems to happen is AMD is often the Cheap alternative, but trails Intel in performance often by a good amount.
        Every 5-8 years or so AMD releases something really good that exceeds Intel and is still cheaper. And people go it is the end of Intel and the dawn on AMD.
        Then Intel releases something that blows AMD out of the water and keeps it lead.

        Intel is h

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by samdu ( 114873 )

          I'd say that gap is way more than every five to eight years. The last time I can think of that AMD was slaughtering Intel was at the onset of the Athlon. Then Intel had to pull their heads out of their asses and actually try, which vaulted them ahead of AMD. This current Ryzen uprising is the first time I can think of this happening since then.

          • For values of "try" that are coming home to roost now, anyways.

          • I remember when AMD came out with their 386 DX-40, beating Intel's 386 DX-33. Seven MHz may not sound like much today, but going from 33 to 40 was quite a leap back then.

        • If by the time you get your next gaming PC AMD falls behind again?

          I have been tracking AMD for over 23 years now, and how their chips compare to Intel.

          What seems to happen is AMD is often the Cheap alternative, but trails Intel in performance often by a good amount.
          Every 5-8 years or so AMD releases something really good that exceeds Intel and is still cheaper. And people go it is the end of Intel and the dawn on AMD.
          Then Intel releases something that blows AMD out of the water and keeps it lead.

          Intel is huge company, with a lot of resources, however often when they are working a new generation of product they may get a bit behind, in that case AMD catches up.

          I am not saying AMD is bad, just the fact that AMD seems to be on average the #2 player in the x86 CPU market. Where they often get a spike of good products then they will lag for much longer than Intel, due to the fact Intel has more resources to have a next gen product ready in less time.

          I'd say that following your line of reasoning you won't buy anything - ever.

          MY line of thought is "buy the best your budget allows". Since my budget (home, work, friends, friends-of-friends, etc - I recommend things to many people) is rarely that large, it always gets me (or them) a decent machine that lasts several years.

          Sometimes it is Intel, sometimes AMD, for GPUs usually NVidia, but sometimes AMD because cheap, etc.

          Oh, and learn to not worry about the next "shiny" thing that will, inevitably, come one

        • They don't have a working process node! They're *fucked*.

          In fact they are currently panicking so much, that according to AdoredTV's reliable sources, they started internally fighting among themselves and having/planning(?) large layoffs and heads rolling.

          If they are lucky, ther new process node shapes up to something good quickly (e.g. by imitating TSMC), or of they don't manage thaty they will lose their fab, like AMD back then. And if they keep being arrogant lying stubborn fucks, they will die. Those are

          • AdoredTV

            Olrite, guize, howz it goi...

            reliable sources

            LoOoOoOoOoOoL

            • That is the definition of reliable.

              By comparison, all you got to show, is the niveau of a playground kid. Literally.
              "Oooh he has a different accent!" and laughing at a quote.

              How old are you? Quite a few years til puberty? Who let you sit at the grown-up table?

              Also: Kiss my swetty ball, ya fat fuck. -- Malcolm Tucker.

          • IBM had nothing to do with Zen. The last time IBM affected AMD at all was when Globalfoundries absorbed IBM's old fabs and gave GF a fresh injection of talent that helped them respin their 32nm process. That gave us chips like the FX8320e which was a nice, mild upgrade for FX users in 2015. Still not enough to compete with Intel at the time, but it was nice.

        • Re:Nice to see AMD at the top... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by fintux ( 798480 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @02:40PM (#59702442)

          Intel pulled some seriously nasty anti-competitive, anti-consumer stuff back then (like OEMs having to have 95% Intel CPUs to get a rebate). Says a lot that HP turned down an offer to get a million free CPUs from AMD. See for example https://www.extremetech.com/co... [extremetech.com] for a good read on this. They haven't exactly been winning fairly to say the least.

          If Intel had not done that, AMD would have very likely remained more competitive. Personally, I am very happy that despite all of this, they are strongly in the game.

          But seems like Intel has done all kinds of blunders in the past five or so years, and this time they are further behind on their whole product timeline. Sure they can still catch AMD (but looks like that will require either a huge leap - their 10nm cannot even match TSMC's 7nm, while it was supposed to be clearly better than that, and they still have only minimal lineup for the process). And sure, Intel still has some niche markets where they do better, but those are getting smaller and smaller.

          I'm not saying this is the end of Intel, not even close. But Intel has some tough years ahead on the CPU front.

        • AMD has a yearly launch cadence planned through 2022 when they launch Zen5.

          2020 will see the launch of Zen3. 2021 is Zen4, and 2022 is Zen5.

          All their products will use these cores, with their enterprise EPYC chips using them first to "select" customers via ODM sales. Milan - the CPU using Zen3 in the server space - is already sampling, and ODM deliveries should commence in a month or two. Genoa (Zen4) and its Zen5 successor should follow a similar schedule. Desktop variants should hit in June/July of th

      • Although sadly, this Threadripper is a socket change from TR4, which only lasted two generations (Threadripper 1xxx and 2xxx). The new one is sTRX. Supposedly it will have better longevity?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          Although sadly, this Threadripper is a socket change from TR4, which only lasted two generations (Threadripper 1xxx and 2xxx). The new one is sTRX. Supposedly it will have better longevity?

          Don't think they've made any promises but both the chiplet redesign of the IO and PCIe 3.0 -> PCIe 4.0 transition were valid reasons for a switch now. In two generations of TR they've quadrupled the max number of cores from 16 to 64 cores so I don't see that expanding further any time soon. With a 280W power envelope they're near practical limits for power consumption too. The most likely reason for another change would be to upgrade the memory bandwidth, but they already have Epyc for those who want 8 c

        • In this hardcore enthusiast/workstation segment you care more about absolute best performance than the possibility of plugging an even faster chip into the same socket four years from now. You're paying that kind of money, the MB isn't a big part of it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So far ahead too. Intel need a new architecture to complete with this.

      This thing is a breast but also weirdly hobbled. There is hardly anything that can really push it to the limit outside of artificial benchmarks.

      One area it really could fly is 8k video, but they effectively limited it to 256GB RAM which is not a lot for that task. Similarly for VMs you may well want more than 256GB.

      • Re:Nice to see AMD at the top... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @12:42PM (#59701978)

        One area it really could fly is 8k video, but they effectively limited it to 256GB RAM which is not a lot for that task. Similarly for VMs you may well want more than 256GB.

        It supports 1 TiB of RAM [reddit.com]. If you're unwilling to get a proper motherboard or to use the unvalidated registered DIMM support, that's on you.

        https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9bswfm/does_any_threadripper_motherboard_actually//

        • Are there any motherboards that actually exist that will let you plug in that much ram?

          • Yes. In the enterprise world we had 1+ TB boards a long time ago. If you can afford a $4k cpu for home you can afford another $1-2k for the main board, too. Oh and that 1TB won't be cheap either.

            • In other words, no those motherboards don't exist.

              • So sad, when any attempt to google would find MB with 1TB RAM offered two years ago:
                https://www.tweaktown.com/news... [tweaktown.com]

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  No, we need to concede that part. They Epyc motherboards are socket SP3, not sTRX4 or TR4. You can't stick a TR CPU in them.

                  Of course you could stick an Epyc CPU in them. Because, that's the sort of CPU and motherboard that you're going to be loading with 1 TB of ram in the first place.

                  • Thread ripper does support a tb of ran in principle. For that amount you need resisted DIMMs which it has hardware for but apparently isn't officially supported. And you need a chipset where the situation is likewise. So nothing exists with with sockets but mostly because no manufacture has done the testing.

                    With the rise of AMD this may change as the market grows enough to have more speciality hardware.

                • It's even sadder that people don't even bother to read the links they post. That's epyc, not thread ripped.

              • In other words, yes, they do, exactly as I said. You are seriously going to spend $4k on a single cpu for home that is clearly not designed for home and then stick it in a $89 mother board with a TB of ram>. Stop being ridiculous.

                • Right right, yes, so in other words the motherboards you're talking about simply don't exist.

                  You know prove me wrong and post a link. Bet you can't.

                  • Someone else already posted a link. Anyway, go to Dell.com and build an enterprise server. You. An put 1+ TB in one. I don't see why you're so resistant to something that I was buying for work almost ten years ago. It isn't a super secret mother board. It's just enterprise and therefore a lot more expensive than the ASUS RoG crap gamers use at home for $150.

                    • Yes yes, in other words the motherboards are talking about don't exist.

                      None of those things you are talking about are threadripper boards. The fact they exist for other cpus is irrelevant to whether you can get more than 256G with this CPU.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Agripa ( 139780 )

              Yes. In the enterprise world we had 1+ TB boards a long time ago. If you can afford a $4k cpu for home you can afford another $1-2k for the main board, too. Oh and that 1TB won't be cheap either.

              The problem in this case is that it has half as many memory channels and only supports unbuffered memory instead of registered memory. So memory capacity is limited by availability of high density DIMMs.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm theory it supports 1TB but there aren't actually any suitable DIMMs or motherboards so in practice 256GB is the max.

          They may never be anything better. They did it so that they don't eat into Epyc sales too much.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            I'm theory it supports 1TB but there aren't actually any suitable DIMMs or motherboards so in practice 256GB is the max.

            They may never be anything better.

            And last year that was what one said about 128 GB. Then Samsung rolled out 32GB UDIMMs using 10nm RAM. The JEDEC spec permits 64 GiB UDIMMs, and don't you doubt that they're coming.

            I don't know why you're blaming motherboard configuration limitations and current UDIMM size limits on AMD. TR 3000 series supports 1 TB. They didn't create any lower limit.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          It supports 1 TiB of RAM. If you're unwilling to get a proper motherboard or to use the unvalidated registered DIMM support, that's on you.

          There's no running TR system with 1TB of RAM, unvalidated or otherwise. There's no combination of actual physical products that can do that, only theoretical support from a spec so you're just trolling.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            There's no running TR system with 1TB of RAM, unvalidated or otherwise. There's no combination of actual physical products that can do that

            The statement was that AMD limited TR to 256 GB. It has not. If you want actual physical products, start demanding higher capacity UDIMMs. JEDEC spec permits 64 GB, so 512 GB is coming once 7 nm RAM production ramps.

          • 1 mobo with 1TB support [tweaktown.com], has 16 DIMM slots.

            A 64Gb LRDIMM can be purchased today, giving you 1TB RAM. [amazon.co.uk]

            (and just for fun... or a 128Gb LRDIMM [amazon.co.uk] giving you 2 TB RAM, though that's just getting silly)

            So, you can. Well, if you're a millionaire with more money than you know what to do with, that is.

    • after a decade of Intel subverting security by designing for speed over data containment

      I would prefer AMD subvert a completely irrelevant to the common person security for an even bigger boost in speed.
      It's a shame they pander to the 0.1% who actually have a hope in hell of being affected by a speculative execution vulnerability.

      • You mean the tiny handful of people using obscure cloud service like AWS and Azure?

      • after a decade of Intel subverting security by designing for speed over data containment

        I would prefer AMD subvert a completely irrelevant to the common person security for an even bigger boost in speed.
        It's a shame they pander to the 0.1% who actually have a hope in hell of being affected by a speculative execution vulnerability.

        Completely irrelevant until the moment (could be days, could be months, could be never) someone develops an easy-to-use, effective way to exploit these flaws. Then, run for the hills.

        For now they're hard to use, apply only in specific scenarios and aren't able to easily extract anything useful.

        I'd prefer every chip maker developed their chips with security in mind by default - and MAYBE allowing the people that really knows what they're doing to disable that security for some extra performance.

      • after a decade of Intel subverting security by designing for speed over data containment

        I would prefer AMD subvert a completely irrelevant to the common person security for an even bigger boost in speed.
        It's a shame they pander to the 0.1% who actually have a hope in hell of being affected by a speculative execution vulnerability.

        You've been on slashdot for a few days now, I'm disappointed you haven't yet discovered the existence of data centers, and how important they are in computing.

  • # of CPU Cores 64 # of Threads 128 Base Clock 2.9GHz Max Boost Clock Up to 4.3GHz Total L1 Cache 4MB Total L2 Cache 32MB Total L3 Cache 256MB Unlocked Yes CMOS TSMC 7nm FinFET Package sTRX4 PCI Express® Version PCIe 4.0 Default TDP / TDP 280W Max Temps 95C *OS Support Windows 10 - 64-Bit Edition RHEL x86 64-Bit 4 MB of L1 cache? Dayum....

  • Oh, I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @12:02PM (#59701850) Homepage Journal

    There's no question, at $3990 MSRP, AMD's Threadripper 3990X isn't a mainstream desktop chip, but for those who need serious workstation performance and throughput, nothing on the desktop even comes close right now.

    Well, let's see... I could pay about 6 grand for a relatively anemic 3.5GHz mac pro with 8 cores and 32 GB of RAM, or I could pay $3990 for this CPU, and still have 2 grand left for motherboard, RAM, case, gfx.

    Seems like a pretty competitive desktop to me.

    \_(oo)_/

    • Chuckle.

      On a positive note, both the 3970X and 3990X are the same socket, power, etc. So, someday in the future, it's a simple matter to pop
      out the 32 core chip and replace with the 64 core one.

      On a not so positive note, the motherboards for these can be somewhat pricey. The one I'm using is a Gigabyte Aorus Master sTRX4 and
      it checks in around $500. Quad channel ram ( the boards will do up to DDR4-3200 ECC / Non-ECC ) prices depending on how much, how
      fast and how reliable you want.

      Case varies depending o

  • Sigh. First we have to endure "optics" for appearances, and now this.

    • You don't use you CPU for milling bits?

      It does sort of analogize though. Speed::clock rate, Feed::I/O bandwidth.

    • Gaaa, metaphorical words, I must fight them!

      Normals are not going to stop using words just because they trigger you. Try to memorize this lesson, it will be important again in the future.

      And what happens when you try to learn machining? Those fuckers swim in metaphor; you have subtract hatred of hippies before even trying to parse out the technical parts.

  • I see articles saying how AMD's stock is down and Intel's is up.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by fintux ( 798480 )
      At the moment of writing this comment, AMD's 1.68% up and Intel 1.07% down (https://www.google.com/search?q=amd+nasdaq, https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]). Also note that AMD's stock has risen (or should I say ryzen :P) to more than four times it was at the release of the first gen Ryzen CPUs. During that time, Intel's has less than doubled. Though I must say, I don't really understand why Intel has gained even that much, especially since all of the speculative execution problems they've had and seem to be

    • Last sale: $49.78 +0.46 0.93%
      52-week high/low: $52.81/$21.035

      AMD appears to be "down" because you don't even read stock charts, Bro.

  • Firefox compilation benchmark:

    * Linus Tech Tips @11:37 [youtu.be] in minutes:seconds:

    3990X = 9:19 mins
    3970X = 9:38 mins

    Linux compilation benchmarks:

    * Techgage [techgage.com]
    3990X = 18.8 seconds
    3970X = 24.1 seconds

    * Phoronix [phoronix.com]

    3990X = 22.48 seconds
    3970X = 23.64 seconds.

    Anyone have any more from other sites?

  • at $3990 MSRP, AMD's Threadripper 3990X isn't a mainstream desktop chip

    I look forward to the day when these are $200 in the used market.

    Though by then I expect Windows 20 will need a 256 qubit processor before it'll even come up to the login screen.

    • Don't bother with Win10 on these things. The scheduler holds back anything supporting more than 64 threads unless you're running an Enterprise build of the OS.

  • Oh please good lord (Score:3)

    by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @02:03PM (#59702324)

    I pray that you keep this out of the hands of software developers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by raynet ( 51803 )

      Why? Wouldn't it just mean that they have to write well threaded and parallel code. Give this to every game developer now!

  • Nice numbers, but could be better... (Score:3)

    by MiniMike ( 234881 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @02:05PM (#59702330)

    the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X commands a hefty $3,990 price point as well

    Sounds great, but I'm going to wait for something like a Threadripper 0150X.

  • Now that I have waited 25 years for AMD and Cyrix to get faster than intel I think I don't care anymore. Too little too late AMD, I'm afraid.
    Or maybe we should wait and see what the latest OS2-WARP257 killer os will be like on threadripper, any minute now?
    200W you say? And I worry when my system current usage jumps above 150mA@3.3v..silly me..

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close