Thoughts on Ryzen Threadripper 1920X & 1950X: AMD's enthusiast monster CPUs

[HardReset]

Sure there's a price difference. Especially since all the Ryzen chips have already been discounted across the entire lineup three months in. That doesn't happen when your new product is flying of the shelves considering according to you, "AMD beats Intel on performance", which is an incredibly naive statement. Does it beat it in power consumption? Memory frequency and compatibility? Stability? Optimization? Gaming? Or does it just beat Intel in a handful of applications? How does it compare with applications companies actually use, because we know they aren't running Cinebench and Handbrake all day.

AMD beats Intel in:

- Power consumption: true
- Memory frequency: no but as official support is DDR4-2666 on both sides, who cares?
- Memory compatibility: no major differences + above
- Stability: true, Intel's platform is more buggy atm
- Gaming: true, because more cores allow more cores for gaming (nobody buys these just for gaming)

Just to remind you, Handbrake and Cinebench are software Intel has traditionally been very strong

Companies currently paying thousands for Intel parts are spending just as much or more for memory. Saving a couple bucks on a cheaper product is not an option for some. Especially an unfimiliar new product that has very little optimizations to compete with what they currently have. Companies don't care about price as much as the average consumer. They want what works and that's all that matters. Throwing out all their current hardware to save a couple bucks is not in their playbook.

Cheaper and better product is not an option for *****s. That's AMD's biggest problem.

Optimizations for what? They can keep everything else same, only CPU and motherboard changes, not major problem at all. Somehow Intel got 90+ market share from much less figures, so switching to Intel from non-x86-64 was not problem. Even smaller problem is switching from Intel x86-64 to AMD x86-64.

Who said they have to throw away current hardware? When they buy new hardware, they buy AMD, simple.

I see the options on the Dell site, but aside from that Ryzen is primarily a boutique shop purchase, because if of its instability as a platform. Testing is especially important with Ryzen to be able to sell it with a warranty. If you look, every single Ryzen system there has 2400MHz memory. And we know why that is, don't we?

Dell is company that has long times used only Intel CPU's so Dell is worst possible example of that.

And btw, Dell's Alienware is only OEM for some time that sells Threadripper OEM machines. So your example is proven crap.

I recommend you check out pcper's latest podcasts. They have more insight on what companies are looking for when it comes to hardware and can explain it better than I can.

Many companies are so stupid that they buy Intel just because it's Intel, no matter if AMD is better in every aspect. There's absolutely nothing to do with anything else than Intel brand. We saw this clearly on 2004-2005 when Intel had nothing against AMD but Intel still sold better for servers. Those server buyers were just *****s. On retail sales, AMD sold better than Intel, because average retail buyer is much wiser than average server buyer. Hopefully things are better now.

This could hurt AMD:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-rma-fraud-on-amazon/

Someone sells fake products and that's AMD's fault because???

If someone sells fake Intel products that's Intel's fault?

Ryzen price drops:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-7-cpu-price-discount/

CPU price cuts happen frequently. Problem?

 

[Puiu]

Sure there's a price difference. Especially since all the Ryzen chips have already been discounted across the entire lineup three months in. That doesn't happen when your new product is flying of the shelves considering according to you, "AMD beats Intel on performance", which is an incredibly naive statement. Does it beat it in power consumption? Memory frequency and compatibility? Stability? Optimization? Gaming? Or does it just beat Intel in a handful of applications? How does it compare with applications companies actually use, because we know they aren't running Cinebench and Handbrake all day.

Companies currently paying thousands for Intel parts are spending just as much or more for memory. Saving a couple bucks on a cheaper product is not an option for some. Especially an unfimiliar new product that has very little optimizations to compete with what they currently have. Companies don't care about price as much as the average consumer. They want what works and that's all that matters. Throwing out all their current hardware to save a couple bucks is not in their playbook.

I see the options on the Dell site, but aside from that Ryzen is primarily a boutique shop purchase, because if of its instability as a platform. Testing is especially important with Ryzen to be able to sell it with a warranty. If you look, every single Ryzen system there has 2400MHz memory. And we know why that is, don't we?

I recommend you check out pcper's latest podcasts. They have more insight on what companies are looking for when it comes to hardware and can explain it better than I can.

This could hurt AMD:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-rma-fraud-on-amazon/

Ryzen price drops:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-7-cpu-price-discount/

pcper (Ryzen Pro and EPYC):

I don't normally say this, but you got rekt dude.
All of your arguments are weak. You talk amount stability which has never been a problem. You talk about consumption, but benchmarks put AMDs cores as being more efficient in power usage. You talk about memory but compatibility has been achieved with constant updates. It's as if you don't know just how many problems intel had when they launched their own platforms. You also talk about optimisations... have you seen any optimisations done yet for the new mesh architecture used by Intel?

And why are you even talking about these things? Everything you say keeps being thrown in your face because you don't do your own research and are just talking based on your "opinion" and not facts.
You said none of the major OEMs are using Ryzen... reading the above comments you found out that 3 out of the 4 are building them. When you were told that you went in and said "hur dur, but it only has 2400MHz memory" .

No, companies will not buy Ryzen in droves, it's to be expected. But the same can be said about companies buying new intel stuff. You won't see companies upgrading to latest and greatest ever. They'll always be at least a gen or 2 behind (even more for many). What AMD is doing is creating a compelling product for companies to possibly upgrade in a few years.
In the next 2 years AMD needs to prove that it has a stable server/workstation platform with good performance and keep its partners happy with good deals. Intel is in a weird situation where their comparable platforms can cost as much as twice more and we also have comparison benchmarks done by Anandtech between Epyc and Xeon where Intel wins by small margin in integer operations and loses kinda hard in floating point operations. There is absolutely no clear winner.

 

[hahahanoobs]

AMD beats Intel in:

- Power consumption: true
- Memory frequency: no but as official support is DDR4-2666 on both sides, who cares?
- Memory compatibility: no major differences + above
- Stability: true, Intel's platform is more buggy atm
- Gaming: true, because more cores allow more cores for gaming (nobody buys these just for gaming)

Just to remind you, Handbrake and Cinebench are software Intel has traditionally been very strong



Cheaper and better product is not an option for *****s. That's AMD's biggest problem.

Optimizations for what? They can keep everything else same, only CPU and motherboard changes, not major problem at all. Somehow Intel got 90+ market share from much less figures, so switching to Intel from non-x86-64 was not problem. Even smaller problem is switching from Intel x86-64 to AMD x86-64.

Who said they have to throw away current hardware? When they buy new hardware, they buy AMD, simple.



Dell is company that has long times used only Intel CPU's so Dell is worst possible example of that.

And btw, Dell's Alienware is only OEM for some time that sells Threadripper OEM machines. So your example is proven crap.



Many companies are so stupid that they buy Intel just because it's Intel, no matter if AMD is better in every aspect. There's absolutely nothing to do with anything else than Intel brand. We saw this clearly on 2004-2005 when Intel had nothing against AMD but Intel still sold better for servers. Those server buyers were just *****s. On retail sales, AMD sold better than Intel, because average retail buyer is much wiser than average server buyer. Hopefully things are better now.



Someone sells fake products and that's AMD's fault because???

If someone sells fake Intel products that's Intel's fault?


CPU price cuts happen frequently. Problem?

Wow. Where to begin...
How did you get AMD is at fault for fake chips from that? Fault of not, if word gets out, people aren't exactly going to rush to buy from AMD. It could very well hurt AMD SALES! You know AMD sells a product right? For money? Common sense really.

Dell using Intel for however long has nothing to do with the low number of OEM's selling Ryzen systems.

Companies are NOT going to swap out their $2000 Intel chips for $1000 AMD parts that are immature and unstable with little to know optimizations in the software they use.

Cinebench is one benchmark. And of course AMD is going to demo software that makes their stuff look better. The question now is, how many moms and dads need 6 cores+ to browse the web and email?

Ryzen is not stable or reliable. I don't have to worry about looking at RAM compatibility lists when I've built my Intel systems. People kinda like reliable things.

1080p is the top resolution on the PLANET, and that isn't where Ryzen shines. That's why AMD's demo's focused on higher resolutions.

AMD is catering to the 20% and not the 80% with Ryzen. It's just fact if you know anything about computer hardware. I get it though. You're getting a lot of cores that sound good on paper, but very few applications used by the majority need even close to that many. There is a reason why the GTX 1060 is top GPU on steam and not the GTX 1080.

Thanks for playing!

 

[hahahanoobs]

I don't normally say this, but you got rekt dude.
All of your arguments are weak. You talk amount stability which has never been a problem. You talk about consumption, but benchmarks put AMDs cores as being more efficient in power usage. You talk about memory but compatibility has been achieved with constant updates. It's as if you don't know just how many problems intel had when they launched their own platforms. You also talk about optimisations... have you seen any optimisations done yet for the new mesh architecture used by Intel?

And why are you even talking about these things? Everything you say keeps being thrown in your face because you don't do your own research and are just talking based on your "opinion" and not facts.
You said none of the major OEMs are using Ryzen... reading the above comments you found out that 3 out of the 4 are building them. When you were told that you went in and said "hur dur, but it only has 2400MHz memory" .

No, companies will not buy Ryzen in droves, it's to be expected. But the same can be said about companies buying new intel stuff. You won't see companies upgrading to latest and greatest ever. They'll always be at least a gen or 2 behind (even more for many). What AMD is doing is creating a compelling product for companies to possibly upgrade in a few years.
In the next 2 years AMD needs to prove that it has a stable server/workstation platform with good performance and keep its partners happy with good deals. Intel is in a weird situation where their comparable platforms can cost as much as twice more and we also have comparison benchmarks done by Anandtech between Epyc and Xeon where Intel wins by small margin in integer operations and loses kinda hard in floating point operations. There is absolutely no clear winner.

I didn't get rekt at all. Ryzen caters to the 20%, not the 80%. Period.

 

[captaincranky]

AMD used LGA on Socket F (2006). You're like 11 years late.

It is with great sadness that I feel I must inform you that your reading ability is well, substandard. The following is a direct quote from the article:

"The new Socket TR4 uses the ‘Land Grid Array’ surface-mount packaging, commonly referred to as LGA. Unlike Ryzen 5 and 7, there are no pins on the CPU itself."

So, according to the article to which we've both responded, AMD is still using some pinned CPUs in 2017.

AMD uses "bigger is better" tactics as 4094>>2066.

Bigger is better, really? The article goes on to state:

Within a Zeppelin die are two CCX modules, so technically Threadripper is two Ryzen 7 CPUs stitched together,

And again, I feel obliged to report, your math skills are underwhelming to say the very least.

Two times 2066 is 4132, which is what Intel's offerings would have, if they had elected to put two discreet CPUs in one gigantic case, which I can only imagine, is simply to the ends of impressing fanboys and imbeciles.

On a more reasonable note, double socket motherboards can be run with only one (1) CPU, which to me indicates better scaling potential.

With all the AMD zombies harping about price, price, price, it calls into question, "how much is AMD losing on every CPU it sells". We already know the tactics of how their last price war with Intel was waged, and that was by using obsolete equipment, and selling 28nm process chips(*), while Intel was down at 14nm.

So, while I wish AMD all the best, we don't know how much, (if any, granted) money was pumped into the company by private equity firms. In many cases, private equity financing amounts to putting lipstick on pig so you can sell it.

(*) Or were they 22nm? The reason I don't know, is because I simply don't care.

And BTW, just because one CPU beats another, that doesn't necessarily indicate that it will make any particular individual a better gamer.

 

[Puiu]

I didn't get rekt at all. Ryzen caters to the 20%, not the 80%. Period.

and that's a problem? nobody expects AMD to get 50% of the market share. it's just impossible. it would have been impossible even if Ryzen beat Intel on everything. with your own words Intel now has competition (even if you are the only guy on the planet who fails to see it).
20% is more than enough to put AMD back on the map and for both hardware manufacturers and software developers to take seriously.

you clearly have some weird biased opinions and when you are presented with facts you go into a super defensive mode. it's a crazy reaction and that's why some went as far as calling you a fanboy.

 

[HardReset]

Wow. Where to begin...
How did you get AMD is at fault for fake chips from that? Fault of not, if word gets out, people aren't exactly going to rush to buy from AMD. It could very well hurt AMD SALES! You know AMD sells a product right? For money? Common sense really.

Most people understand scammers can sell ANY products, it's not limited to AMD CPU's. So if AMD sales is affected, buyers are braindead.

Dell using Intel for however long has nothing to do with the low number of OEM's selling Ryzen systems.

Companies are NOT going to swap out their $2000 Intel chips for $1000 AMD parts that are immature and unstable with little to know optimizations in the software they use.

Cinebench is one benchmark. And of course AMD is going to demo software that makes their stuff look better. The question now is, how many moms and dads need 6 cores+ to browse the web and email?

Ryzen is not stable or reliable. I don't have to worry about looking at RAM compatibility lists when I've built my Intel systems. People kinda like reliable things.

1080p is the top resolution on the PLANET, and that isn't where Ryzen shines. That's why AMD's demo's focused on higher resolutions.

AMD is catering to the 20% and not the 80% with Ryzen. It's just fact if you know anything about computer hardware. I get it though. You're getting a lot of cores that sound good on paper, but very few applications used by the majority need even close to that many. There is a reason why the GTX 1060 is top GPU on steam and not the GTX 1080.

Thanks for playing!

Ryzen has been out quite few months still so some OEM's are not yet ready to release Rzyen OEM machines but situation gets better all time

Companies did swap $1000 other than x86-64 chips Intel x86-64 chips they had absolutely no optimizations because instruction set was different. This time it's only x86-64 CPU to another x86-64 CPU. So what you said is crap-

As I said, Cinebench was benchmark Intel usually showed how good they are. That question is irrelevant when AMD releases Raven Ridge.

RAM Compatibility lists I have NEVER looked any compatibility lists and have built quite few machines. Those QVL lists are 100% useless.

AMD is more than fast enough for any game on 1080p, except some crappy ones that nobody cares. If game is not GPU limited, then settings are too low so CPU has quite small role on gaming.

I use many applications same time, so I need cores. Also Raven Ridge will offer low core counts with good price.

 

[HardReset]

It is with great sadness that I feel I must inform you that your reading ability is well, substandard. The following is a direct quote from the article:

"The new Socket TR4 uses the ‘Land Grid Array’ surface-mount packaging, commonly referred to as LGA. Unlike Ryzen 5 and 7, there are no pins on the CPU itself."

So, according to the article to which we've both responded, AMD is still using some pinned CPUs in 2017.

There is no need for LGA socket on desktop so AMD uses pins. AMD's solution is much better as 1. CPU pins are easy to protect, 2. even if they bent, easy to fix 3. Intel's motherboard quite often come with bent pins and it's somewhat impossible to prove those bent pins was not user error.

Bigger is better, really? The article goes on to state:

Within a Zeppelin die are two CCX modules, so technically Threadripper is two Ryzen 7 CPUs stitched together,

And again, I feel obliged to report, your math skills are underwhelming to say the very least.

Two times 2066 is 4132, which is what Intel's offerings would have, if they had elected to put two discreet CPUs in one gigantic case, which I can only imagine, is simply to the ends of impressing fanboys and imbeciles.

Yeah? AM3+ socket has only 942 pins while Intel's desktop sockets has 115x pins. So 115x>942.

AMD turned this around also on desktop AM4 (1331 pins) > 115x.

Some people will surely feel AMD sockets are better because more pins (y)

With all the AMD zombies harping about price, price, price, it calls into question, "how much is AMD losing on every CPU it sells". We already know the tactics of how their last price war with Intel was waged, and that was by using obsolete equipment, and selling 28nm process chips(*), while Intel was down at 14nm.

So, while I wish AMD all the best, we don't know how much, (if any, granted) money was pumped into the company by private equity firms. In many cases, private equity financing amounts to putting lipstick on pig so you can sell it.

(*) Or were they 22nm? The reason I don't know, is because I simply don't care.

And BTW, just because one CPU beats another, that doesn't necessarily indicate that it will make any particular individual a better gamer.

32nm and 28nm perhaps. Right now AMD is making huge profit on every sold 14nm chip

I really agree on last sentence.

 

[Puiu]

With all the AMD zombies harping about price, price, price, it calls into question, "how much is AMD losing on every CPU it sells". We already know the tactics of how their last price war with Intel was waged, and that was by using obsolete equipment, and selling 28nm process chips(*), while Intel was down at 14nm.

So, while I wish AMD all the best, we don't know how much, (if any, granted) money was pumped into the company by private equity firms. In many cases, private equity financing amounts to putting lipstick on pig so you can sell it.

(*) Or were they 22nm? The reason I don't know, is because I simply don't care.

And BTW, just because one CPU beats another, that doesn't necessarily indicate that it will make any particular individual a better gamer.

I'm going to ignore the whole pin topic, it's irrelevant.

As far as we know from "leaks" and "rumors" it costs AMD very little to make Threadripper chips (120$ for 16 cores?). Because of the Infinity Fabric and the 8 core modules, AMD has incredibly good production yields that allows them to make high core count CPUs easily. The majority of the cost comes from R&D (both the architecture and platform development), software development, marketing and many other things associated with having such huge releases.

Profit per chip should not be a problem, just how long it will take AMD to recoup the huge investment they made into building and releasing the Zen architecture and its platforms (server, workstation and mainstream).

On the other hand, Intel has very high costs for high core count CPUs because of increased complexity and lower yields.

PS: I also agree with your last sentence

 

[soulsassassin]

I'm sorry dude but I can't take you serious when you say stuff like that. you don't seem to see anything, let alone the competition

You are clearly just trolling or you don't know about who is selling Ryzen systems or how well the Ryzen CPUs are selling. You can just do a quick look on amazon's most sold CPUs and you'll see ryzen in 2nd or 3rd position (the 1600 and 1700 are just selling as well as the 7600k and are trading spots from time to time).

You know what else you'll see? Big price cuts on many 7th gen Intel CPUs. It's the result of the "competition" you seem to be ignoring (or not seeing).

As for who is building custom PCs with Ryzen in them: HP (Omen), Acer, iBUYPOWER, CyberpowerPC, MAINGEAR, etc just to name a few. To answer your question: 2 of 4 major OEMs are building AMD systems already with many smaller ones joining the fray.

" It caters to the MINORITY and has some serious issues to this day" - can you tell us some of it's serious issues? because we don't see to be aware of them.

FYI you went from AMD is hiding boost clocks on all cores to a full blown rant about how AMD didn't do well until now (like it's something we didn't know already).

dont take this guy seriously he is just trolling and hating on every AMD related news

 

[captaincranky]

I'm going to ignore the whole pin topic, it's irrelevant.

First off, the post in which I first tackled the, "CPU pins vs. LGA" issue, was one of my "special posts" which consist largely of snot, sarcasm, with a healthy dose of whimsy, "to make the medicine go down", in a manner of speaking. Mr. Laine figured that out very quickly, so kudos to him.

To be sure, I didn't count on a lot of, "4000 pins for 2 CPUs in the same box is way more better than 2000 pins on 1 CPU", doggerel and smack coming back from it.

That said, the psychology of the number of pins on the CPU does factor into perception of the platform, and you can bet that AMD took that into consideration when they designed this new form factor.

On top of which, every time Intel changes sockets, you hear a loud chorus of boos, and "Intel's just screwing with us by changing the socket again"! But when AMD does it, it's automatically accepted as a design triumph... If nothing else, one would think intelligent people would get sick of displaying such blatant bias. But then, many of the same people have no qualms about raking the "iSheep" over the coals. (Neither do I, but that's irrelevant...., um, er, isn't it)?

As far as we know from "leaks" and "rumors" it costs AMD very little to make Threadripper chips (120$ for 16 cores?). Because of the Infinity Fabric and the 8 core modules, AMD has incredibly good production yields that allows them to make high core count CPUs easily. The majority of the cost comes from R&D (both the architecture and platform development), software development, marketing and many other things associated with having such huge releases.

But you can'[t have one without the others, now can you? So, nothing on your list can truly be cost out separately, can it?

Consider this; how much do you think your car insurance would cost, if those companies weren't spending boxcars full of money on "roadblock advertising", across all the major TV networks?

Profit per chip should not be a problem, just how long it will take AMD to recoup the huge investment they made into building and releasing the Zen architecture and its platforms (server, workstation and mainstream).

OK, I've seen plenty of businesses get into financial trouble, then raise prices in an attempt to satisfy their debt to creditors. That's pretty much without exception, a guaranteed fail. All it does is accelerate their demise. One has to speculate they're committing financial seppuku, in the hopes of getting to bankruptcy court, and putting the whole sordid matter to rest.

AMD has been on the financial ropes for quite a while, and while they don't seem to be doing anything as stupid as raising prices, their future still can't be as clear as everyone is making it out to be. Their profit margins still have to be high enough to "outrun the bear" in terms of loan payments and accruing interest.

On the other hand, Intel has very high costs for high core count CPUs because of increased complexity and lower yields.

I'll yield to your knowledge of such matters. The only thing I will say, is I'm pretty sure Intel's attempt at transitioning to a 10nm process, is muddying up their yield numbers. I sincerely doubt they're finding it as easy as their "talking heads department" claimed it would be. <Big "oops"!

 

[captaincranky]

dont take this guy seriously he is just trolling and hating on every AMD related news

OK, you completely lost me with that quote and statement. Who the hell are we supposed to "not take seriously" Puiu, whoever he's quoting, or possibly you?

 

[captaincranky]

There is no need for LGA socket on desktop so AMD uses pins. AMD's solution is much better as 1. CPU pins are easy to protect, 2. even if they bent, easy to fix 3. Intel's motherboard quite often come with bent pins and it's somewhat impossible to prove those bent pins was not user error.
...[ ]...

That's because most of those bent pins ARE user error.

 

[soulsassassin]

OK, you completely lost me with that quote and statement. Who the hell are we supposed to "not take seriously" Puiu, whoever he's quoting, or possibly you?

hahahanoobs look at every AMD related news you see his comments whining about how intel is better

 

[Puiu]

First off, the post in which I first tackled the, "CPU pins vs. LGA" issue, was one of my "special posts" which consist largely of snot, sarcasm, with a healthy dose of whimsy, "to make the medicine go down", in a manner of speaking. Mr. Laine figured that out very quickly, so kudos to him.

To be sure, I didn't count on a lot of, "4000 pins for 2 CPUs in the same box is way more better than 2000 pins on 1 CPU", doggerel and smack coming back from it.

That said, the psychology of the number of pins on the CPU does factor into perception of the platform, and you can bet that AMD took that into consideration when they designed this new form factor.

On top of which, every time Intel changes sockets, you hear a loud chorus of boos, and "Intel's just screwing with us by changing the socket again"! But when AMD does it, it's automatically accepted as a design triumph... If nothing else, one would think intelligent people would get sick of displaying such blatant bias. But then, many of the same people have no qualms about raking the "iSheep" over the coals. (Neither do I, but that's irrelevant...., um, er, isn't it)?

But you can'[t have one without the others, now can you? So, nothing on your list can truly be cost out separately, can it?

Consider this; how much do you think your car insurance would cost, if those companies weren't spending boxcars full of money on "roadblock advertising", across all the major TV networks?

OK, I've seen plenty of businesses get into financial trouble, then raise prices in an attempt to satisfy their debt to creditors. That's pretty much without exception, a guaranteed fail. All it does is accelerate their demise. One has to speculate they're committing financial seppuku, in the hopes of getting to bankruptcy court, and putting the whole sordid matter to rest.

AMD has been on the financial ropes for quite a while, and while they don't seem to be doing anything as stupid as raising prices, their future still can't be as clear as everyone is making it out to be. Their profit margins still have to be high enough to "outrun the bear" in terms of loan payments and accruing interest.

I'll yield to your knowledge of such matters. The only thing I will say, is I'm pretty sure Intel's attempt at transitioning to a 10nm process, is muddying up their yield numbers. I sincerely doubt they're finding it as easy as their "talking heads department" claimed it would be. <Big "oops"!

We'll just have to wait and see. At this point in time we're just speculating on whether AMD will make money again or not.

As for your "But when AMD does it, it's automatically accepted as a design triumph..." statement, AMD doesn't have an HEDT platform so I don't think it's relevant.
If they change the socket after releasing Zen2 then yes, that would be something that even I would have an issue with. Hopefully they will do what they promised to do with the AM4 platform and keep it compatible with new releases for a few years (Zen 3 is what we should get on the same socket).

Although I don't know if 4k pins could have been 2-3k or not, what I do know is that 1331 pins (AM4) is most likely not enough to drive 64 PCI-E lanes and the other I/O AMD incorporated directly to the chip (you can call it a SoC) from the southbridge.

 

[misor]

This statement needs revision:

This kind of extreme platform demands a new name, so superseding Intel’s high-end desktop or HEDT we now have the SHED, which is short for ‘Super High-End Desktop’.

if High-End Desktop = HEDT, then Super High-End Desktop = SHET

and that monster amd cpu which nearly fits in the palm of the beholder....so big... what happened to miniaturization as tech progresses?

 

[HardReset]

I'm going to ignore the whole pin topic, it's irrelevant.

As far as we know from "leaks" and "rumors" it costs AMD very little to make Threadripper chips (120$ for 16 cores?). Because of the Infinity Fabric and the 8 core modules, AMD has incredibly good production yields that allows them to make high core count CPUs easily. The majority of the cost comes from R&D (both the architecture and platform development), software development, marketing and many other things associated with having such huge releases.

Threadripper manufacturing cost estimation (not including R&D etc) but only costs directly related to manufacturing:

Die size: 192mm2 *2
Estimated total yield (including non complete CPU's on silicon wafer edges): 80%
300mm silicon wafer manufacturing cost: $6000
Threadrippers per wafer: 588
Cost per Threadripper: $10
Other direct manufacturing expenses: $20

Total: $30

That's because most of those bent pins ARE user error.

Not all. There are many cases where CPU socket pins are bent out of the box.

We'll just have to wait and see. At this point in time we're just speculating on whether AMD will make money again or not.

As for your "But when AMD does it, it's automatically accepted as a design triumph..." statement, AMD doesn't have an HEDT platform so I don't think it's relevant.
If they change the socket after releasing Zen2 then yes, that would be something that even I would have an issue with. Hopefully they will do what they promised to do with the AM4 platform and keep it compatible with new releases for a few years (Zen 3 is what we should get on the same socket).

AMD promised AM4 compatibility with Zen 2. Zen 3 remains to be seen. AMD has good track record for keeping new CPU's compatible with old sockets so there is hope.

 

[Raoul Duke]

That's because most of those bent pins ARE user error.

Not all. There are many cases where CPU socket pins are bent out of the box.

At the only shop in my city of a million + that you can buy consumer type mobo's, the staff open EVERY mobo sold to check the pins (I'm guessing they've had too many returns, "but it was like that out of the box"). So if a customer has bent pins after they bought it, it is user error.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]....and that monster amd cpu which nearly fits in the palm of the beholder....so big... what happened to miniaturization as tech progresses?

Quite bluntly, AMD is playing the old "size matters card". It's unlikely that even a hard core gamer is likely to fully embrace a dual socket mobo. That would attach far too much, "server stigma", to an allegedly home gaming machine. Yet the numbers are plain as day, it's two CPUs stitched together, and it double the pins, (give or take) of an Intel 17 or Xeon server CPU.. In fact, it's as plain as the CPU covering practically your entire hand.

The "huge package", (pun intended), does solve a couple of issues. First, packaging it a dual CPU platform, is cheaper than two discreet CPUs. An arguable guess might, $800.00 for the dual package, and $500.00 a pop for the twosies.

I'm not terribly interested in the technical breakthroughs" in this field, but I am fully invested in sorting out the bullsh!t, hype, and propaganda doublespeak manufacturers pass off on consumers, in large measure, by simply telling them what they want to hear. And exactly how much of it our, "techspurts", swallow. (another intended pun)..

At the only shop in my city of a million + that you can buy consumer type mobo's, the staff open EVERY mobo sold to check the pins (I'm guessing they've had too many returns, "but it was like that out of the box"). So if a customer has bent pins after they bought it, it is user error.

Every time I read Newegg's consumer reviews, I'm forced to confront an ancient platitude, "empty barrels make the most noise, Thus far, through a half dozen mobos, CPUs, all their attendant hardware, (memory, optical drives, PSUs, video cards, and what have you, Newegg has yet to send me my first bad part.

Yes, and even through Seagate's first "driver bricking scandal", every one of those drives worked right out of the box as well. From personal experience, I can't say anything other than bent mobo pins are a fantasy generated by the incompetent, to try and get money back on stuff they broke. And even if mobos have been known to ship with bent pins, it certainly isn't in the quantities lousy builders are claiming they do.

So, ether I lead a very charmed life,I'm honest, and only have some rudimentary technical skills, at least from experience, I'm not a liar. Because if I did break a part on assembly, I'd wouldn't try to send it back, I'd simply move on with my life and try to be more careful the next time.

 

[captaincranky]

Threadripper manufacturing cost estimation (not including R&D etc) but only costs directly related to manufacturing:

Die size: 192mm2 *2
Estimated total yield (including non complete CPU's on silicon wafer edges): 80%
300mm silicon wafer manufacturing cost: $6000
Threadrippers per wafer: 588
Cost per Threadripper: $10
Other direct manufacturing expenses: $20

Total: $30....[ ].... TBH, that looks like simply a raw materials cost, with no basis in fact or reality once any other real operating costs are factored in.

 

[rpjkw11]

We are seeing great things coming out of AMD. Their new CEO took over a couple years ago and completely restructured the company. After a few years of R&D we are seeing the first products coming out of her vision of the company. AMD offers a much better value over Intel in almost every category. If they can keep up the momentum AMD has the potential to be a great company. AMD doesn't have to beat Intel to be successful (even though personally I would love to see that happen). They just need to be competitive. Wether you are "Team Red" or "Team Blue" it really doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a team to choose. When Intel doesn't have any competition we lose. We'd get slower CPUs for an unfair price.
I'm going to do my best and not let AMDs un-impressing past dilute my opinions. Things are looking up for them, and I think it's only going to get better. There is both enthusiast and budget level products in the pipeline. And if the rumors are true they beat Intel in performance and price.
This is still a new architecture. If AMD can steal a percentage of Intels' market share, developers would start paying more attention and optimizing for AMD which would lead to a more stable and efficient CPUs.
Good show 'ole chap, keep it up!

Spect, you wrote everything I would have written, so I've gotta compliment you. AMD is roaring back and I'm so glad for that. I love competition. AMD is now making Intel properly earn their sales. I've not been this enthused about CPU's in a long time. Perhaps NOW we'll see more reasonable pricing and performance choices.

 

[HardReset]

At the only shop in my city of a million + that you can buy consumer type mobo's, the staff open EVERY mobo sold to check the pins (I'm guessing they've had too many returns, "but it was like that out of the box"). So if a customer has bent pins after they bought it, it is user error.

Not every shop does like that.

Total: $30....[ ].... TBH, that looks like simply a raw materials cost, with no basis in fact or reality once any other real operating costs are factored in.

No, that's total manufacturing cost (excluding R&D). $6000 is pretty standard price for processed 300mm2 wafer (unprocessed wafer cost = material cost is around $500), so $10 comes from processing silicon. $20 should be enough for testing, packaging and such. Even if costs outside processing silicon is $30, it really doesn't change big picture.

 

[wiyosaya]

...[ ]....and that monster amd cpu which nearly fits in the palm of the beholder....so big... what happened to miniaturization as tech progresses?

Quite bluntly, AMD is playing the old "size matters card". It's unlikely that even a hard core gamer is likely to fully embrace a dual socket mobo. That would attach far too much, "server stigma", to an allegedly home gaming machine. Yet the numbers are plain as day, it's two CPUs stitched together, and it double the pins, (give or take) of an Intel 17 or Xeon server CPU.. In fact, it's as plain as the CPU covering practically your entire hand.

OMG! A CPU that covers your entire hand. We are going back to the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_1

 

[Boilerhog146]

We are seeing great things coming out of AMD. Their new CEO took over a couple years ago and completely restructured the company. After a few years of R&D we are seeing the first products coming out of her vision of the company. AMD offers a much better value over Intel in almost every category. If they can keep up the momentum AMD has the potential to be a great company. AMD doesn't have to beat Intel to be successful (even though personally I would love to see that happen). They just need to be competitive. Wether you are "Team Red" or "Team Blue" it really doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a team to choose. When Intel doesn't have any competition we lose. We'd get slower CPUs for an unfair price.
I'm going to do my best and not let AMDs un-impressing past dilute my opinions. Things are looking up for them, and I think it's only going to get better. There is both enthusiast and budget level products in the pipeline. And if the rumors are true they beat Intel in performance and price.
This is still a new architecture. If AMD can steal a percentage of Intels' market share, developers would start paying more attention and optimizing for AMD which would lead to a more stable and efficient CPUs.
Good show 'ole chap, keep it up!

wow, your absolutely right and its only taken a few decades to get here . ,keep up the good work....
This could very well turn into another athlon 64 debacle all over again .AMD will be king for every bit of a year or 2..Intel will pay me to have one of their new x series procs .I'm willing to wait years for that..then we can all look back 10 /12 years from now and say Rysen instead of Athlon, with a hint of sarc.

Seriously ,I do hope AMD does indeed force Intel to hack and slash their prices just because they can ,and still make money.everybody wins!!!

 

[wiyosaya]

wow, your absolutely right and its only taken a few decades to get here . ,keep up the good work....
This could very well turn into another athlon 64 debacle all over again .AMD will be king for every bit of a year or 2..Intel will pay me to have one of their new x series procs .I'm willing to wait years for that..then we can all look back 10 /12 years from now and say Rysen instead of Athlon, with a hint of sarc.

Seriously ,I do hope AMD does indeed force Intel to hack and slash their prices just because they can ,and still make money.everybody wins!!!

My unprofessional opinion, having seen similar elsewhere, is that AMD went to shat when they hired that doof who had business management experience without technical knowledge. What was his name now? Well, anyway, who cares?

They have someone in the head office who realizes that the only way that they can compete with Intel is to innovate. That she just happens to be an engineering genius is a big plus, IMO. Business wonks only care about the quarterly bottom line as if the future of the company has no place in current planning.

Will the AMD board make the same mistake in the future? Could be. But right now, I am certainly happy for Intel's wake-up call.