AMD Threadripper 2 price, models, and specs leak online

[midian182]

Highly anticipated: There was plenty of enticing new hardware unveiled at this year’s Computex, but one product that really got the public excited was Threadripper 2. With the launch of AMD’s second-generation workstation processors just weeks away, pricing and specification leaks have hit the web.

Featuring a massive 32 cores/64 threads and based on the same 12nm ZEN+ architecture as its latest Ryzen desktop CPUs, AMD’s flagship prosumer chip doubles its predecessor’s core/thread count while running in the same TR4 socket as the original Threadripper.

Despite boasting some impressive specs, the Threadripper 1950X launched with a $1,000 price point, making it competitively priced, so it’ll be interesting to find out how much the more powerful successor will cost. Rumors have put the 2990X at around $1,500, but it may be slightly higher.

Videocardz spotted a listing on Canada Computers for the chip that placed it at 2,399 Canadian dollars, which converts to around $1,840 US. The product has since been removed from the site, so there’s always the chance it could have just been a placeholder and not an accurate reflection of the chip's final price.

Elsewhere, several Threadripper 2 parts have appeared in the HWBOT database, they include:

• 2990X: 32 cores/64 threads, base clock of 3.4GHz, Turbo clock of either 4.1GHz or 4.2GHz, 250W TDP
• 2970X: 24 cores/48 threads, base clock of 3.5GHz, (predicted) Turbo clock of 4.2GHz, 180W TDP, expected price of $1499
• 2950X: 16 cores/32 threads, base clock of 3.1GHz, 125W TDP, expected price of $599-$799.

While it's not listed on the database, we’ve also heard of a Threadripper 2920X. The chip, which has a placeholder page on AMD's website, is expected to come with 12 cores and replace the last-gen 1920X.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/75736-threadripper-2-price-specs-leak-online.html

 

[dirtyferret]

 

[Puiu]

Is that with or without tax?

 

[Danny101]

AMD's killing it with the content market. Now if they can just hit it in the gaming part.

 

[thews86]

AMD's killing it with the content market. Now if they can just hit it in the gaming part.

I understand that they must do that in order to win over more of the market, but with how tiny the performance gap is in games (and how big the boost is in everything else) it really shouldn't make a difference to people. I know people want the best and are willing to pay more $$$ for a part that performs 5% better in games, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Looks like they're learning from Intel... make your highest end part crazy expensive and more people seem to buy it... profit margin is always the highest at the high end too Sure, $2,000 sounds like a fair price for a CPU....

 

[tomkaten]

AMD's not a charity, they've been forced to lower their profit margins for years due to sub par products in the CPU market. As soon as they gain a foothold, expect some Intel prices all over their product range. Well, perhaps a bit lower, since Intel also have to pay for all their "buy an exclusive partner" illegal practices.

 

[yeeeeman]

AMD's killing it with the content market. Now if they can just hit it in the gaming part.

I understand that they must do that in order to win over more of the market, but with how tiny the performance gap is in games (and how big the boost is in everything else) it really shouldn't make a difference to people. I know people want the best and are willing to pay more $$$ for a part that performs 5% better in games, just doesn't make sense to me.

Fully agree, the difference in performance in games is overrated by reviews.
People want to get the best, but if they would have a bit of brains they would understand that the difference in performance is not worth the difference in price.

 

[CaptainTom]

Looks like they're learning from Intel... make your highest end part crazy expensive and more people seem to buy it... profit margin is always the highest at the high end too Sure, $2,000 sounds like a fair price for a CPU....

$2,000 is an absolute steal for 32-cores @ 4.2GHz. The 28-core Xeon costs $10,000 from the competition, and it can't even hold 3GHz for more than 1 minute!

Will AMD start marking up prices when Intel is busy being skullcrushed 2019-2021? YES, but they are NOT doing it yet lol.

You are allowed to call AMD greedy when they charge $15,000 for their 5GHz 96-core cpu in 2021.

 

[Footlong]

AMD's killing it with the content market. Now if they can just hit it in the gaming part.

Actually, AMD is going pretty well in the gaming market. So good in fact that their product is dominating that segment, the two products are called Xbox One and PS4. What AMD needs are a good middle and top middle products. In Steam surveys, at least, GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 are the most popular. Previously it was the GTX 970 and GTX 960. Enthusiast is a good market, but the bread and butter of the silicon market is middle and top middle products.

 

[LeoLancaster]

AMD's killing it with the content market. Now if they can just hit it in the gaming part.

I understand that they must do that in order to win over more of the market, but with how tiny the performance gap is in games (and how big the boost is in everything else) it really shouldn't make a difference to people. I know people want the best and are willing to pay more $$$ for a part that performs 5% better in games, just doesn't make sense to me.

They don’t even win in all productivity. Intel wins in most video editing (the process of editing itself usually prefers higher clock speeds and rendering is improved by utilizing the igpu), music production (clock speeds), and even doesn’t strictly lose in 3D modeling (they lose in rendering but win in actual modeling process, similarly to video editing).

Ryzen 2600 is roughly on par with an 8400 in gaming (worse when not overclocked and/or without b-die memory, better when overclocked and with b-die memory), and costs about the same (less at stock, more with a good cooler for an overclock and b-die memory). So I don’t get where the idea that ryzen is cheaper than intel comes from either.

Ryzen is great, but it’s not some mystical intel killer.

 

[mbrowne5061]

AMD's killing it with the content market. Now if they can just hit it in the gaming part.

Actually, AMD is going pretty well in the gaming market. So good in fact that their product is dominating that segment, the two products are called Xbox One and PS4. What AMD needs are a good middle and top middle products. In Steam surveys, at least, GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 are the most popular. Previously it was the GTX 970 and GTX 960. Enthusiast is a good market, but the bread and butter of the silicon market is middle and top middle products.

GPU!=CPU

 

[wiyosaya]

Personally, I am hoping that the 2990X does not come in at $1,800. If it does come in at that price, this is something else that we can thank sIntel for, IMO.

 

[wiyosaya]

$2,000 is an absolute steal for 32-cores @ 4.2GHz. The 28-core Xeon costs $10,000 from the competition, and it can't even hold 3GHz for more than 1 minute!

Will AMD start marking up prices when Intel is busy being skullcrushed 2019-2021? YES, but they are NOT doing it yet lol.

You are allowed to call AMD greedy when they charge $15,000 for their 5GHz 96-core cpu in 2021.

As I see it, the net effect of sIntel not having competition was for them to be able to set the market price for CPUs. Personally, I do not see that as necessarily a good thing. We know sIntel is greedy and we know that every company has a right to make a profit, but gouging like that with a $10k cpu price does not help consumers, IMO. If AMD decides to go this route, in the long run I think it will hurt them.

 

[thews86]

They don’t even win in all productivity. Intel wins in most video editing (the process of editing itself usually prefers higher clock speeds and rendering is improved by utilizing the igpu), music production (clock speeds), and even doesn’t strictly lose in 3D modeling (they lose in rendering but win in actual modeling process, similarly to video editing).

Ryzen 2600 is roughly on par with an 8400 in gaming (worse when not overclocked and/or without b-die memory, better when overclocked and with b-die memory), and costs about the same (less at stock, more with a good cooler for an overclock and b-die memory). So I don’t get where the idea that ryzen is cheaper than intel comes from either.

Ryzen is great, but it’s not some mystical intel killer.

Nobody ever said it was a ''mystical intel killer''. What I do with my PC is game, stream, and run virtual machines (two at the same time). My new 2700x is way better than my 6700k in doing these tasks. I would dedicate a core each to Tails OS and and Droid4x, my 6700K and 980ti would barely push above 60fps in most games with 2 cores, when I wasnt running VMs and emulators I would get my full 144fps. With my 2700x I don't notice a thing while gaming and performing these tasks, I get full performance. Streaming on the 6700k wasnt bad, but temps would get extremely high and fans would start blowing loudly, even on water (admittedly, it was overclocked to 4.6ghz, but my 2700x is at 4.2ghz so no excuses for Intel), not the case for my 2700x. The idea that AMD is cheaper comes from the fact that the processor is $20 cheaper on Amazon and $30 on Newegg. Intel Motherboards are also more expensive and lower end models are not overclockable, unlike AMDs offerings. The 8700k offers 16pcie lanes while the 2700x offers 20. Threadripper annihilates Intel in the high end market, with all of the CPUs in the line offering 64 pcie lanes. Intel CPUs that compare with Threadripper cost an ear and a penis to get. If you strictly play games go and buy an I7 8700k to get your7fps boost.

 

[Danny101]

Once software catches up to utilizing the multi-cores, then there won't be a lot of difference anyway. I watched a video where a 64-core 1.3 Ghz Intel Xeon was put together to play a game and it was still unplayable. It was sad. I understand programming to multi-cores is difficult, but it's a challenge that needs to be overcome. More modularity in programs and smarter multi-core aggregate managers in the OS's seems to be what's needed.

 

[wiyosaya]

I understand programming to multi-cores is difficult, but it's a challenge that needs to be overcome. More modularity in programs and smarter multi-core aggregate managers in the OS's seems to be what's needed.

From personal experience as a programmer, the details of cores are not available in the high-level languages like C#, or the other language that I work in for finite element, fortran (oh I can hear the laughs now). However, both of those languages support multi-threading. In fact, there is a fortran available called "Cuda Fortran" specifically designed to run on nVidia GPUs. https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-fortran

The fortan program is the main calculation engine for the finite element program I work on, and while it takes a bit of effort to isolate sections of code that can be multi-threaded from sections that must run single threaded, it is not all that difficult with tools available to help profile the application. There are sections in the fortran program where it spins off multiple threads and it will use as many threads as there is on the system, so if there are 8, hyperthreaded cores, it will use 16-threads in the multithreaded sections. Basically, give it threads, it will use them, and there is nothing in the code that limits the amount of threads that the program uses in the multi-threaded sections. In a way, it is literally program for multi-threading and forget - with language constructs in fortran like "do concurrent" and in C# like "parallel.for" and "parallel.foreach" or "task.start".

I am not a game programmer, though, and I really do not know the details of what it takes to do multi-threaded programming for games, however, I imagine it is not all that different from what I did to thread the FE calculation engine. It was not multi-threaded when I took it over. Honestly, I would be surprised if game programming has to be done in an entirely serial fashion.

 

[yeeeeman]

As I see it, the net effect of sIntel not having competition was for them to be able to set the market price for CPUs. Personally, I do not see that as necessarily a good thing. We know sIntel is greedy and we know that every company has a right to make a profit, but gouging like that with a $10k cpu price does not help consumers, IMO. If AMD decides to go this route, in the long run I think it will hurt them.

I believe that 2K $ for 4 CCX (I.e. 4x 2700x) is a fair price given the added complexity of the implementation and platform. They have two options: either sell it like this (which is fair in my opinion) or not sell it at all and expect the moment (a few years time) when a 32 core cpu will be worth 500 bucks so that users will be happy.

Compare this to Intel, who did the following: selling a 4 core for 300$ and a 10 core for 2000$. That is not the same as what AMD is proposing now with the 2990X, if I recall some maths from the first grades.

 

[wiyosaya]

I believe that 2K $ for 4 CCX (I.e. 4x 2700x) is a fair price given the added complexity of the implementation and platform. They have two options: either sell it like this (which is fair in my opinion) or not sell it at all and expect the moment (a few years time) when a 32 core cpu will be worth 500 bucks so that users will be happy.

Compare this to Intel, who did the following: selling a 4 core for 300$ and a 10 core for 2000$. That is not the same as what AMD is proposing now with the 2990X, if I recall some maths from the first grades.

Like I said, it is because sIntel has pushed the market price so high in the first place that prices like that can be considered acceptable in the market.

Infinity fabric is designed from the start to be scalable, and as you may, or may not recall, these will also run in the existing TR4 socket on existing MBs with the X399 chipset. An argument that there is something extra needed in terms of implementation and platform to handle the extra cores as a justificaiton for a substantially higher price is rather unimpressive, IMO.

 

[yeeeeman]

I see you don't quite understand some things here.
TR platform has a few benefits, one of them being the multiple PCIex lanes, more memory supported and the simple fact that you can get 32 cores on a single motherboard. If we look at 2700X which is 320$, multiply it by 4, we get 1300$ ish. Add the fact that you really have to pay extra for an exotic part and 500$ premium until the 1800$ price is justified.

What you say is like you expect that if a 100HP car costs 15K $, then a lamborghini with 600hp should be 15k x 6, which is not. In any other area you have to pay a premium for premium.

Getting back to the initial problem, Intel also did this, but they offered much less compared to AMD at a bigger price, 2000$. This is the big difference between what AMD is doing now and what Intel has been doing for some time.

 

[wiyosaya]

I see you don't quite understand some things here.
TR platform has a few benefits, one of them being the multiple PCIex lanes, more memory supported and the simple fact that you can get 32 cores on a single motherboard. If we look at 2700X which is 320$, multiply it by 4, we get 1300$ ish. Add the fact that you really have to pay extra for an exotic part and 500$ premium until the 1800$ price is justified.

What you say is like you expect that if a 100HP car costs 15K $, then a lamborghini with 600hp should be 15k x 6, which is not. In any other area you have to pay a premium for premium.

Getting back to the initial problem, Intel also did this, but they offered much less compared to AMD at a bigger price, 2000$. This is the big difference between what AMD is doing now and what Intel has been doing for some time.

sIntel did it because they could - that is - they had no competition. My bet is that they sold far less parts than they would have if they had more reasonably priced the part. Most enthusiast web sites specifically stated that if money were no object, then those high-end parts were the ones to buy; otherwise, the value was not there.

To me, the thing is with what is cited as premium, such as a Lamborghini, there is a mystique that has been generated through marketing which some people buy into. Take another premium car brand, Mercedes. Typically, repair histories on Mercedes are far worse than other brands yet people buy them because of the mystique. Mercedes, and other luxury brands, price in part based on their mystique. There was an article not too long ago in Consumer Reports where CR surveyed its readers at to what those readers found to be quality automobiles.

I found it very interesting in that in terms of automobile repairs, if someone always owned a car brand that needed a significant number of repairs and never owned another brand, they thought that the brand they had chosen represented a quality brand because they never experienced anything else. This in spite of the fact that other brands needed sometimes substantially less repairs and were thus significantly more reliable.

Companies can market something as high-end, price it that way, and it sells because those it sells to know no better; some of those people simply buy into the marketing without investigating other options and assume that because whatever it is costs a significant amount of money, it must be the best. As I see it, though, a high price tag does not necessarily equate to quality and often that high price tag equates to less quality.

We won't know until the parts hit the street what the price will be. However, if AMD keeps the price more in line with the scaling you imply above, my bet is they will sell far more than if they follow sIntel's lead. I am not a money is not an object buyer - even if I had the money, I would still look at value for my money.

As I see it, if I give my money to someone for a sub-par item when I could have spent less on a high-quality item, then I am simply asking to be defrauded.