AMD's Threadripper, A 16-Core, 32-Thread Desktop Processor

[propbeanie]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The other end of the spectrum is that both AMD and Intel and microsoft are conspiring to force end users to have Windows 10 in their machines if they want to use the latest CPU's with high number multi cores.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/318...backfires.html

Further, the implementation of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) instead of the original Bios is making things more difficult to get around these obstacles


Quote: That statement was augmented by Microsoft’s Lifecycle Policy FAQ, published last month, which says:
As new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support. This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability and compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon. For example, Windows 10 will be the only supported Windows platform on Intel’s upcoming “Kaby lake” silicon, Qualcomm’s upcoming “8996” silicon, and AMD’s upcoming “Bristol Ridge” silicon.
Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 will continue to be supported for security, reliability, and compatibility on prior generations of processors and chipsets under the standard lifecycle for Windows. This includes most devices available for purchase today by consumers or enterprises and includes generations of silicon such as AMD’s Carrizo [emphasis added] and Intel’s Broadwell and Haswell silicon generations.


http://www.infoworld.com/article/318...backfires.html



https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/1...essors-skylake

I haven't seen anything that mentions if this will affect those higher end users who choose to build their own desktop PC's, purchasing various motherboard and CPU combinations . Hopefully, Computer manufactures who sell their computers retail will object to this and if not, I hope it has a detrimental effect on their computer sales.


The good news is the 16 core designs will probably find their way into high end video cards making PC games considerably more realistic.

It has already affected folks building their own, at least one having posted on this site. They couldn't get a version of Linux to install on their new build until there was a workaround or hack for the UEFI. I'm curious if there will be lawsuits for the cozy relationship between the motherboard manufacturers, the "bios" chip manufacturers, the CPU manufacturers and MS. How can they claim to be "assuring security integrity" with something like that on the newer chipsets? They're burying the "integrity" in a black box that only a select few will have knowledge of, and who knows what else might perchance be in that black box - besides back doors?... I can understand if they incorporate new instruction sets that would only be compatible with newer silicon, but they usually do NOT drop compatibility for all previous versions of an OS that fast - and lock others out. I've been closely watching AMD the last couple of years, rooting for them to get back up and fight, and then they're part of this "consortium" in UEFI... good idea in a way, but really ~bad~ in so many others. "Computer x03DEFA00078 has logged onto the internet in Sanduskey!" "Why, he hasn't paid a $360 parking ticket in Miami! Deny their Windows 10 service! Turn on his camera and mike. Garnish his wages!" "Copy that!" Sometimes I miss my C-64...

[BarracudaUAK]

Originally Posted by propbeanie

It has already affected folks building their own, at least one having posted on this site. They couldn't get a version of Linux to install on their new build until there was a workaround or hack for the UEFI.

...

I think that was installing on a pre-built, Win10 pre-install...
You are talking about the trouble Reece had, right?

Originally Posted by propbeanie

.... I've been closely watching AMD the last couple of years, rooting for them to get back up and fight, and then they're part of this "consortium" in UEFI... good idea in a way, but really ~bad~ in so many others.

...

On the other hand, they are more actively developing their Linux video drivers, and have devs working on the Linux kernel driver for the newer cards.

My PC has the dual bios, but I've got it all set to "Legacy"....

I was thinking about the new 16 core earlier, if I were to wait and get one of these (after the price comes down a bit) that means I will have "jumped" one processor series (the "Ryzen").

First custom PC was a K6-2 500mhz, then the 2nd was a 1.4ghz Athlon (Thunderbird), followed by a 2500xp, I skipped the socket 764 and 939 single core first (and second?)-gen 64bit.
Then my last was a Dual-core 5600x2, then I skipped the Quad-Core Phenom, and now I'm running my FX-8350...

So if I go as planned with the 16 core... I'll be following a pattern that I've had for a very long time!

Barracuda

[propbeanie]

That probably was Reece's adventure that I'm thinking of...

I at first had my son's dual-bios set to UEFI, but we kept getting stopped by it for seemingly unrelated things, the one being a USB hard drive... I'll have to go see if he remembers all of that. We went back to legacy also.

I haven't done me an AMD build since the first of the XP line (3200??). Still have it downstairs, just not plugged in. I actually started with a K6 I believe it was, with the old AT compatibility stuff, where you have to actually press the power button to start it up, and wait for the thing to shut down, then press the power button to turn it off ~after~ you got back to the DOS prompt... My first noodlings with Linux were on a Thunderbird 1400, and it ran SH4 better than the Intel Pentium I had in the other box, though the ATI video card may have been the difference...

16 cores, 32 (is that concurrent??) threads... wow. "My, what a modern age we live in." Maynard G. Krebs - man, just lost over 5 minutes of my life on youtube looking for a Maynard video... my head is now spinning.

[BarracudaUAK]

Originally Posted by propbeanie

That probably was Reece's adventure that I'm thinking of...

I at first had my son's dual-bios set to UEFI, but we kept getting stopped by it for seemingly unrelated things, the one being a USB hard drive... I'll have to go see if he remembers all of that. We went back to legacy also.

I haven't done me an AMD build since the first of the XP line (3200??). Still have it downstairs, just not plugged in. I actually started with a K6 I believe it was, with the old AT compatibility stuff, where you have to actually press the power button to start it up, and wait for the thing to shut down, then press the power button to turn it off ~after~ you got back to the DOS prompt... My first noodlings with Linux were on a Thunderbird 1400, and it ran SH4 better than the Intel Pentium I had in the other box, though the ATI video card may have been the difference...

16 cores, 32 (is that concurrent??) threads... wow. "My, what a modern age we live in." Maynard G. Krebs - man, just lost over 5 minutes of my life on youtube looking for a Maynard video... my head is now spinning.

Your Thunderbird 1400 and my 1.4ghz, would be the same chip...
I used to play games with a friend, LAN party every week at his job, where the boss liked Pentium 3 and 4 processors, same ATI Radeon 8500 video.
My 1.4 would keep up with the 2 ghz P4, and outright stomp the P4 1.4 ghz sytems, and I never overheated as the host!
We were all running Kingston network cards.
(Best network card I've ever had, put it in a machine that was lousy at the game, and it could host WITH NO LAG. I always ended up being the host anywhere else. Plus I usually had the top machine in the group elsewhere. Even when gigabit became "the thing", it still would outperform on hosting even though it was only a 10/100).

First of the "Athlon XP" line was a (I think) 1400XP, was some where around 1.2ghz.
That was the time frame when AMD was labeling their chips based on what Intel chip that my matched the performance of.
I.e. 1400XP=1.4ghz P4, 3200XP=3.2ghz Intel
My 2500XP is actually 1.8ghz...

My K6-2 actually shut itself off... Last one we manually had to shut down was a Pentium 120mhz... I forget when it switched...unless you had an older power supply in it, that would definitely explain that behavior.

[propbeanie]

Yeah, it was a much older power supply... not as old as me, but almost as old as an 8088... I called my T-bird a 1400, because I thought they had already done that "equivalent" stuff. All it ever did was confuse me. Somebody would usually say "my computer is gonna mop the floor with yours!"... Little while later, they'd say "what do you have ~in~ that thing?"... Unfortunately, they dropped the PCI bus with the dual core machines, and I still have a semi-professional PCI sound card that I was doing a lot of work with, especially back then, so I had to go back to intel. Now I've got two teenage boys, I've had to retire, and I can't afford a combo package from eBay... - I'll get me one of them bad-boy 16-core 32-thread thingies one of these days. 'Course, by then, they'll be doing 64 core, 512 concurrent thread thingies... and be using light pipes for data transmission in-the-box...