Also, even if the 24-core has 1 core disabled in each of the 8 CCX's, this doesn't preclude many of the dies coming from the same pile as the fully enabled ones; there may not be enough faulty ones for all the lower-tiered products in all of AMD's CPU product stack.
Like Tchamber said, that's not how percentages work..
24 = 100% of the 2970WX core count + 12 = 50% of the 2970WX core count ---------------------------------------------------- 32 = 150% of the 2970WX core count
The 2970WX has 2/3 the core count of the 2990WX = 66.6%
Dishonest? How so? I saw a graph somewhere that showed the new AMD CPUs boosting just enough to stay within a watt or so of the TDP when properly loaded, and not going over.
If you increase the power limits, it's another thing entirely - namely overclocking, and then the CPU will consume more than 250 W.
The TDP isn't set based on what a particular CPU model is capable of. Instead the manufacturer comes up with only a few convenient TDP points and assigns products to them. Then systems and cooling equipment can be designed based on few predetermined configurations, instead of each CPU needing specially designed hardware. Imagine if each of AMD's current CPUs had different power and cooling requirements!
two with direct access to local memory, and two with access to memory via the Infinity Fabric.
sounds like a combination of trying to get as much raw speed out of the "active cores" as possible while the other ones are not dealing with as much load level so even if they run "at a slower clock" that is ok because they are not being tasked quite so hard so a bit more latency or lower speed will not "hurt" as much.
AMD IMO is SERIOUSLY looking on how to make the experience better and better with worthwhile changes, whereas their 2 direct competition (Intel and Nv) are more focused on FUD to dismantle AMD stock price and/or putting stuff in there that is not ready for primetime, just so that they can jack the price as high as they possibly can (so early adopters being 100% legit guinea pigs)
I do not "hate" Intel as much as I vastly despise Nv actions.
Soooooo when are supposed tech sites configure the 2999WX to workloads akin to the 2970WX or a 2950WX, then benchmark it as the reconfigurable CPU that it is???
There is really no need to replace the 1900X. It is aimed at a specific market where programs are dominated by memory access. If you want to talk about how to get decent Lisp performance on existing processors, I can help. But even large/huge pages can't help all that much. (There are also some database uses, especially non-relational databases optimized as mailservers or some accounting applications.)
Anyway given the price of Threadripper motherboards, leaving 8 cores to mainstream Ryzen and starting Threadripper at 12 cores makes sense.
Wonder where the ECC memory situation is headed for the AM4 platform (or the successor to it). With all this horsepower at this price level, it'd be good to see cheaper workstations.
Wonder if i benefit from: TR 2920X in any way if i mostly games and do bit of PS,After Effects and maybe soon Premiere Pro or should i just get 2700X? Any thoughts?
@milkod2001 If you spend a lot of time encoding video in Premiere Pro, you'll benefit from extra cores. I don't think your usage scenario generates any other such workloads, so if that isn't what you do in Premiere Pro, then most of your cores will sit around doing nothing most of the time, in which case fewer cores with a higher IPC/core would be more useful.
Most desktop software isn't highly multithreaded. While Windows will maintain hundreds of threads at any given time, 99.9% of them are typically dormant, waiting for some other part of the software to open up the software-gate blocking their way so they can let rip. Games practically never go beyond four threads, and even having 4 is very rare.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
27 Comments
Back to Article
Machinus - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
How can the 2990 have identical clocks and TDP but 150% of the cores of the 2970?pogostick - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
TDP is not an exact science.Hul8 - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
First: The 2990WX has only 133% the cores of the 2970WX: 32 / 24 = 1.333...Reason for the same TDP is probably two-fold:
1) the 24-core part can boost higher in higher-load situations while keeping to the same power and thermal constraints; and
2) the 32-core is made up of (even more) specially binned dies.
Hul8 - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
Also, even if the 24-core has 1 core disabled in each of the 8 CCX's, this doesn't preclude many of the dies coming from the same pile as the fully enabled ones; there may not be enough faulty ones for all the lower-tiered products in all of AMD's CPU product stack.Tchamber - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
@Hul8That's not how you figure percentages. It IS 150% because 24*1.5=32.
1_rick - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
You might wanna dig out your calculator and check your math there.Tchamber - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
LOL, mild dyslexia...Jeremy G - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
I'm going to back you up here and see if they check our math ;)Jeremy G - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
Like Tchamber said, that's not how percentages work..24 = 100% of the 2970WX core count
+
12 = 50% of the 2970WX core count
----------------------------------------------------
32 = 150% of the 2970WX core count
The 2970WX has 2/3 the core count of the 2990WX = 66.6%
Probably the reason you were confused.
Death666Angel - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
24 + 12 = 32 now? That's 36 in my world, but maybe I'm wrong.CamelCased - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
You do not understand how mathematics work, and therefore you have no business making any attempt to correct someone.The sum of 24 and 12 is 36, any third grader can tell you that.
24 / 32 = .75 or 75%. Better luck next time!
silverblue - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Put simply, 32 is 33.3% more than 24, or 4/3. Conversely, 24 is 75% of 32, or 3/4. Just shift the numbers either side of the /.Machinus - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
woops. I was so annoyed by the dishonest TDPs that I didn't read the right numbers in the table in my rush to post!looks like the era of alternative facts has even infected basic arithmetic though! anandtech comments currently debating basic fractions!
Hul8 - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link
Dishonest? How so? I saw a graph somewhere that showed the new AMD CPUs boosting just enough to stay within a watt or so of the TDP when properly loaded, and not going over.If you increase the power limits, it's another thing entirely - namely overclocking, and then the CPU will consume more than 250 W.
The TDP isn't set based on what a particular CPU model is capable of. Instead the manufacturer comes up with only a few convenient TDP points and assigns products to them. Then systems and cooling equipment can be designed based on few predetermined configurations, instead of each CPU needing specially designed hardware. Imagine if each of AMD's current CPUs had different power and cooling requirements!
Hul8 - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link
should have started "The TDP isn't set based solely on..."Dragonstongue - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/20...two with direct access to local memory, and two with access to memory via the Infinity Fabric.
sounds like a combination of trying to get as much raw speed out of the "active cores" as possible while the other ones are not dealing with as much load level so even if they run "at a slower clock" that is ok because they are not being tasked quite so hard so a bit more latency or lower speed will not "hurt" as much.
AMD IMO is SERIOUSLY looking on how to make the experience better and better with worthwhile changes, whereas their 2 direct competition (Intel and Nv) are more focused on FUD to dismantle AMD stock price and/or putting stuff in there that is not ready for primetime, just so that they can jack the price as high as they possibly can (so early adopters being 100% legit guinea pigs)
I do not "hate" Intel as much as I vastly despise Nv actions.
bill.rookard - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
12c/24t @ $649? Where do I sign for one of those... seems to be a pretty good sweet spot between price and performance.AshlayW - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
It is good but 1920X can be had for under $400 which goes from "sweet spot" to "insane" value. :)Death666Angel - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
If only there were more mATX options and they were a bit cheaper. It rubs me the wrong way, spending as much money on a motherboard as the CPU costs.ash9 - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
Soooooo when are supposed tech sites configure the 2999WX to workloads akin to the 2970WX or a 2950WX, then benchmark it as the reconfigurable CPU that it is???ash9 - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link
…..Guess I'll just do it myselftyger11 - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link
So no 2900X?eachus - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link
There is really no need to replace the 1900X. It is aimed at a specific market where programs are dominated by memory access. If you want to talk about how to get decent Lisp performance on existing processors, I can help. But even large/huge pages can't help all that much. (There are also some database uses, especially non-relational databases optimized as mailservers or some accounting applications.)Anyway given the price of Threadripper motherboards, leaving 8 cores to mainstream Ryzen and starting Threadripper at 12 cores makes sense.
Namisecond - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Wonder where the ECC memory situation is headed for the AM4 platform (or the successor to it). With all this horsepower at this price level, it'd be good to see cheaper workstations.milkod2001 - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
Wonder if i benefit from: TR 2920X in any way if i mostly games and do bit of PS,After Effects and maybe soon Premiere Pro or should i just get 2700X? Any thoughts?a5cent - Thursday, October 11, 2018 - link
@milkod2001If you spend a lot of time encoding video in Premiere Pro, you'll benefit from extra cores. I don't think your usage scenario generates any other such workloads, so if that isn't what you do in Premiere Pro, then most of your cores will sit around doing nothing most of the time, in which case fewer cores with a higher IPC/core would be more useful.
Most desktop software isn't highly multithreaded. While Windows will maintain hundreds of threads at any given time, 99.9% of them are typically dormant, waiting for some other part of the software to open up the software-gate blocking their way so they can let rip. Games practically never go beyond four threads, and even having 4 is very rare.