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

[vienna]

AMD just got really serious about being big dog on the block:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31971...e-desktop.html



<O>

[BarracudaUAK]

I haven't read it yet, but I was waiting on this...

Had a feeling this is what they would do next.

Barracuda

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by vienna

AMD just got really serious about being big dog on the block:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31971...e-desktop.html



<O>

Advances are coming by leaps and bounds now. This will be good news for people involved in video editing and tasks that stress processing power. I don't know if this will help people involved in gaming as most games only utilize one core. I'm wondering what AMD's Threadripper single core performance will be like as Intel will undoubtedly counter their CPU's are better in this area.

Are there games out there that can use more than one core ?


GT 182 built a computer using an AMD 6 core CPU and motherboard and says it's great. I'm sure an AMD 16 will be even better. I use a quad core AMD and it's TDP ( thermal design power ) is 15 as opposed to a dual core Intel at 45nm and 95 TDP . On the other hand, Intel and AMD measure TDP differently, so.....


Thanks for the info Vienna.

[vienna]

The truly sad part about technology as it advances and how it is used is how often it is under used and a lot of that has to to with executive decisions regarding who gets what; I've been involved in PCs since the days when they first entered the everyday workplace and I have seen the same scenario every time; workloads and time considerations will over-stress the technological abilities of the regular workers actually producing the results, but executives will squeeze the last bit of use out of those workers' outdated/inadequate technology and then wonder why productivity has lessened; in the mean time, those same executives feel no considerations of cost when they select and purchase technology for the own offices; I can't tell you how many times I've had to struggle to keep machines on their last legs operational for the workers while the boss has just purchased the biggest, most powerful desktop or laptop, with the best performance specs, just so they can send and answer their e-mail and schedule their golf games. I can think of only one or two situations where a manager, executive or director has had the wisdom to forego having the most powerful paperweight around on his desk in favor of making sure those who do the actual work have proper and sufficient tools; one upside is the technology has gotten so powerful and complex, a lot of the executive types who I described as impediments are fading slowly form the business world and the task of making the final decisions of tech implementation is falling to CIOs and IT professionals...




<O>

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by vienna

The truly sad part about technology as it advances and how it is used is how often it is under used and a lot of that has to to with executive decisions regarding who gets what; I've been involved in PCs since the days when they first entered the everyday workplace and I have seen the same scenario every time; workloads and time considerations will over-stress the technological abilities of the regular workers actually producing the results, but executives will squeeze the last bit of use out of those workers' outdated/inadequate technology and then wonder why productivity has lessened; in the mean time, those same executives feel no considerations of cost when they select and purchase technology for the own offices; I can't tell you how many times I've had to struggle to keep machines on their last legs operational for the workers while the boss has just purchased the biggest, most powerful desktop or laptop, with the best performance specs, just so they can send and answer their e-mail and schedule their golf games. I can think of only one or two situations where a manager, executive or director has had the wisdom to forego having the most powerful paperweight around on his desk in favor of making sure those who do the actual work have proper and sufficient tools; one upside is the technology has gotten so powerful and complex, a lot of the executive types who I described as impediments are fading slowly form the business world and the task of making the final decisions of tech implementation is falling to CIOs and IT professionals...




<O>

Yup, bad management has no bounds. They are paid by a company they are killing. The appearance of prestige is more important than actually using that prestige to make their company more successful.

Oh well. It's a self-limiting insanity. Unfortunately a lot of good, hard-working people tend to lose their jobs before the buffoon goes out the door.

Of course, the people buying expensive paperweights finance the next level of technology, having more money than brains, serving as unpaid testers and buying enough units so economies of scale can allow you and I to buy that $1000 microprocessor for $200 the year after.

If there were a lot more stupid rich people we'd be much better off. I prefer to call them "adventurous" and in the business they are called "early adopters."

[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.

[Rockin Robbins]

The bad news is that this will force more and more people to Linux, which will close the gap on gamability of their operating system, but it won't be instantaneous.

There will come a time when Linux will play games better than Windows and will not discriminate between microprocessors. It won't mine you for information and charge you $100 for the cheapest version of their operating system. It will not serve you ads in your file manager.

The end result will be no Microsoft and your computer will work much better. But there will be a little pain first.

[Commander Wallace]

I don't think it's bad news at all. If more people switch to Linux or it's many derivatives, then it's great news for them. If Intel and AMD want to connect their future and fortunes to a sinking ship ( Microsoft ) then it opens the door to perhaps another manufacturer of chips without misguided allegiances. I'm sure other companies with a production base are watching developments closely. Microsoft is just pushing a bad position and making things worse for themselves. That's the way of business.

A number of our Subsim members have constructed their own computers, you included Rockin Robbins, based on yours and their respective needs and specifications. If Microsoft continues to alienate their customers and clientele, I'm sure this trend will continue and grow.

[BarracudaUAK]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

...

Are there games out there that can use more than one core ?

...

Short answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer...

I read recently on a forum dealing with modding the Mass Effect series, that Mass Effect (the first one, hereafter "ME1") was using 2 cores on a 4 core PC.
(They were noting differences in CPU/GPU and reported stuttering on newer chips and newer versions of Windows.)

Mass Effect 2, while it would run on (for example) a AMD 3200xp single-core, "Minimum Requirements" were a dual-core of slightly lower MHZ.

I've also read of some newer games (minimum requirements are quad-core and up processors) that use 4 cores...

Now this is where things can get a bit screwy...
Mass Effect 2, when I run it on my FX-8350 with WINE, will raise all cores to the same load, ~25%.

I know of several games that are definitely single-thread programs, yet when I run them with WINE, I see several of my cores increase on my "CPU Load Monitor".
A game that I ran on my Athlon 5600x2, which raised the load on both CPUs, running that on my FX-8350 raises the load on ALL 8 of my CPUs.
Just not as much as the dual core.
For example, the dual might climb to 60%, but the 8x hovers around 20% for the same game, but newer Kernel/KDE.

On the dual core, with WinXP, I had several games that would raise one of the cores to between 70-90%, with the other running about ~25%.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

...
A number of our Subsim members have constructed their own computers, you included Rockin Robbins, based on yours and their respective needs and specifications. If Microsoft continues to alienate their customers and clientele, I'm sure this trend will continue and grow.

I haven't bought a pre-built PC... ever, if we don't count anything older than the 486, which were given to me way back when.

I always found it, simply less expensive to build my own.
Get exactly what I want, how I want it, from the manufacturer that I want it from (mainly video cards), for less.
The only downside was purchasing a new Windows.
Now with Linux it really doesn't matter.

A friend had me spec. and build a PC for his wife, who needed it for work. As the "master" spreadsheet was so large, that while it worked on the "work" desktop, it would crash the "work" laptop.

So he told me "watch 4k video",
"handle a 1GB spreadsheet",
and "maybe occasionally play a game, I've still got my game PC".
"Budget is X dollars".

And I did, and she loves it.
As a "work" machine, it will probably be "better" than what most corporations buy as "work machines" 10 years after we built it!
You can't get that machine prebuilt, closest to that PCs specs was well over $2,500!

-----
I edited this, as I got the nagging feeling that I posted this before... or maybe I typed it up, realized it was too long, then deleted it, and posted something shorter...
Sorry if I'm stuck on repeat mode here.

Barracuda

[Commander Wallace]

Thanks Barracuda for the in depth answer. I don't play PC games or anything else for that matter very often so I wasn't sure if the current games could take advantage of the multiple cores in current computer systems.

As far as repeating yourself, It's all good. we have all done that at one point or another. Considering the complexity of the questions asked, it's easy to lose track of what was said.

I followed what others here in the forum have said when they have detailed their work in constructing their own computers. GT182 is one of them. Like you and your friends, he is happy with the quality build he ended up with. Like you said, I think you can get more quality components and have a better computer for what you would pay for a pre built unit. Linux seems to be the answer as far as finding a suitable alternative to Microsoft Windows in a computer build.

Thanks to the work you and others have done in Linux, people know they have a viable alternative to Windows.

[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...