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

AMD delivers devastating performance - Intel has been far outclassed in price performance - and all you have left is to try to talk smack about coolers. Pffft!!

 

Of course new chips perform better than last year. On top with more cores. Would be strange otherwise. And did you see the chart I posted a few days ago about core cost?

And it seems you have forgotten my posts explaining why AMD should get rid of the coolers

 

$/thread isn't a valid comparison when the extra cost per core is more than balanced by the much higher multi-threaded performance, and you know that.

" Of course new chips perform better than last year. On top with more cores. Would be strange otherwise."

Let's see how much further Intel can inflate the 14nm balloon for their upcoming HEDT CPU's, will it be enough to catch up with ThreadRipper 3, or will Intel's 14nm balloon run out of "hot air"? Intel is scraping the bottom of the 14nm performance barrel, wiping the spoon to get that last drop of value from 14nm.

Hey!! Maybe Intel will revolutionize HEDT by *including Coolers in the box* !!!

 

Yeah, amusing seeing some defend increased costs I wonder if the same had been true if it was from the blue team

 

Intel doesn't have anything to demand a higher price, in fact they can't demand the prices they used to get anymore and have to lower their prices in order to compete with less performance efficient products compared to AMD.

You can find and buy affordable components - motherboards under $200 - as low as $135 on sale for an x570 motherboard. You don't need to buy the most expensive motherboard.

Wait a bit for the TRX40 motherboard field to expand to include barebone's models, they will cost less than the day one models.

And shop around when you are ready to buy an AMD CPU, you can find better prices if you take the time to watch and wait for sales and system bundles. The first few months won't show much movement in prices - too high of demand vs availability, but be patient and you can save up and afford the best.

Why pay for Intel when you can have the best price performance with AMD?

Even with AMD's higher prices for ThreadRipper 3 CPU's they so far outperform Intel they are a much better buy.

 

Yeah, Intel is on the way go opposite way as AMD. Because the Red team is in front now demanding highest price for Mainstream. As well for HEDT Times has changed bro Hmscott. Not so sure if it’s of the best. It’s what it is. Higher prices is probably to expect if they lacking chips of good enough binning for their best performing CPUs.

 

Seriously you've got nothing. Prices are fine in relation to performance. If you can't afford it, buy the next socket / CPU down that you can afford, it's gonna be much faster than anything Intel offers at any price.

The 3900x was stretching it to include an adequate cooler at stock, but any overclock and you'll want a CLC water or much beefier air cooler.

The 3950x is a bridge too far for including an air cooler - it would be a gigantic boxed CPU / cooler, completely impractical.

There are plenty of water coolers out there to choose from now, AMD didn't need to pick one for us.

And yes, without the cooler AMD kept the 3950x price $50-$100 lower!!

 

From what I have read, not much OC headroom left.

And for the records. I don’t look so much on prices if there is something I want.

Regarding water coolers. I don’t remember how many posts you have written with same content. Nice seeing you finally seeing the values with water. I expect this come due no more air cooler from AMD http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ners-welcome-too.810490/page-24#post-10632634

 

You really should do your homework - or at least pay attention here. The AMD 16c CPU has done nothing but drop in cost every generation relative to the previous generation.

Times change - CLC's are now much higher quality and reliability - check owner reviews for a "leak count" before buying.

I still prefer building with an air cooler, and so does Robert Hallock for his 3950x. I'm about functional form, no RGB; no water parks in my builds.

And, don't forget AMD has come out with 3 consumer 16c CPU's, *dropping* the price more every time:

AMD's 16c 1950x @ $999 ( now MSRP $467), then AMD followed up with a 2nd 16c 2950x @ $899 ( now MSRP $599), and today we have the 3rd AMD 16c CPU @ $750!!

So in real terms AMD has constantly dropped the price of their consumer 16c CPU - $999, $899, and now only $750!!

AMD's 16c/32t prices didn't go up, prices went down $249!!

 

Can’t compare mainstream with HEDT bro Hmscott. 16 cores TR 3 wouldn’t cost same as Mainstream if they had throw it out.

And from what I remember. Not so long ago you said Water isn’t the way to go. Not much have changed since then(better quality). Bur nice seeing you have changed

 

Sure you can. The 16c is $249 cheaper than the 1st AMD HEDT 16c CPU because the 3950x is offered on a platform without AMD HEDT features. While the 2nd generation 16c 2950x was still an HEDT CPU it was still $100 cheaper than the 1st 16c 1950x. AMD's 16c price has always gone down, not up.

That's how it works. The AMD HEDT performance migrates into the next tier down for less cost while AMD continues to increase the performance in the move from HEDT to consumer AM4.

For $249 less than the 1st 16c AMD HEDT CPU we now have the consumer 3950x CPU far out perform both previous AMD HEDT 16c CPU's, and the 3950x outperforms all of what Intel offers in their consumer and HEDT ranges.

The AMD HEDT has "grown up" past the 8c entry core count, then AMD grew past the 16c minimum entry core count, and now we have a 24c minimum core count entry level for ThreadRipper 3.

And don't worry, we will compare AMD HEDT 24c / 32c performance against Intel HEDT and Server performance when AMD and reviewers release the performance results, if you think that will be "more fair".

 

Maybe I and other can see something you can’t see. All say AMD has increased their prices. Just look at my core price chart here. Defend it as much you can but it won’t change the facts And it was a smart move put 16 cores for mainstream to be able to being the highest priced chips the last decade for their lower end platform. As I said before. It’s what it is.

 

That is because performance is inline and most that would buy the 16-core are the one's mad because of what AMD did with HEDT. It's an unusable platform for us who need at least 44 lanes (with 8 through the chipset being fine). Or that need mem per core above what this can offer.

It's a good chip. No ifs, ands, or buts. But without the feature rich platform, us who have HEDT don't care. Really is that simple.

It stacks up well against the 7960X (LTT review shows the domination). It even goes well against the 7980XE. But many reviews did not fully explore if memory bandwidth had effects in other workloads. And since I won't buy it because of the platform, I only glanced at them (also being tuned out of AMD due to hmscott's unreasonable defense of the company).

Once again, AMD listened to marketers, not consumers. They will see what happens. This 1950X is the first AMD chip I've had since a 2008 Turion in a cheap throw away laptop and before that my Athlon XP. Guess what, they really scrwed up on consumer confidence in their enthusiast segment. You have reddit angry, people here angry, I'm sure some of this over at OCN, etc. People will still buy, but I'm expecting sales for HEDT to flip back to 2:1 Intel to AMD.

In calling this BS trying to cover for them. No one cares anymore. They just won't buy their products. It's that simple.

Yep. So 6nm is a port of 7nm that isn't a major redesign. It has 5 EUV layers. It was not announced by the time AMD could use it because AMD was so far along on 7nm+ at the time with 4 EUV layers. So 7nm+ is what they'll be using.

5nm will do up to 13 layers of EUV making it a potential candidate to so certain designs fully in EUV.

Yeah, and you know the distribution of what people will pay, the premium Intel was charging didn't scale well on PPD, but now does, and if the scores are correct, you get 24% more performance at about 30% higher platform cost.

Hope they can get that volume... Oh, wait, I already explained weeks ago why they won't due to price segmentation, and the scores by the 3950X today didn't change my mind.

 

If all someone wanted was the Zen 2 16c part there is no choice other than the 3950x, and since the TR4 socket isn't getting any new CPU's there is the option to move to AM4 or TRX40 platforms - whichever fits your price performance requirements.

That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing.

IDK why you two are always so negative. You are interested in progress but you constantly complain about things like you are Luddites.

You are the only ones besides the Intel Fanboy's trying to find something to complain about in spite of AMD's stellar progress.

There is no need to "gloss over" anything AMD has done, it's all good, and seriously you guys are making nothing out of nothing, just like Intel - they've got nothing but hot air left.

You don't need to let your emotional confusion keep you from upgrading, that would be " Cutting off the nose to spite the face".

It's your choice to be happy or sad, you can be happy with what you have, appreciate the progress happening around you, be happy for others enjoying what they want or have, it's just that easy.

 

For those of you looking for the 3950x reviews and benchmark results, here's links to those posts:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-695#post-10966486

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-695#post-10966514

Here's some more 1st day reviews. I'm looking forward to the "fully tuned" reviews that will arrive after users get experience tuning the brand new 3950x:

Ryzen 3950X Review & Benchmarks: 16-Core Dominance!
Paul's Hardware
Published on Nov 14, 2019
Ryzen 3950X Review & Benchmarks: 16-Core Dominance!
Here's my review of the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core CPU vs the AMD 3900X and 3700X, as well as the Intel 9900K, 9900KS and 9980XE.

Live: AMD R9 3950X Extreme Overclocking with Liquid Nitrogen
Gamers Nexus
Started streaming 108 minutes ago
In this stream, we'll be extreme overclocking the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core CPU with liquid nitrogen, pushing to find the highest clock we can get. We are working with the new AMD R9 3950X on the MSI Godlike X570 motherboard.

1950x - $999
2950x - $899
3950x - $750

How can you confuse that progression of price drops for AMD 16c CPU's into a complaint about price increases?

 

Show me where their product lies in that price point desired with the features I need. Oh, that's right, it is in that glaring hole I pointed out a long while ago.

So, if the product I desire doesn't exist, then I won't buy it. It is that simple. I will not compromise to go AM4 when it doesn't have the features needed (said they need to increase lane count to what Intel used on HEDT for their mainstream) and they didn't give enough time priming the market to get the MB, so they won't get that sale.

So I moved on, like you said. Doesn't mean I cannot explain why no one cares about the 3950X reviews that came today, which is on the back of tech press covering people mad on reddit and our conversation here.


Did AMD magically think HEDT users would be okay with being told to accept less for the 12 and 16 core users. To be honest, except on security, that 18 core is my recommendation for the exact segment I'm in. Why? Because it is roughly in line with the 3950X, outperforms the 2950X, had the lanes and memory bandwidth (which can be overclocked to very high speeds) and is in the price hole AMD left.

TBH, not even going to watch GN LN2 overclock it going on now.

 

Actually I would expect TR4 owners to stay with ThreadRipper 3 and upgrade to better per core performance + more cores. The added throughput of PCIE 4.0 and the new CPU / chipset should easily pay for the added entry costs of a new higher core count CPU and a new motherboard.

There are lots of people that have been interested in the 3950x for it's entire incubation period through release, and they all knew it was AM4 based, not HEDT based. Nothing changes for those people.

The 3950x price complaint is solely due to the price tier jump from 3900x @ $499 to 3950x @ $749 - it's a big jump in cost to that new AM4 16c tier, but that $749 price is now $250 less than the 1st generation 1950x, and look at the performance progression the 3950x offers since the 1950x for 25% less ($250 less) cost.

The 3950x gaming FPS improvements over the 1950x make the 3950x a great gaming upgrade for 1950x owners if the x570 has enough PCIE lanes for your work too, and the added PCIE lanes of the TRX40 aren't needed.

Ryzen 9 3950X vs Ryzen TR 1950X Benchmarks - 15 Tests
Benchmark PC Tech
Premiered 3 hours ago
Ryzen TR 1950X vs AMD Ryzen 9 3950X BENCHMARK


When owners of the 3950x master the tuning of their new CPU / x570 / memory / etc and publish more application benchmarks it will be even more clear what a bargain the 3950x is for those that can profit from using it in their leisure and business.

I agree that some previous HEDT customers will be better served with a 3950x on an x570, and some won't. If the 3950x is not enough for their needs, they can get the 3960x / 3970x / ? and a nice TRX40 motherboard and start fresh on a new ThreadRipper socket cycle.

 

Yes, let's go from $1000 entry to $1800+ entry, all because AMD didn't plan ahead. Makes sense. Especially when we could get the performance and lanes we wanted with this generation's upgrade for about $1250 from Intel.

Let's leave all the 12 and 16 core HEDT users out in the cold, telling them move up or down when their real option is change to Intel for that price point. The marketing team at AMD SUCKS!

Since the performance of the 16-core 3950X proved the HEDT part would not have been a large jump over the 18-core Intel part, that is the replacement for the 12 and 16 core AMD Zen and Zen+ users.

Don't make an easy decision hard. That literally is what I called a month ago. Turns out I was right.

 

That's too bad that you can't figure out a solution to your problem what with AMD releasing 3 new CPU's and 2 new platforms to choose from with x570 and TRX40 (TRX80?).

If you figured this all out already you could have also figured out that AMD couldn't offer 12 core and 16 core CPU's on both AM4 and TR4 (TRX40).

And, it should have then been obvious that AMD wasn't going to be able to support TR4 and be able to get the full performance from their new CPU range, so AMD would be required to come out with a new platform.

What I can't understand is if you figured this all out long ago, why are you surprised at what AMD did with the release of the TRX40 + 3960x / 3970x?

Maybe with a little more details and performance info available upon the 3960x / 3870x release you'll figure out what to do from there.

I've been caught up in the same problem before, we all have, and it's always worked out fine. So I think you'll be fine with a little more time to work it out.

 

I’d like to see the core count wars just stop and both companies reinvest area gains from newer processes into the cores themselves. I’d love to see some data on how 99% of the market is actually utilising these processors. I have a feeling it’d 30-40% at best, with the remaining 1% of the market being the professional users who actually need the extra cores for work. I switched to 6C/12T for future proofing with the new consoles coming, but at the moment I don’t ever see it coming close to being used properly. 16/18 cores for anything other than those professional users just seems silly.

It’s taken Apple a few years to basically almost match Skylake/Zen 2 IPC with cores that are also far more impressive in terms of performance/watt which is rather pathetic and frankly just embarrassing for Intel and AMD. When almost everything 99% of computer users do being always bound by single thread throughout, this should be the focus, not pushing core counts to absurd levels.

 

Well of course the embargo on 3950x was lifted early. Why though, my guess is it was the only way to combat the bad PR on Threadripper. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place with this. They had been caught screwing with the enthusiast and have to get them talking about something positive before it affects stock prices.

I will say congrats to them as it does appear to be a nice chip. Still does not make up for screwing us over on x399! Nor does it change my mind over it either.

Edit; as far as you know what they meant, well the English language does not change just to suit AMD's or your whims, out of context is out of context and if this were a legal battle over a literal meaning of a statement you would lose big time! Being as you think differently you have lost all of my respect as an intelligent poster.

Now as far as a new chipset, I am sure they knew, but just like x370, x470 and x570 it could have been a compliant upgrade and they decided at some point not to make it that way.

 

Given the amount of time between now and the November 25th production availability - in about 11 days - AMD needs to spread out the end of embargo for each of 5 products: 3950x / 3960x / 3970x / TRX40 / Athlon (19th) to give reviewers making content for all of the products time to stagger the shooting, editing, and release - without killing themselves. AMD is asking a lot to have bunched the release of so much so close together.

If AMD was concerned about the acceptance of ThreadRipper 3 they would have bumped up the 3960x and 3970x embargo and released performance results for those ahead of the 3950x. I can see AMD are very eager to get 3960x / 3970x performance results out there asap. That's what will "calm" ThreadRipper fans.

Too much information dumped all at once makes it tough to digest effectively. I'm glad AMD was able to release 3950x info early, who wouldn't be?? It's awesome news all over the spectrum. Cheaper, faster, more power efficient, brings HEDT performance to AM4 - and the 3950x shaves down that last little sliver of difference between AMD and Intel in gaming.

More conceptualizations, musings, and refocusing upon confusion from Wendell... it seems everyone needs a "journey of discovery"... not unlike Timmy Joe.

4750mhz Ryzen 9 3950X vs 5.2ghz 9900ks vs 4.7+ghz 7980XE : A Modest Destiny?
Level1Techs
Published on Nov 14, 2019
Holy heck this cpu is fast. But it isn't for gamers! It's for people that need 16 cores! Just in case you're wondering -- the 7980XE @ 4.7+ ghz I got to run at 4.8ghz on up to 4 cores for some of the lightly-threaded tests after recording the voiceover. Just FYI. Benchmarks for work are coming.
Full article with graphs and link the the geekbench result on the L1 website, linked here, later today. Keep an eye out! thanks
Geekbench 4:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/...
Geekbench 5:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/...

 

i thought theres no one getting TR for reviews?

 

Wrong. They figure that showing the 3950X do well against the 9980XE will convince the one's complaining that were priced out of the HEDT market due to a surprise socket change to shut up and take the mainstream chip because they said so. You know, it reminds me of another company that told consumers what they were supposed to want (can think of multiple, but the two relevant ones are Intel and Apple; remember Jobs acting incredulous about the antenna fiasco, that is AMD right now).

 

Just too funny. You know they have so few and far between TR's that the probability is anyone willing to speak of the x399 issue will probably looked down on getting a chip to review.

 

If anyone needs a good laugh right now, Failienware Aurora R10 + 3950x reviews are out today, it has the same whimpy 120x30mm AIO the 9900k somehow runs on, & Ryzen wants to overheat ... the eye-watering cost to overheat your CPU is below

New Ryzen 3500 will debut in the R10, it's an OEM-only chip & doesn't have an MSRP; I estimate it accounts for $150 of the R10's $1200 starter price. To upgrade, buyer must 1st pay for the 3500 then add more for better CPU at its list cost

3950x = $1250 | MSRP = $750 | $500 AlienTax

• X = $150, Y = add $1100 | X + Y = $1250
• mandatory: add $50 for whimpy cooler = $1300

3900x = $750 | MSRP = $500 | $250 AlienTax

• X = $150, Y = add $600 | X + Y = $750
• add $50 cooler

Add $150 to any price below = true cost

3950x, 'Alien Recommended' for a reason: 500 reasons

DDR4 Memory! 8Gb HyperXFury 2666 Included In Price

• assign 8Gb stick = $60 of base $1200 starter price
• $60 + add $1200 for 64Gb 3200MHz = $1260
• Same Kit on Kingston.com = $360
• Amazon = $335
• 1260 - 335 = $925 AlienTax

$1400 AlienTax in just CPU/Memory

With people willing to pay prices like that & a shill media-complex willing to shill it for us, it'd be nice if a bunch of us here at NBR got together & started our own company. Until then, be glad you know how to DIY & never buy from (nor get swindled by) an Alien

$1300 CPU overheats on that whimpy 120mil cooler, did I mention that ...

 

I expect the buyers will have to pay the "shortage of chips" TAX

 

At least Alienware is consistent across Intel *and* AMD.

I've thought of the enthusiast company idea, but who would be the audience of customers? Us.

Surprisingly that's one of the reasons people go to these companies - to get access to a rare and hard to find CPU at MSRP in a system build.

I've checked them out myself, but it's always a disappointing motherboard, power supply, case, without much expansion capability + a crappy GPU - blower style usually, which is what the Alienware Aurora uses. I think Timmy Joe recently did a "review" of the "lowest priced" 2080ti pulled from an AW Aurora, pretty rank but it worked as long as the "fan" was maxed out.

No, that's rumor, it's not real life. Why does everyone here insist on living in "negativity" "rumor world"? Wait for real life to catch up. Then complain. Life is too good, nothing to complain about, so what? make stuff up as rumors to complain about?

There are already lower level youtubers showing off ThreadRipper 3 stuff - excited to promise day 1 reviews from them; there will be plenty of reviews.

It'll be like Ryzen 3 (Zen 2) x570 with a ton of new motherboards + plenty of parts - until the crowds go wild and buy them all up. That's how it always is these days.

If you miss out on the first couple of re-stockings, then be patient and wait for production to catch up with demand. Plenty of 3900x's around now, same will go for the 3950x.

It is the holiday season on top of everything else, lots of stuff sells out until after the new year, expect AMD stuff to be no different.

On the bright side, they'll likely be more than enough Intel parts to go around... with no shortages through the holidays. What with no demand and nobody buying them.

 

OK where are your facts that this is rumor? and what another 2-3 months down the line for some stock? The few trx40 board unboxings I found etc. no one had chips.

 

Robert Hallock's appearance on HotHardware happened today, here's the session:

Ryzen 9 3950X And 3rd Gen Threadripper LIVE With AMD's Robert Hallock!
HotHardware
Streamed live 10 hours ago
JOIN US 11/14/19 @ 5:30 PM ET! On this episode of HotHardware's 2.5 Geeks we have AMD's Robert Hallock joining us for a relaxing, fun discussion of all things many-core Ryzen, from the new 3rd Gen Ryzen 9 3950X to as much detail as he'll allow us to squeeze from him on 3rd Gen Threadripper. Get your questions answered too!


@TANWare - in this interview one of the principles mention showing the new TRX40 board to their wife and letting them compare the solid build weight against a top end motherboard from another line, then they mention how excited they are to "install Windows" and start testing... per typical this is how all the "slips" of mention by very excited reviewers go as they are likely not allowed to show or talk about the ThreadRipper CPU's yet. Check it out starting at 36:10, or again - watch the whole interview as it covers a lot of your questions.

Also, in this interview Robert Hallock puts to rest the idea of a 16c TRX40 part, as AMD considers the 3950x HEDT level performance in consumer guise - with the "few" that want or need additional memory throughput in the minority - AMD has completed their stack for 2019 and there is no plan for a 16c TRX40 part - listen to what he has to say starting at 44:33.

 

Proof of what I said, they were not willing to "knee cap" themselves with the old socket (we only wanted it for the lower end chips) also they knew it was a contentious decision and their internal data reflected that consumers are mainly those willing to build a new system, not upgrade. So they screwed a small segment of the enthusiast crowd, thank you for the proof.

BTW NO ONE denies moving on to a new chip would be needed, just not an incompatible one. as far as a 16c TR, I wouldn't want it as the 3950x does not show that much of an upgrade so I agree there. Also thy are not mentioning it as a x399 chip either. So I agree even more so.

 

And the holiday being here and springing a new socket is EXACTLY what is likely to hurt early adoption.

And saying listen to rumors when they said no socket compatibility in August, but don't listen to other rumors. Hmmm. It's almost like you are saying only listen to what would benefit AMD or support your position, but don't listen to anything that doesn't. Yeah...

 

I do not think they want early adoption. The 3950x is likely to become the new hens tooth of the AM4 world. The x399 being not compatible will help limit sales of the the new TR chips so that supply can hopefully keep up with demand. Remember this is all marketing and their forecasting of sales and supply. AMD has admitted they screwed a few of us enthusiasts but to them that is OK, it works out in the end for them and the actual systems that are made opperate none the worse.

Oh yea too, he warned 2020 is quickly approaching and can not comment on future plans, so only build to what is in front of you!

 

So, although I've said this before here in other posts, this is what I posted over at OCN ( https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...ipper-big-fail-missed-opportunity-amd-17.html):

This isn't quite true. AMD originally valued the PCIe and quad-channel memory at a $150 price premium. See 1900X at $650 and 1800X at $500.

Now, AMD, in part, believed the marketing department that a mainstream CPU with the same core count would destroy sales of the HEDT part with the same core count. But this is a mistake.

When first released, you had the 1700, 1700X, 1800X, and 1900X all with 8-cores. That is pretty crowded and this is when their die binning was not great, so there was no great distinction on frequency between the 1700 and the 1900X. The 1900X had a huge flaw in its design, namely that the memory channels were on a second die and that could NOT compete against the performance of the mainstream chips, especially with the 8-core 1700 being overclockable to about the same performance of the 1700X, but priced at $270, give or take, compared to $330 for the 1700X and $500 for the flagship 1800X on AM4.

Intel saw the same thing. They tried to put a quad core on the X299 platform (Boy did that go wrong). Intel's strategy was to step gamers and consumers onto the more profitable HEDT platform through a slow transition. That was the reason for the quad core Kaby. But AMD's release crushed those plans, along with MB MFRS saying enough with this lane segmentation and having to engineer around BS gimmicks.

Fast forward to today. How is this situation different from the two stated above. First, there will only be 1 16-core on the AM4 platform, not 3 chips. To build on that, the cheapest of those chips was less than half the cost of the HEDT chip, and the second cheapest was about half the price, both of which performed better for gaming regarding memory. Second, everyone knows 16-cores is for MORE than gaming. It is at pro-sumer levels of performance and core count. As such, it isn't going to be the go to for gaming machines, rather for cheap render stations, youtubers, etc., that are not where stepping into the HEDT market would make a huge difference, necessarily. Meanwhile, having an HEDT offering fills a gap left in their product lineup (explained in a moment). Those that need the lanes or memory bandwidth (which should always be examined on a per core or per thread basis along with looking at whether your software will bottleneck below a per core or thread memory bandwidth) would get the HEDT, whereas those that do not would get the mainstream offering.

With that spelled out, let's then examine the benchmarks. The data for the 3950X puts it at or slightly ahead of the 9980XE. That is fine. But if you are choked on memory or need the PCIe lanes, the AM4 platform is a non-starter. Period. What that really is an advertisement for, due to pricing, is that if 1950X or 2950X owners, whose motherboards were roughly copy-pasted from X299 designs and did not fully take advantage of leveraging the PCIe lanes of the TR products in some instances, need an upgrade and expected to upgrade this year want something that fits that budget point, the 10980XE will now be their upgrade path (since drop in is no longer on the table). That is, of course, if you are able to overlook the security issues with the platform. The 18-core, due to speed and IPC, would be roughly in line with a 16-core threadripper on HEDT. A supported decent board for the 18-core for around $300 puts that platform at around $1300.

Now, let's look at the alternatives and price points. A 12-core on AM4 is MSRP of $500 and the 3950X 16-core is $750. The X570 MB is going to be $250-400 for a decent one. So, for switching to the AM4 platform, you have around a $1000 pricing for the 3950X that could go higher depending on features needed (up to $600, so $1350 unless REALLY burning money for the Aqua, etc.). The Intel highest end main HEDT lineup, excluding the overclockable Xeon, runs $1000 and can be had with motherboard around $1300-1450. And, if you need those lanes and memory bandwidth per core/thread for your specific programs, that is now the recommendation at that price point, especially if your software does not support nor scale past 22 threads (software coding in some instances is just not necessarily supporting the crazy (in a good way) increase in cores and threads). With the 24-core, you start at $1400, about $100 more than the ORIGINAL pricing of the 24-core 2970WX, whereas the 2990WX increased to $2000 from either $1700 or $1800 launch price. I don't have a problem with that as Epyc benchmarks showed the centralized I/O die corrected the NUMA issues in M$ software/OSes (which were due, in part, to legacy support of Intel's glued processors from long before and M$ not properly having a good scheduler to deal with these chips, stale data issues related to multiple hops to get to memory, etc.). But, the change in forcing a new socket, something not needed for the extra lanes on Epyc platforms and the memory argument for AM4 which had to be routed in the PCB, along with them blaming the PCIe lanes to the chipset when it was already shown AMD considered doing 8 lanes on AM4 but would not have needed a new socket and the reasons given for not doing so were heat and power draw, not a new socket, suggests the arguments on the necessity of the change are lies. Everyone can figure out the VRM issues are central, as power delivery for 24+ core chips required active cooling on the ZE, etc. But I digress.

In any case, that means for an upgrade, you will have to buy a new platform, and with the cheapest Gigabyte board being in the $400 range, while the ones with the features people really may want or need are in the $600 range, you have a buy-in of $1800-$2000, rather than a drop in of $1400. Moreover, AMD pushing buying the 2970WX or 2990WX for existing Zen/+ HEDT owners is almost an insult at this point, as it has been shown, depending on your workloads, the 18-core Intel chips may outperform those handily.

So, in mainstream, AMD wins the recommendation except for OCing or gaming, where if you are going max FPS and it is solely a gaming machine, Intel is still the top. Still, many will be consuming AMD chips for the $200 price point to $400 price point. Then comes the AM4 productivity. If you do NOT need the memory per core/thread nor the PCIe lanes, then the $750 ($1000-1150 platform cost with CPU) 3950X is a good chip. But if you are like me, you need around 44-PCIe lanes, give or take. That would bring you into Intel's offerings (which I recommend AGAINST buying any Intel 10-core or 12-core HEDT chips, they are not worth it, grab the 9900K if you don't need the PCIe or memory bandwidth per core/thread as it will be a better performer, generally, or get the AMD 3900X or 3950X), which is the 14-core for $780 and the 18-core for $1000 (or around $1100-1400). This is ignoring power budget, for the moment. Intel had the special auctioning of high binned 14-core chips awhile back. Those were shown to even beat the 18-core at specific tasks and workloads. As such, they should not be ignored. Comparing the 3950X to the 7960X, though, the 7960X got spanked handily in workloads. As such, it comes down to platform features. So, if you need the HEDT platform offerings, although fewer lanes than AMD's, Intel's platform fills the gap in-between the AMD AM4 offerings and AMD's Threadripper 3000 offerings, while having IPS (instructions per second, calculated as IPC*Frequency) roughly on par with the Zen 2 chips, even if slightly behind, but still being a large enough uplift from 1950X and 2950X chips that it should be considered, even if older in design.

Finally, anything above that level brings you to AMD's newest 3000 series TR lines. The 32-core will neuter Intel's OCable Xeon with 28-cores coming in at $3000 and with a MB costing $1000-2000, thereby meaning a platform cost of $4000+. AMD effectively killed this chip, and that is without discussing the 48-core and 64-core variants, who even though lacking AVX-512 have been shown on Epyc that the high core count and AVX-256 support overcomes to give equivalent performance with Intel's chips with roughly half the core count using AVX-512.

This is the pricing lineup and how my recommendations have shaped to date.

Now to address your statement Intel cannot compete with AMD TR. That is false. By cutting the prices in half, I have shown Intel now has a command of the HEDT space below the platform cost of $1400. AMD has NO COMPETING PRODUCTS in this segment. As mentioned on software utilization, some programs cannot fully use all those threads (not a bad problem, but can be a factor on if the higher core count chips are needed in that specific deployment). You also have the PCIe lanes or memory bandwidth per core/thread being a potential issue on how some software is coded, which would rule out AM4 from consideration. That means Intel has taken the budget friendly HEDT space WITHOUT any competition from AMD whatever. AMD has taken the crown atop the best performing HEDT products, toppling Intel in fantastic fashion. But what built Zen and Zen+ adoption WAS THE VALUE PROPOSITION. You could grab a 16-core AMD product on HEDT with more lanes over grabbing a 10-core Intel product for the same price. Guess what made sense for a lot of users? Now, Intel has the value proposition. It doesn't matter that it is on an older process, they were far enough ahead, and benchmarks show, that AMD's 16-core HEDT product would have only been a bit better than the 18-core offering while both the 1950X and 2950X products are much lower on performance than the 18-core. That means Intel is now not only the value proposition, but the logical upgrade path for 1950X and 2950X owners who cannot wait for the 2021 platform.

I think many people are forgetting to look at the actual product segmentation and how consumers will evaluate the product options. Because of that, they are only looking at "what is the biggest and best in that category." Just like the 2080 Ti is not the top selling regarding volume of cards, so to will the AMD top dog products not be moving the most volume in the segment. With TR and TR2, AMD flipped the script among DIYers so that they were outselling Intel 2:1 based on the value proposition. They just lost the value proposition. Do you think they are going to maintain their volume in the HEDT segment then? Probably not. Even Intel's purchasers of the $2000 18-core chips could not keep Intel in the majority on a volume basis for the segment. So thinking AMD can do it is a bit absurd.

And, just to stress the point, had AMD had a single 16-core HEDT chip, priced around $900, with the $150 price premium for quad channel and PCIe lanes, even with potentially higher cost MBs than Intel would require, they would get rid of any consideration of the 14-core or 18-core Intel CPUs, thereby having squeezed Intel from top to bottom out on value. That single lack of a product, even with changing the socket, literally is what will likely be considered AMD's folly and a big missed opportunity.

I hope this analysis finds readers well regarding this topic.

Edit:

So what? The problem is I'd have to buy daughter boards with mux chips to split out the PCIe4 lanes to PCIe 3 lanes to actually use my add-in cards. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE and raises the cost to equal or above levels of just buying an Intel HEDT platform.

You CANNOT count lane bandwidth like that. You MUST look at how it can be used. And since most cards are not yet optimized for PCIe 4.0, you do not get nearly the benefit that is possible there.

That is the problem with that argument. If you CANNOT use it with your cards, or have to use convoluted processes to make it usable, why bother when you have a product in that price range which can satisfy your need WITHOUT the contortions to use it?

So you are wrong and that argument is absurd ab initio. It is a distraction to make those that haven't optimized workstation HEDT platforms or those not fully utilizing their lane count to think maybe the mainstream platform is okay. But it isn't. You get bottlenecked with the chipset lanes, granted those being equivalent to a PCIe 3.0x8 lanes, while each card in a slot takes up physical space while reducing how to get what you need on the lanes you want. So you can split x16 to x8/x8, but without a daughter board with mux chip, you are wasting half the bandwidth on each slot. Quickly, when you start planning it out, the AM4 platform IS insufficient. PERIOD.

Edit 2:

And for the cost of the 3950X, you can just buy the 18-core and not have to fuss.

Let's break down how that would work, 3 graphics cards and NVMe. Those three cards are PCIe 3.0 unless being 5700/XT. That means that you would be stuck with an 8/4/4 situation. But, those are physical lanes. Because you have PCIe 3.0 products filling them, they are running at PCIe 3.0 speeds as 8/4/4, meaning there goes half the bandwidth for those lanes wasted AND if the GPUs are high-end enough, two of the cards are being choked by the x4 lanes, meaning you already are suffering on performance.

Then, with the NVMe, you have 1 with direct connection to the CPU. That is fine, but might be wasting bandwidth if PCIe 3.0 in the slot. The other two run through the chipset. That is equivalent to PCIe 3.0 x8, which is fine, but also is competing with ALL OTHER PRODUCTS hanging off the chipset, which may include your SSDs, anything plugged into sata potentially, possibly networking, etc. I'd have to see the MB schematic to give what it is sharing with.

Do you not see the problem?

 

Yes, this is your wishful thinking But Intel produce as much they can and be you sure they will get rid of them.

Be happy there are enough chips on the market or you could see price hike for AMD products. Shortage from Intel would affect AMD as well. Because the disgusting price gouging as we saw from AMD won't be less if there will be shortage from both Intel and AMD once again. So in short... You should be happy people buy Intel products Happy weekend!

 

I have always said don't listen to rumors. It's a bad idea to work up your minds eye image of what's going on based on 2nd hand or unconfirmed (inaccurate) information that is then shared and becomes rumor.

Spoiler: Why rumors and "fake news" are dangerous to live by

Speculation based on rumors builds up a community of news interactions that is false and misleading to those that aren't directly blow by blow active on a subject.

This can sway weak minded people that live off of herd influences rather than do due diligence and actually find out the reality + how it affects others and then actually intelligently and being well informed - make a decision.

Herd mentality is the fodder of the influencers and companies know people are weak minded and easily influenced and base their marketing on this knowledge of how people "process information". They depend on weak minded people to be easily influenced by "rumors" - or "fake news".

This also feeds into the whole first glance assumption problems many have - they gloss over the details so they are easily confused and then when the time comes to decide they are forced to take the easy way out - by making their life decisions based on "rumor" and "fake news" tailored by the media to make you do just that - what they want you to do.

Lazy habits breed lazy decisions and potentially bad outcomes.

Now, long after the fact, the AMD marketing slide text clearly was trying to cover themselves by "releasing" the fact that "we told you so" long ago.

At the time unless you had many years of experience "reading between the lines" you'd easily miss what they were really saying - know now that in 2019 you will need to deal with a new platform.

And, I didn't see it back then - so I didn't "know" all this time either. If I did see it back then I still wouldn't have said anything. Why?, because it wouldn't help anyone.

It wouldn't help buyers back then as they needed / wanted to buy what was available at the time to do what they needed to do. Would it have stopped some from buying? Unlikely. It wouldn't have stopped me or changed my behavior, because I am long experienced in "surprise" changes from vendors.

The TR4 generation lasted for 2 CPU releases. Not the best, not the worst, but also it doesn't really matter in the HEDT world.

The HEDT needs for those systems are typically fulfilled for specific roles, tasks, and more to the point - projects.

Project based buying takes on a different form in that the needs are specific to the task. Does the computer system(s) do the job we need it to do at the time of purchase?

Does the time allocated to complete the jobs allow the hardware purchased to complete the task in the budgeted time and cost? At the time of purchase it darned well better.

Spoiler: The Project Life Cycle...

As time goes by if the project is successful then more hardware is purchased, if your Engineering Department and Purchasing Department are aligned as they should.

Everywhere I've worked to architect new systems for deployment the Purchasing Department and Systems Building Departments work closely together throughout the whole project development phase through the deployment and support phases to acquire the best technology for the project tasks.

There are many other departments that interact to make the project happen, and in reality everyone matters to deliver a successful outcome.

There is much to be learned and shared by all of those interacting departments to gain market advantage - to do a good job - new hardware that can do the job better only being one such benefit of that interaction.

When new hardware is released we need to decide where it is going to be utilized, is it replacing previous production hardware or is it being added in to the pool of resources - this is only one such decision of the thousands needed when maintaining a project service.

Actually upgrading the CPU in a motherboard is a rare thing in any business setting where there are more than a few such computers to upgrade.

At best you will swap in a new computer so the users can continue producing useful work without interruption - a good upgrade will not even be noticeable to the end users work cycle - except hopefully the notice things happen much faster.

Being able to cleanly swap CPU processing boards is one thing, actually pulling off the cooling solution and swapping in a new CPU is ludicrous in an active production business setting.

I've actually done many such computer systems upgrades and I as a computer enthusiast who would do his own CPU upgrade, wouldn't recommend swapping CPU's in motherboards as an option, as it would require too many resources and too much time to implement it, not to mention the fallout from problems induced by tearing apart the production systems on that level at that scale.

You guys that wanna upgrade your computers by swapping the CPU are dealing with a 1 to 1 situation. It's time consuming, but you being the only operator or user of the computer are occupied doing the upgrade - and not using or needing that resource due to your hands and attention being used for the upgrade - so that's doable.

Try thinking about how to scale that up to 10's, 100's, 1000's of computers, and what the impact of that operation entails in order to actually do it.

I've put together and led teams of scores of people that need to be coordinated all at the same time to orchestrate hundreds of steps need to be taken over hours, days, weeks and months before it's completed. And before I had that responsibility, I worked in or with all of the departments and was part of such capital upgrades over many years.

And, that's on the part of simply building out, building up, and swapping online and offline the new and replaced hardware.

Dozens of departments are involved, from the property management - this expansion needs to take up land and property somewhere, to construction - the buildings and facilities need to be constructed, to utilities - the power, water, gas, firefighting, and environmental impacts need to be worked up and out over a long period of time that continues through the end of life of the facility.

In all of those operational requirements the most important thing to keep in mind is to keep it simple. Complications or risks need to be eliminated. Any setbacks or delays impact hundreds if not 10's of thousands of people.

New (HEDT) systems are procured and old (HEDT) systems are either used in a lower capacity - reassigned and re-utilized to other tasks on the project, traded with internal capital transfers to other departments or divisions, or recycling is negotiated and carried out.

If you wanted to swap 1000's of CPU's in place the logistics and interruptions in productivity to the users of those systems would be unmanageable in the best of circumstances.

The least impact is to backup the data - if you even allow local storage - usually only engineering has local storage needs - then lift up the "gas cap" and swap in a new solution.

For Project based HEDT computers the "compute" will get replaced not upgraded.

That means buying a whole new computer, a whole new CPU, a whole new motherboard, storage, power supply, and to the end user they will simply be getting a faster work computer to do their job faster and easier.

Few computer users will even ask the specifics of what is being specifically changed - fewer will ask if it has a new chipset and a newer design motherboard, or uses a new socket.

Because you are an enthusiast used to enthusiast computing you expect to be able to upgrade components including the "compute" portion, the "core" being of the role the computer is serving.

In HEDT computing "core" component upgrades are rare. You have treated an HEDT system as a "personal computer" and applied an enthusiast computing role to an HEDT system.

To you it's a financial shock when you discovered you unexpectedly need to swap in a whole new (motherboard and CPU) computer in order to upgrade. In the HEDT world, in the business world, in the real world use of computers in business, that's how it works.

You two are going crazy over something that the rest of us see as a normal step in the progress of computing applied to a project. We swap new computers in and out to solve needs - we don't worry about whether the socket or motherboard can be reused in the upgrade.

To the rest of us we are excited over the new high IO throughput TX40 (TX4 as Robert Hallock said), and it's a big deal - in a good way - that there are new motherboards, new CPU's - and that they use a non-compatible backward / forward socket is meaningless to us in actual real world terms.

 

The fact AMD purposely screwed a few enthusiast, of which I am one, they will not get a pass from me. They knew it would be a contentious decision that would upset a few consumers but again they did not care. So I will go forward knowing this and NEVER again trust AMD or anything they say ever again. silicon in existence only and I am no longer a fan at all, as I am sure they have lost others too.

Already Jays two cents commented on 3950x and TTR specifically mentioning am4 persistence but purposely avoiding the x399. At the same time looking forward to a TR for review, so as I mentioned be carefull what you say or maybe you will be passed on seeing a TR for review.

 

Intel and Nvidia have vast resources in comparison to AMD, and both Nvidia and Intel play the "fill up the shelves with our product to take over the available shelf real estate - edging out competitors to invisibility" and fill up the "mind space" of customers with lots and lots of choices to the stretching point of effective customer due diligence - inducing an intentional hopeless confusion on the part of the customers.

AMD doesn't have the resources - Robert Hallock has said so in interviews many times - to put out lots and lots of products. AMD has to carefully consider each product and produce only what is actually needed at the minimum - and that is the maximum AMD can afford to do.

AMD can't afford to put out 3 16c CPU's, one on TRX40 (TRX4?), one on AM4, and one on TR4 (x399).

AM4 has (maybe) one more generation of CPU's coming for it in 2020, so that the 16c as now made possible by Zen 2 (7nm) is a big upgrade used to fill out the AM4 platform - 8c, 12c, and now 16c.

Robert Hallock himself said as much that the 16c CPU on AM4 is their best choice and customer demand will determine if future high or higher core count CPU's will make it on to the consumer platform.

Creative users on the AM4 consumer platform that can benefit from 16c over the 12c/8c choices will determine the future of high core count CPU's in the consumer realm for AMD.

Robert Hallock said they found that HEDT users only want the top core count CPU's, and that the lower core count CPU's didn't sell as well as HEDT sku's as they did as the consumer sku's (AM4).

AMD has within 2 generations stopped offering 8c, 12c, and now 16 core sku's on HEDT because AMD can expand their HEDT offerings into even higher core count realms, as they migrate the 8c, 12c, and 16c count CPU's into the consumer realm.

Next year if we get 48c and/or 64c HEDT CPU's, and they predominate the sales of TRX40 (TRX4?) (TRX80 or TRX8) CPU's quickly, then we'll likely see 24c and 32c count CPU's move into the consumer realm - or disappear into the space between consumer and HEDT offerings - no demand in either realm.

Computing is always a moving target that we can't rely on not changing - it's always changing. We buy what we need at the time and plan to be ready to move on to something completely different the next time we upgrade. Purchases must pay for themselves in use and in disposition. It's simply good business and good money management.

 

Does it help that AMD had no choice? AMD couldn't afford to make 3 sku's of the 16c system, time and technology moved on and the 16c role is now consumer 1st and only. AMD didn't do it to "screw you", AMD did it as it was the only business decision they could afford to implement.

You see the non-mention of x399 / TR4 as avoiding persecution by AMD, while the rest of us have already moved on and consider TR4 no longer relevant in purchasing decisions, so of course we wouldn't be discussing it. It's a non-issue for HEDT users, buyers, and systems people that support them.

You saw Robert Hallock apologize and empathize in his responses, but there is nothing he or AMD could do differently - AMD have limited resoures.

You should remember this not to hold a grudge against AMD, but instead to realize the reality behind the decisions made at each generation release - so you can know and plan ahead - that anything can happen, plan and expect "the worst" and hope for the best. It's all any of us can do.

 

No, they should have taken the 24 and 32 core and made them compliant too x399 and trx40. Since trx40 most likely will be 24 and 64 capable they may have to have extra pinouts making it not compliant too TR gen1 orgen2. but that would have allowed peace meal upgrades. They knew removing x399 was a contentious decision, but again here we are.

Why do people keep mentioning x299, that was Intel's.?

 

Do you really think AMD can afford to TRIPLE the costs and application of development and production resources for their new 16c CPU release, hoping that would make everyone happy?

Actually in the end it's more than TRIPLE the cost to successfully come out with 3 parallel development and production paths for a 16c CPU instead of just the one development and production path.

And now you are suggesting AMD should have released 3 of the 16c, and 2 each of the 24c and 32c?

If you've never been involved in product development - hardware specifically - you can't imagine the cost and management multiplicative factors involved risking making that kind of "magic" happen successfully.

To be successful at rolling out great products on a level far greater than suggested by the simple multiplier of 3 x 2 (TR4, TRX4) + 1 (AM4) = 7 product sku's instead of 3 would be unthinkable.

AMD was late by a couple of months with what they had taken on with AM4 16c + TRX4 24c / 32c, can you imagine the cost and time required for AMD to have instead more than doubled that effort?

That would have made noone happy. It's not possible to do what you are asking AMD to have done, to make everyone happy.

AMD did the responsible thing and did what they could with what they had at the time to make the largest number of their customers happy.

You are angry with AMD for not having done the impossible. Is that really fair?

 

No I agree the 16 core should be AM4. The 24 and 32 core were originally Whitehaven chipset, x399. What is it you do not get?

 

Why do you think AMD should have wasted development and production resources on implementing new x399 CPU's for such a small group of people that would want to forgo the obvious advantages offered by the new IO throughput available on TRX40?

AMD is offering a new platform and new CPU's for that new platform. Which is the form of an upgrade I would expect from AMD for an HEDT platform.

That's why I am surprised that you expected AMD to also offer new CPU's for the last generation platform. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to remain on the old slow system components that don't take advantage of the new high performance IO available on the new platform.

Why fight for less, enjoy more by upgrading the whole system to the new CPU *and* the new platform that enables all the new features on the new CPU.

Really guys, this is so simple, there was no need for any of this complaining and endless discussion, just buy the motherboard and CPU, and enjoy it.

That's what any HEDT user / buyer would have expected and done - bought a new system with the new hardware to replace their old system.

 

Why because we are the reason they proliferated. We are the ones willing to drop $4,000 on a system we do not need because we believed in the cause. Did you, if not stop telling us that did what we should or should not have wanted.

They admitted knowing it was a controversial decision, they understand the reason apparently better than you! So if you do not understand go ask them!

 

I'm trying to share with you how it works out there in the real world, where computer replacements are the normal way of doing things, and how CPU and computer makers arrange the upgrade options as they do for doing business.

It's far too expensive to offer new CPU's - hobbled to interface with the old platform - and hobbled to disable yet function without the features available on the new platform.

The longer you think about this all as an interrelated realm that affects and involves many others needs besides your needs, the closer you will come to the explanation I am giving you for how it really works in the real world where HEDT computers are developed and sold.

There may be more and more individuals buying above the consumer level demarcation into the HEDT world - or even into the Server world, but once you are in those realms you need to know the working parameters of those worlds to understand how to operate within them.

Robert Hallock is being a nice guy when he say's he feels for the enthusiasts that feel they have been left out, but in reality he knows that's such a small number of people that have jumped out of the consumer realm into the HEDT realm that there's nothing he can do to help them - except explain how it really works.

And, Robert Hallock doesn't have the time to explain in the detail I am going into one on one with each person meeting them each on their different levels of understanding of how business computing works - because even in those realms not everyone really knows what's what - and Robert knows that.

That's why Robert doesn't bother trying to explain all of this to everyone, it's an impossible task from where he is, and he expects people closer to each person affected to explain it to them. Or for those people to figure it out on their own.

Robert can only commiserate and relate to your feelings on the subject and assure you that even if you don't understand why things are the way they are, they are that way for good reason - good reasons that do help everyone - including you.

That's about as far as I can go. Take your time, read what I wrote, read up on it elsewhere, try not to silo yourself with others as inexperienced as they will do nothing but reinforce misunderstandings further.

AMD did a good thing for all of us by releasing the ThreadRipper 3 + TRX40 chipset (TRX80?), and you can buy both the TRX40 motherboard and a nice ThreadRipper 3 CPU - or a whole built ThreadRipper 3 HEDT Computer, and then enjoy them as they were conceived and designed to be together as a whole system for all of us.

 

Walkthroughs or "unboxings" for new TRX40 motherboards...I'll see if I can find some more...wow, only the Aorus / Gigabyte's are out there right now...

Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Extreme Preview
OC3D TV
Premiered Nov 10, 2019
Could the be the best motherboard Gigabyte have ever made.....?


andrewesquivel 5 days ago
"Threadripper has always been in my eyes a fantastic Balancing Act. I can handle my video editing, CAD editing, and still be able to play games when I feel like it. When I'm not doing any of that I'm folding@home donating processing power for something bigger than myself. I blast through those cpu computations. I can only imagine how fast thread Ripper 3 would be. My video editor maxes out at 48 threads for utilization, so I wouldn't have any use above 24 cores"

GIGABYTE TRX40 AORUS XTREME - First Look and Unboxing (Threadripper 3)
Gear Seekers
Published on Nov 7, 2019
We are very excited to be sharing this exclusive first look at the TRX40 AORUS XTREME. We will add pricing and more info when that becomes available.


Gigabyte TRX40 AORUS MASTER - First Look & Unboxing
Gear Seekers
Published on Nov 10, 2019
We are very excited to be sharing this exclusive first look at the TRX40 AORUS Master.
Pricing as of filming is $929 AUD ~ $600 - $650 USD


TRX40 AORUS XTREME | Unboxing & First Look
AORUS
Published on Nov 12, 2019
Join Van as he unboxes and takes you through a first look at our flagship motherboard for the new 3rd Gen AMD Threadripper CPUs!
More info: https://aorus.com/product-detail.php?...

 

I got a love Hmscott's old posts I mean this post fits very well in here due the last posts. Everything being done correct as long its only AMD who is the performer
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...99-xeon-vs-epyc.805695/page-149#post-10598238

 

AMD is still selling TR4 CPU's and AMD have said they intend to fill the gap between AM4 and TRX40 with TR4 CPU's and x399 motherboards keeping TR4 alive for upgrades for years to come.

There are lots of people that will happily upgrade Gen1 TR4 to higher core count Gen1 and Gen 2 CPU's and AMD is continuing to make them.

There are lots of people that are excited about buying the discounted AMD TR4 Gen1 and Gen2 CPU's and I've posted information and links how to get the best price - Microcenter has them for much less than anyone else.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-689#post-10965842

Intel's own problems have slowed it down from spinning out new sockets and new technology for 6 years. Intel tried to keep racking up the single generation socket products, but now that it is stuck on 14nm for yet another couple of years, Intel is stuck on x299 / 1151-2 sockets, no innovation means no need for Intel to change the socket.

You know and I know if Intel had the means, they would still be pushing different sockets every generation. Instead Intel is stuck rehashing the same 14nm recycled security failed junk for every release.

Besides, who would want to buy Intel CPU's now anyway? Even as Intel approaches fire-sale level 50% discounted prices the security flaw riddled Intel CPU's - including the new Cascade-lake CPU's - are worthless, and you know I don't recommend buying them.

A new ‘Zombieload’ flaw hits Intel’s newest Cascade Lake chips
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...atches-and-more.812424/page-129#post-10966823

While AMD puts out next generation CPU's every year, and has a long track record finding a way to keep them alive on the same socket as long as possible, even AMD needs to change when the time is right.

Thanks for posting proof from over 3 years ago of my long term consistent advice.

 

Yeah, I know there is people who buy old. This is nothing new. And nothing wrong with that, but not all want buy yesterday's tech and support obsolescence masket as new with their hard earned money. Call it what you want but AMD in now the new Intel. In their worst... High prices and support obsolescence. And this without shame. But as I said before... As long it's about AMD everything is allowed. For me... I just have to smile