AMD Delays Ryzen 9 3950X Launch, Announces Third-Gen Threadripper With 24 Cores

(Image credit: AMD)
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • jimmysmitty
    Still going to say TR will start at higher than 16c/32t. Doubt they want to cannibalize their higher margin market with their mainstream products.
    Reply
  • ChaosFenix
    I think what you are saying about AMD holding back some of the chips for their epyc lineup is likely true. The simple fact is that they get higher margins on epyc than they get with consumer. I mean if you can sell an 8c16t cpu for $575 as an EPYC 7262 it just doesn't make much sense to sell it for $330 as a 3700x. The margins are just much better in enterprise.
    Reply
  • hftvhftv
    AMD is definitely trying to take a piece out of the Xeon pie, but in doing so are reducing consumer availability, which sucks
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    hftvhftv said:
    AMD is definitely trying to take a piece out of the Xeon pie, but in doing so are reducing consumer availability, which sucks

    The only problem I see is Intel is attacking HPC from many fronts and is offering many features that AMD might not have, like their FPGSa designed for Data Centers or Optane DIMMs. Its going to take a lot of work on AMDs end to really take a chunk out of Xeons and not just offering more cores per dollar.
    Reply
  • bigdragon
    I regret not buying a 3900X a month ago when I had the chance. The local Micro Center had no problem keeping those in stock for July and most of August. 3900X has been out of stock all September and Micro Center has delisted the product page a few times. Hopefully AMD can fix this availability problem sooner rather than later.

    I can't blame AMD for prioritizing Epyc if that's what they're doing. I know even my work, a long time Intel-only shop, has now started ordering Epyc servers due to Intel's nonstop parade of security issues. There will be growing pains as AMD expands their market share.
    Reply
  • Gillerer
    jimmysmitty said:
    Still going to say TR will start at higher than 16c/32t. Doubt they want to cannibalize their higher margin market with their mainstream products.

    In addition to the memory channels (4 or 8), registered & ECC memory support (on the workstation parts) and PCIe lanes, there is another way they can differentiate between mainstream Ryzen and Threadripper: Number of CPU dies. A 3rd gen. Threadripper could potentially have anything between 1 and 8 of them.

    By using partially disabled dies, but more of them, AMD could increase both the L3 cache amounts as well as memory bandwidth(*. Workstation users could use more cache and more bandwidth to feed the 8 channel memory.

    24 core could be made from 3 dies of 8 cores, 4 x 6 or 6 x 4, which would yield max. 96/128/192MB of L3 cache, and 1.5x/2x/3x the memory bandwidth(* (compared to 64MB and 1x of a 2 CCD design such as 3900X or 3950X).

    If instead of a 16-core (2x8 or 4x4), they decided to go for a 18-core, they could build it from 3 dies of 6 cores each. (As an added bonus, you'd be getting 2 "extra" cores compared to the mainstream CPU, and 18 is halfway between 12 and 24, if a 12-core Threadripper were to be the "starting at" model for people who just need I/O.)


    *) between the CCXes and the I/O die
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    jimmysmitty said:
    Still going to say TR will start at higher than 16c/32t. Doubt they want to cannibalize their higher margin market with their mainstream products.
    The only sales AM4 16-cores would cannibalize is sales to people who need absolutely nothing else than the cores. If you need more RAM capacity, more RAM bandwidth, more IO than 20 host-based PCIe lanes, etc., then AM4 is no-go no matter how many cores AMD puts on it.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Gillerer said:
    By using partially disabled dies, but more of them, AMD could increase both the L3 cache amounts as well as memory bandwidth(*. Workstation users could use more cache and more bandwidth to feed the 8 channel memory.
    Good points, but note that TR motherboards only support 4 memory channels. I'm sure they literally don't wire up the other 4 in the socket.

    What I think would be interesting is if Epyc CPUs supported disabling half of their PCIe lanes and memory channels to slot into TR4 boards where people wanted > 32 cores. That would avoid AMD needing to create more TR SKUs, just to serve that small market segment.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    bit_user said:
    Good points, but note that TR motherboards only support 4 memory channels. I'm sure they literally don't wire up the other 4 in the socket.
    Rumors say ThreadRipper 3 will be available in EPYC-like (octo-channel RAM, 96-128x PCIe4 depending on how many get re used for HSIO) variants, so we'll see TR4 motherboards for each variant, probably under the "WRX" brand to reduce the likelihood of confusion.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    InvalidError said:
    Rumors say ThreadRipper 3 will be available in EPYC-like (octo-channel RAM, 96-128x PCIe4 depending on how many get re used for HSIO) variants, so we'll see TR4 motherboards for each variant, probably under the "WRX" brand to reduce the likelihood of confusion.
    That would be very interesting. Could be seen as (though I'm sure it's not) a F-you to Apple, for going with Intel in their newest Power Mac.

    I just think it'd be nice to see them take advantage of the abstraction provided by the I/O die, in order to unify their workstation & server chip markets. Create more options for everybody, without the burden of so many SKUs.
    Reply