AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs

Now prices? https://www.eteknix.com/amd-3rd-gen-threadripper-prices-are-possibly-revealed/

 

Oh a 4th reason the 3960x is not x399 compatible. If it were no one would want a 1st or 2nd gen TR for an upgrade or even a new build. This would severely devalue those chips. So again for marketing we suffer.

And;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...ing-up-to-60-percent-faster-too/#4396ccb460ee
https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/07/amd-threadripper-3970x-32-cores/

AMD verified 2nd gen TR chips will still be available. I have a finger for you AMD and it is not a thumbs up!

 

So $1400 for the 24 core and $2000 for the 32 core, 24 core with 3.8/4.5ghz single core boost and 32 core with 3.7GHz and 4.5GHz boost.

PCIe expanded to 72 usable lanes, according to one I've watched so far.

Remember my value examination and saying $1400? Called it.

 

MicroCenter has the Ryzen 7 3800X for $349.99. That's a more compelling proposition than its original MSRP if you want the extra frequency bump over the 3700X, which they're selling for $319.99.

 

Like I said for a drop in I figured on $1,400 to $1,500 the 8 lanes of pcie opened are for compatibility too 8 channel memory later on but this is not a requirement of quad channel.

Edit; the only thing I can think of to trade the current finger I have for AMD for a thumbs up is they put up a program to let current users trade in their x399 boards for a comparable TRX40 board for say $100 USD

 

AMD's announcing...

AMD Introduces World’s Most Powerful 16-core Consumer Desktop Processor, the AMD Ryzen™ 9 3950X
– AMD Ryzen™ 9 3950X rounds out 3rd Gen Ryzen desktop processor series, arriving November 25 –
– New AMD Athlon™ 3000G processor to provide everyday users with unmatched performance per dollar, coming November 19 –
SANTA CLARA, Calif., 11/07/2019
https://www.amd.com/en/press-releas...t-powerful-16-core-consumer-desktop-processor

AMD Introduces World’s Fastest High-End Desktop Processors With 3rd Gen Ryzen Threadripper Family: Delivering Unmatched Performance With No Compromises
Powerful 32-core AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3970X and 24-core 3960X processors provide up to 90 percent more performance and up to 2.5X more available storage bandwidth than competitive offerings
SANTA CLARA, Calif., 11/07/2019
https://www.amd.com/en/press-releas...est-high-end-desktop-processors-3rd-gen-ryzen

AMD TRX40 Motherboards for 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ Processors
https://www.amd.com/en/chipsets/str40

Specifications

• Quad-Channel DDR4 Memory with optional ECC support

• A total of 88 PCI Express® Gen 4.0 Lanes

• Multi-GPU Support (AMD CrossFire™ and SLI)

• Up to 12 native USB 3.2 Gen2 Ports (Superspeed 10Gbps)

• Up to 4 native USB 2.0 Ports

• Up to 2 x4 NVMe ports

• Up to 20 SATA Ports

• SATA RAID 0, 1, 10

• NVMe RAID Support

• Overclocking Support

• AMD StoreMI Storage Acceleration Technology Included

Multiple motherboards, really great efforts...

https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Socket-sTRX4

https://edgeup.asus.com/2019/trx40-...p-with-third-gen-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus/

https://www.asus.com/microsite/motherboard/AMD-TRX40/

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-ZENITH-II-EXTREME/

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/Creator-TRX40

https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/TRX40 Taichi/index.asp

https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/TRX40 Creator/index.asp

I didn't find any mention of X399 compatibility on AMD's site or AMD's announcements...

AMD Finally Reveals Threadripper 3970X, 3960X Specifications And Pricing: Up To 60 Percent Faster Too
Antony Leather Senior Contributor
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...ions-and-pricing-up-to-60-percent-faster-too/

"... AMD has confimed that its 3rd Gen Threadripper CPUs will not be compatible with X399 motherboards (and older Threadripper CPUs won't work in the new TRX40 motherboards either). This was suggested to me back in May with various rumors since but sadly it is now confirmed. However, the socket - now called TRX4 - remains the same so coolers, at least, will be compatible."

bit-tech.net drops a tidbit as to why...

"You will need a TRX40 motherboard to support these new CPUs; they are not backwards-compatible with X399 – a move AMD claims was needed to grant the extra I/O support in the short-term and to introduce greater scalability in the long-term."
https://bit-tech.net/news/tech/cpus/amd-confirms-3rd-gen-threadripper-and-3950x-for-nov-25th/1/

Tom's Hardware:

AMD Threadripper 3000 TRX40 Motherboards and sTRX4 Socket
"AMD promised forward compatibility with its AM4 socket until 2020, but never made that promise for the previous-gen Threadripper's TR4 (SP3) socket. That's a good thing because the new Threadripper processors require a new socket to handle the explosive growth of I/O connectivity. The socket is mechanically the same as the previous FCLGA 4094 interface, but AMD has juggled around the pin assignments to add more capabilities.

Because the socket is mechanically the same, coolers designed for the TR4 socket are compatible. AMD says that any cooler that could satisfy the 250W TDP of older Threadripper processors will work fine with the 280W thermal dissipation from the Castle Peak chips."
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...970x-ryzen-9-3950x-details-and-athlon-3000g/2

AMD would have bought a lot of loyalty with even a single ThreadRipper 3 drop in for x399. IDK what AMD were thinking dropping x399 owners without notice. Even if there wasn't a stated "promise" to support the TR4 socket through the 3rd generation of the ThreadRipper CPU, I think everyone assumed it to be so.

AMD had better delineate specifically how long they intend to support TRX40 before I can recommend anyone move to that solution. If it is only 1 or 2 generations that's fine, but we need to know that up front this time.

 

They promised Zen support too 2020, not specifically a socket, be it AM4, TR4 or Epyc. DDR5 will kill TRX40, no if ands or buts. So by the roadmap Zen4 would be ddr5. I know what they were thinking and it is about share prices, not us current users.

 

Epyc's will [may?] need to change at that point too. ThreadRipper 3 got caught between trying to be an affordable Epyc while it's success has brought it back into the higher performance price bracket by growing into Epyc's memory / IO throughput requirements.

Splitting the life time of Epyc's socket for upgrades in half for ThreadRipper - 1/2 for TR4 and now possibly 1/2 for TRX40 (TRX80 too?) puts a large financial speed bump in the way for early ThreadRipper adopters to continue upgrading through ThreadRipper 3.

The TR1 / TR2 computers will have a long useful life no doubt, but if you need that extra oomph of TR3 it will be costly to restart fresh.

How many ThreadRipper CPU generations will the TRX40 socket be useful...1...2......3?

 

No, it is used for only one to two years, tops.

Genoa, I think it is, uses their SP5 socket. So these new SP3 revision 3+ socket used for TR3000 series will go NOWHERE. I'm NOT allowing any consumer to get suckered like I was or other first and second gen TR owners did! There is NO HOPE of it being used for Zen 4, period!

This was to make sure VRMs were beefed up. But, at $1400 for the 24 core with only 25% average over the 9980XE, while having 33% more cores and with the motherboards coming in at $500+ compared to X299 and X299X coming in around $280-360, we are looking at a value problem for AMD.

Intel's 18-core with MB can be around $1250-1400. The 3960X is closer to $2000 starting. You pay 33% more and get 25% more performance.

This means my initial value assessment was correct. AMD will learn the hard way. But they pointed to X399 for entry HEDT, a dead platform, that way to clear inventory.

They are fine chips, especially for home NAS servers, small business routers, etc. But literally, this is a middle finger to X399 owners who planned to upgrade. Price of entry went from $1350 for Zen and $1250 for Zen+ to $1950+ for Zen 2.

That says all you need to know. Either buy older gen AMD TR or Intel's new HEDT lineup. Don't get the 3960X or 3970X unless you want to pay the price premium. They are still better than the OCable Intel Xeon that practically no one bought, though, and the 24-core may beat it on performance (wait for reviews).

AMD, as I said weeks ago, scrwed the pooch on HEDT for Zen 2 and 3. Glad they proved me right.

Agreed, roughly. Also had to do with power delivery and the VRMs. But they should have planned for it.

 

The 3950X will be a great chip if you don't need the expanded storage or quad channel memory though. It should run reasonably cool, tear through anything multithreaded, and still be able to game. Still the new motherboard requirement is a pretty big middle finger to first gen/second gen TR owners. The writing was on the wall all along though as the rumors were out months ago and if they weren't true AMD would have immediately squashed them. AMD seems to be a pretty proactive company in terms of their PR and typically quickly kills false rumors. Their silence was all the confirmation I needed. I really think that if the 10980XE truly does sell for $1000~ it will be a killer CPU. When you consider the 9900KS is selling at over half of that for just 8 cores, less features etc, and the motherboard isn't that much more expensive it really makes me want to move over to it. But wtf would I do with 18 cores, not to mention it will make my 'office' far warmer, and gaming performance would likely suffer a bit. But 18 cores lol.

 

Months isn't warning for years. As soon as I saw the rumor in August, I then flipped to no compatibility. But that didn't help owners that bought any time before that.

They had to know they were going to force the switch back in January or February. They did the leaks to prime the market. And I have seen extremely few willing to trade down to mainstream, especially since you can now get Intel's platform for the same price, with great overclocking and with a stable platform.

For you, I'd recommend the 14-core over the 18-core. If you don't need the cores, no reason to step to the top, especially when you game and need single core and lower core counts will hit higher speeds. The 10-core will only hurt your performance with mesh over ring bus, even though hitting 5GHz is doable. The 12-core is now starting to switch it up, but I don't think that is enough over your 9900KS. That leaves the 14-core giving you the quad channel memory, the 48 PCIe lanes (IIRC it increased from 40 lanes at some point), while being able to hit some pretty decent clocks and getting advantage of the extra cores.

That is priced about the same on platforms as the 3950X, doesn't lag much in multi core or single core when overclocked, if not doing better at some tasks, etc. It gives what you need if you need memory and lanes at that price point, while giving better performance at ST than the 18-core in many conditions.

 

AMD designed the ThreadRipper 3 to continue to dominate the HEDT market...all of AMD's HEDT middle fingers are busy pointing at Intel...

Performance Preview: 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ Processors for Creators
AMD
Nov 7, 2019


No benchmarks for a while...

News: AMD 3950X, Athlon 3000G, & Threadripper 3970X, 3960X Release, Specs, & Price
Gamers Nexus
Nov 7, 2019


AMD 3rd Gen Threadripper Pricing Revealed, 3950X Release Date & Athlon 3000G
Hardware Unboxed
Nov 7, 2019

 

Every single x399 owner who was looking to upgrade only sees the finger that was stuck out to them. And we are not only the customers they should care about as we are that original strong base of high end users, but we have a LONG memory and hold grudges.

Edit; my recommendation is only build any TR system if you plan on running it to EOL as is and then recycling it and building anew. Because of this and price cuts Intel looks much better, AMD really messed this one up.

 

I'll include the chart, but check out the website for more details:

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X Hits 3DMark in Early Benchmarks
We compare newfound AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X benchmark results to the Intel Core i9-9900KS, Intel Core i9-9980XE and AMD Ryzen 9 3900X.
By Zhiye Liu an hour ago
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-3dmark-benchmark-results

 

I won't hold a grudge, but do go on price point and workload. Simply put, the PPD shifted back to Intel on many HEDT platform builds, and I will not recommend AMD on those occasions.

AMD has the premier HEDT platform. They took that crown. Period. In doing so, they left the every day HEDT owner in the rain. This is inverse of what Intel did for two years and AMD giving shelter to those in the rain over that time. Intel lost so much in this space they cut the price in half. Now, any budget of less than $2K, but needing high single thread performance goes to Intel.

Sure, there are times to recommended TR 1/2, but I'll have to analyze when. And because they have not yet fully resolved the NUMA issues plaguing the 2970WX and 2990WX, where Intel's 18-core was shown to thrash those at many workloads (new 3000 series do not have that liability), why should I recommend either of those chips at this point AT ALL. They are now very niche. If you need HEDT memory or lanes under like $800 platform cost, first gen TR and possibly 2d gen 2920X/2950X, depending on price cuts. But that doesn't change me holding that it is based on workloads and there is a point on single threaded performance, overclock, etc., where there is a firm switch to Intel.

So AMD taking the crown, which all Intel people should acknowledge, is great. But, does it matter? I'd say no. This is two years with the crown and they'll get all those sales of large production studios, but they just lost the DIY crowd in a large way.

After reviews, I'll need to set out my recommendations on price targets. But, for HEDT, it is AMD gen 1 and 2 until around the $700 mark to $800 mark, then to Intel for the 14 and 18 core, then back to AMD above that and Intel's OC Xeon is dead. Period on the dead.

 

The 19xx and 29xx with x399 was largely a DIY offering. There were very few OEM machines. This will most likely be true of 39xx TR's as well for now. There are the custom houses out there but I consider a lot of them as DIY's after original sale.

As far as VRM's this is the reason I got a Taichi, a robust VRM. Now overclocking a 3960x may have been off the table but stock would have been fine.

 

Which is a total shame, I loved that those old Xeons being dumped to eBay after a life at stock in a server rack. I just picked up an e5 1660 V3 on ebay for $150 shipped the other day. Should be here tomorrow, and I can finally put together a build using my huge stock of parts and an old AsRock X99X Fatality board I had from my previous 5820K build. It's 8 cores/16 threads and can be overclocked like any regular i7 chip, except it should have better binning. I hope to get 4.4Ghz out of it. Sure it won't be power efficient but I think it's going to be able to hang even today. Either way it's going to be a surprise build for my father in law since he is still on a Dell prebuilt that he bought new with an i7 870.

 

hmmmmm juggling around pin assignments eh? i see bios mods incoming...

and funny, only yesterday i was watching der8auer's youtube channel where hes currently building himself an OC xeons build at 28 cores cuz he couldnt wait for TR3 any longer

if you dont care about money then the 28 core still has its place. overclocked to the max i could imagine it would still beat the 24 and 32 core TR3 skus...

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

Oh yeah, there's already people counting pins posting about making plans for verifying the lack of backward and forward compatibility.

I'm sure der8auer is already lining up ThreadRipper 3 CPU's - talking with MSI / Asus about donating TRX40 motherboards for Der Grande ThreadRipper 3 Cross-Socket Extravaganza, a 5 Part Series.

Part 1 is where the whole thing goes up in flames. It should be fun.

 

Well, I was meaning more the 28-core 3000 whatever chip they had released that cost $3K.

But that does sound like a nice upgrade for him. Nearly forgot when Intel Locked down their Xeon lines (the ones that share HEDT socket have been locked mostly for awhile).

Very true, but aside from boutiques (even Puget can be considered a boutique in some ways), I do hope they get more OEM workstations moving forward, including Apple switching for their Mac Pro (Intel's 28-core is NOT more powerful than the 32-core coming).

But generally, I feel they will understand in a couple months. They would do well with a backwards compatible 16-core X399 chip (or do a limited Zen 3 run of that). But I doubt that would happen as well. We'll see after a quarter or two what they do.

 

I wouldn't count on a Hail Mary last second ThreadRipper 3 that works in the x399 socket happening.

If AMD were going to do that they would have already confirmed it.

 

I don't really understand why either. I mean a freaking bottom barrel B350 board is getting support for a fast Zen2 3950x. Imagine if they would just port a 3950x limited run to TR4, would definitely give some goodwill to TR early adopters.

 

They pulled all the benchmark leaks from geekbench once they realized everyone of them showed the chipset as Whitehaven and the original x399. How far it was changed to not allow compatibility has yet to be seen.

Even if they found it would work how many board makers would want to give you a new bios compared to selling you a new board?

 

I'm curious.
What motivates mobo manufacturers in releasing BIOS updates that allowed users to upgrade from Zen 1 to Zen 2 in the first place?
They're not getting any additional monetary reimbursment as far as I know... so why have they continued releasing microcode updates for the BIOS?
And why didn't Asus or Acer apply that to GL702ZC or Helios 500 for their Ryzen systems?

The principles are the same. They wouldn't be getting any money from updating the mobos on the desktop systems, so why do they continue supporting desktop mobos but ignore laptops (even if they were based on desktop ones)?

 

The issue here is AMD wanted TR to have a new chipset for marketing reasons. Now they have to all play the game of only supporting the new chipset. There are a lot of reasons they want this.

I am sure one is for compatibility down the line the larger VRM is needed for 64 cores along with the 8 pcie lanes dedicated to the CPU. One huge reason is if 3960x an 3970x were x399 compliant there would be severe chips shortages for a long time.

 

they'll need to cut more prices than that to be worth it, maybe around $500 for 18 cores. everything on that x299 platform is in dead water and it even falls behind vs z390 on areas such as gaming and storage raid performance via CPU.

as for the 24c im hoping to see 3c chiplets x8 to create lowest possible heat density when overclocking. if not possible then go 4c chiplets x8 32 cores. i'd rather not get 24-32 cores for 6c x 4 chiplets or 8c x 4 as design is uniform so should be little to no benefit. this should be perfect for eypc too as all 8 cores chiplet goes to 64c CPU and we got defective 4 cores chiplet but can clock high and ignore efficiency, with lower heat density.

a dick move but probably by the mobo guys. but holy smoke $900 for a motherboard? they trying to milk real hard with this.

 

At $900 or so for a new main board I hope AMD chokes on the decision not to support x399.

 

You think AMD knew this and to satisfy shareholders they had to sell more MB chipset to lift the bottom line? Better with some cash in from chipset than nothing from expected severe chips shortages

 

AMD is playing from the Intel playbook, if there are supply issues limit the demand. Also preserve the value of previous generation chips while you are at it.

 

let the milk begin. @tilleroftheearth

 

TBH $1,400 for the 3960x would have been fine if they were x399 compliant and not rarer than gold hens teeth. I called it, one sample per continent, no supply so upgrades would have been a nightmare. Also they want too sell 2950x etc..

 

can only blame the zen+ chips not being as good as they are. they had much better opportunities to sell them before intel dropped their pricing now its gonna be even harder.

im still waiting for zen3 or maybe zen4 will comes with hex or octa channel of memory, supporting 3dxpoint dimms from micron or intel.

 

Zen+ was nothing more than a tuned up zen. No one wants them as an upgrade. It however is way worse than I thought. AMD is just not trying to save Zen+ values they need to rely on them because of the 7nm issues. It is truly a shame when they have to rely on paper launches and the like.

Now I am sure this is to protect the stock price. Shame is eventually the share holders will catch on and the price will take an extreme dive. The other issue is this could be taken as a move to defraud investors and open suits. It would have been better to be frourth right and admit to issues. They should have let the chips lie where they will, upgradable and all (pun intended).

 

AMD is a corporation and using Intel's approach for the purpose of getting more money for a newly released CPU (if it increases sales of newer chipsets) would hardly be beneath them.
However, AMD did 'champion' the notion of their existing chipsets being compatible with newer CPU's... and for the most part, this DID turn out to be the case on the consumer end, did it not?

In some instances, there have been questions whether the power delivery systems would be adequate on earlier mobos.
Could it be that this is a genuine issue with Threadrippers?

Transitioning to 7nm brought about a LOT of changes... some of which may have interfered with AMD's ability to guarantee compatibility with older mobos.

There might also be a possibility that its not a question of compatibility, but safety/stability.
If AMD cannot ensure TR works as intended on older mobos/chipsets, they could be liable for misleading people.
Look at the fiasco people raised over their Zen 2 cpu's not reaching 'full clocks as advertised' ... even though the differential is about 1% (if that) and a lot of the CPU's not reaching their 'advertised boost clocks' were mainly due to people messing about with their BIOS to max out performance or further increase efficiency of zen1 and zen + (Zen 2 worked differently due to change in uArch).

Either way, I will reiterate my earlier question:
What motivates OEM's to upgrade their desktop mobo BIOS to support future CPU's on the same chipset when they don't get compensated by the consumers for doing this?
And why don't OEM's in that case extend same BIOS updates for their desktop replacements that use the same chipsets which are based off desktop components (such as Asus GL702ZC and Acer Predator Helios 500 PH517-61 ?).

 

1.) the bios update, or AGESA, is provide by AMD then ported by the manufacturer for their board. Motivation is to make people want their boards that are kept updated.

2.) they will not just port an update to similar boards without the original manufacturer bios intended for that chipset/board etc..

 

LOL, more vaporware?
https://www.thefpsreview.com/2019/11/08/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x-64c-128t-cpu-outed-by-msi/

 

1.) Ok... that's one thing... but wouldn't that apply also in the case of GL702ZC and PH517-61 laptops?
The same incentive would be to get people to get those laptops in the first place with the prospect of updating their CPU's as a bonus for consumers (which would simply solidify consumer desire to get them).
So, why didn't Asus or Acer provide those BIOS updates for those 2 laptops?
The same conditions apply.

2. ) This one doesn't make too much sense (to me). Could you clarify? Who won't port the update to similar boards without the original manfufacturer BIOS intended for that chipset/mobo?
AMD only provides the AGESA... its up to the manufacturers to adapt that AGESA to their motherboards. And they can do this for both desktops and laptops. Beyond releasing the AGESA, AMD doesn't need to release anything else.

The manufacturers already created the original BIOS for the mobos they have in the laptops, so they have access to the original BIOS they made. The way I see it, there's nothing stopping them from upgrading the BIOS with latest AGESA from AMD like they do on desktop mobos and further enticing consumers to get those laptops.

 

It's more money involved in a laptop vs. MB. Make the notebook EOL will force people to buy new from them if they want more performance the next year. Motherboard is in a wide broad. Aka from very cheap to very expencive and won't collect the huge amount money for the company. The buyers have many options and from what I understand.... The MB makers don't coperate with each other to try force you over on new once new chips is out(if they are compatible with the old MB). As well all Notebook manufacturers know very well that 99% of all notebooks out there have soldered hardware and can't be upgraded. Why should they then offer it?

 

However, both GL702ZC and PH517-61 have removable CPU's (they aren't soldered). And they are purpoted gaming/productivity machines which cost in the area of $1700/£1700 (more or less depending on the configuration).

That said, laptops come with a lot of hw soldered to the mobo (as a cost saving measure)... and in the case of Asus and Acer laptops with all AMD hw, their GPU's (desktop based) were soldered to the mobos.
Most other things such as the wifi, SSD/HDD, RAM, etc. can be removed/replaced in both units (otherwise, why not solder those things as well?).

So, those 2 laptops are a rather big exception.
Making those mobo's would have probably costed less money for both Asus and Acer due to soldered GPU's alone and basing the mobos off the desktop parts (they ARE desktop mobos, just modified a bit to fit into a laptop).

And again, we come back to the original premise that if the OEM's DID provide BIOS updates for say Zen+, Zen 2 and upcoming Zen 3 (in the case of Asus... Acer would only need to provide support for Zen 2 and Zen 3)... people would spend $1700/£1700 on those laptops (possibly less over time as prices would drop) - which (as whole systems) are worth quite a lot of desktop B350/B450 mobos.

The only limitation would be soldered GPU's (which could detract potential customers), but I don't see why both units couldn't sell for a full year or possibly a bit more for CPU, SSD/HDD, and RAM upgrades.
Both OEM's could have set up programs to sell upgraded components and 'ensure compatibility' without gouging the customers in the process... they'd get extra revenues on top of that if they wanted to get extra cash.

Plus, $1700/£1700 laptops aren't usually replaced after a year or two. People tend to use them for 4 or 5 years at a time (sometimes longer in case they cannot afford to buy anything down the line - and they find performance to be quite capable even after all that time).

 

In the case of the laptop, a lot of custom work is done. AMD originally provided the base bios and agesa. Once a release bios is made the OEM has to decide if later on they want to update it. Since laptops usually are hardware option limited unless there is a problem it will not get an update.

 

I know.

Be you sure... More manufacturers will follow Dell Alienware regarding solder on more hardware... http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/bga-venting-thread.798775/page-225#post-10922543

Doesn't matter. They just follow the trend. Why should they go all in for making less money than the other Notebook ODM?

My previous post #6842 explain easly why you won't get firmware upgrade to be able to upgrade the hardware

 

As sad as it is for all of us, AMD didn't promise ThreadRipper wouldn't grow past it's socket quickly and require motherboard chipset upgrades.

Also, I haven't looked back, but I recall us discussing the differences between ThreadRipper and Epyc and how AMD would need to bring ThreadRipper up to Epyc IO configuration as the CPU performance outstripped the TR4 capabilities.

It's happened quicker than we thought by at least one generation. It would have been nice if AMD could have spent resources on making a CPU only upgrade for TR4 for those that don't need the IO increases.

AMD only has so many design resources - and even more limiting - only so many 7nm production resources. With such a wide range of limitations going from "zero" to "hero", I'm just glad for the TRX40 (TRX80?) that will be easy to recommend to content creators that can afford the entry costs.

I'd like to believe that ThreadRipper has more generations on TRX40 (TRX80) than TR4 had (2x), but at this point I hope it at least gets the same 2x generations, this one and one upgrade.

I think you meant, "rumor's" of a 64c/128t ThreadRipper.

Vaporware => "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."

It's a rumor based on accidental media release from a vendor customer of AMD - not AMD directly - AFAIK AMD hasn't advertised any Ryzen "vaporware".

It is nice to see this image of a 64c/128t CPU in the Windows Task Manager slipped through from MSI in their ThreadRipper TRX40 video.

"For comparison, the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X features 64 threads and the TRX40 creator doesn’t feature two sockets so it is definitely a single chip that features 128 threads. There is also no possibility that this could just be the 2nd Generation EPYC chip as those are designed around the server platform and there have been failed attempts before to booth EPYC chips on the HEDT X399 platform."
https://www.thefpsreview.com/2019/11/08/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x-64c-128t-cpu-outed-by-msi/

The 3990x / 3980x are unannounced by AMD, simply speculation or rumor backed up by slips from MSI and other sources, but until AMD announces something everything else is just a rumor.

 

Th 3990x is stated by AMD, core count could be a rumor. So at this point a 3990x no matter what it is supposed to be is vaporware.

 

If AMD hasn't directly announced something it's a rumor or it's only speculation, not vaporware.

Vaporware is a very negative very critical name - reserved especially for denouncing a companies failure to deliver promised hardware or software over a long period of time. Usually such failure to deliver ruins others plans and causes them to cancel or delay their own projects due to the failure of delivery of the vaporware.

AMD hasn't announced the 3990x or 3980x, they aren't vaporware:

Every mention of the 3990x or 3980x are rumors, speculation, or extrapolations thereof by other parties, it's not something said by AMD:
https://www.google.com/search?q=amd+announces+3990x
https://www.google.com/search?q=amd+announces+3980x
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:amd.com+3990x
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:amd.com+3980x

AMD has only announced the 3950x, 3960x, and 3970x:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:amd.com+3950x
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:amd.com+3960x
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:amd.com+3970x

Intel's 10nm Desktop / Server CPU's which have missed *years* worth of announced shipping dates - and reconfigured their whole structure of 10nm releases several times. Apple and other companies had to cancel their own product plans for laptops and desktops due to Intel's failure to deliver on their 10nm promises.

Intel's 10nm failures to deliver promised product over many years is Vaporware of the 1st order.

Spoiler: The first vaporware...

While we are on the subject of vaporware, here's the first vaporware I recall, and guess what - it's the first vaporware:

"Typically used to describe a product that has been announced but never launched, "vaporware" was reportedly coined by a Microsoft engineer (either John Ulett or Mark Ursino) when being asked about the state of the company's Xenix operating system by Ann Winblad, president of Open Systems Accounting Software.

The word [vaporware] went on to be popularized by writer Esther Dyson after she used it her November 1983 issue of RELease 1.0.

Unix was developed by Bell Labs and licensed by AT&T to outfits such as Microsoft who had to choose a unique name for their version -- Xenix in this case -- which Microsoft licensed to companies including IBM, Intel, Tandy and SCO, although Xenix was never sold directly to end users.

In 1987, Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO, which ported it to the 32-bit 386 CPU. Microsoft reportedly used Xenix on Sun workstations and VAX minicomputers as late as 1992"
https://www.techspot.com/trivia/94-term-vaporware-first-used-reference-what-company-product/

I was actually able to use Xenix on Microsoft hardware way back in 1983... on a hard drive PC - it also had 2 - 5.25" floppy drives and a green CRT. Finally bought Xenix from SCO as well as SCO UNIX.

 

Here is how it works, only 1 per continent of 3960x and/or 3970x so they themselves are vaporware. There is no supply chain so even a rumored 3990x is vaporware. And yes it take a serious connotation, AMD should have realized this long ago and is why delaying.

Edit; picture the issues if they were x399 compliant with only one per continent to review. Let alone once in the wild.

 

I hope AMD has to eat every gen 1 and 2 TR not yet sold and the board manufacturers have to eat all the x399 boards. Maybe then AMD will finally wake up since there are so few Zen 2 chips to sell!

 

Again, you are confusing the reality with rumor.

The 3960x / 3970x ThreadRipper CPU's aren't releasing until 11/25/2019 - 15 days from today:

Foundation
Product Family - AMD Ryzen™ Processors
Product Line - AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ Processors
Platform - Desktop
Launch Date - 11/25/2019
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x

Again, you are talking about rumors as if they are facts - and they are not facts. You are making claims of vaporware for small quantities being available for review before official release, when this is not at all unusual.

New CPU's usually have a staged roll out world-wide, even in the best of times there will be regions unserved, and even in regions served the quantities will be limited with inventory often selling out between shipments.

None of those situations are vaporware.

You are making nasty assertions against AMD - name calling where the name doesn't apply to the reality - all for no good reason.

Vaporware would be where AMD never released and sold any production 3960x's 3970x's. Limited quantities due to limited fab resources isn't vaporware, it's limited quantities due to limited fab resources.

You are disappointed that AMD decided not to have backward and forward compatibility for ThreadRipper 3. AMD never promised that there would be forward or backward compatibility. That's the reality.

AMD's already choosen their course and there will be no time to divert resources from projects to go back and develop, tape out, produce test mules, QA and verify for production, and then find additional 7nm production slots for an unplanned production product.

AMD turning around and backtracking to make ThreadRipper 3 work in x399 is not going to happen, move on - you can recover from this in many ways, focus on that and upgrade to TRX40 (TR80) when you are ready.

There will still be a market for ThreadRipper 1/2 for those that don't want to spend for TRX40 (TRX80?). You can resell your ThreadRipper build into that market and recover some of the cost for TRX40. Why would you want that market to disappear?

 

They promised Zen till 2020, TR is part of Zen, is it not? I do not want the market to disappear, I want them to eat their mistake! And right do not fix it, eat it!

Lastly I want them to see messing with their dedicated user base is a big NO NO.

 

Fiscal year 2020 started a while ago didn't it?

 

No. They only promised compatibility for AM4 processors (mainstream and APU). They never made a similar commitment for TR4. https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...adripper_cpus_will_require_new_motherboards/1

This really doesn't have the feel of a nefarious plot to sell more chipsets and motherboards. I don't have sales numbers, but I'd be very surprised if mainstream/APU processors don't greatly outsell Threadripper, so there's a lot smaller market for those parts. If they really wanted to extract chipset revenue, they'd have done this with the mainstream.

It wouldn't particularly surprise me if Ryzen 4000's progress is somewhat held back by this commitment, actually. The chip pinout likely restricts the number of PCIE lanes that can be offered; if Intel's next generation mainstream chips offer more lanes, AMD might not be able to match that. There could be any number of other restrictions that impede what can be done with the mainstream even with a hypothetical X670 or whatever chipset.