1 socket 16 / 32 @ 2.9GHz max for $700+... it looks like 16 core Threadripper with reasonable frequencies for less then $999 looks in reach...
Optane isn't interesting, and while I have a fascination for AVX512 from discussions with a friend who does HPC, I know I concretely won't use it most of the time. The only unique thing that Intel offers me right now is Thunderbolt 3.
I said exactly that, "things haven't changed much since then". It ran well and all, and never overtly irritated me.
But the newest round of affordable mid-high end CPUs is a huge upgrade. Same with SSDs, even compared to ones a few years old. It's one of those things you don't really realize how big the difference is until you use them back to back.
Do it!
this is very very different from back in the 90s, in those good old days 18 months old PC is basically useless.
I had a Q9300, and than upgraded to some i7 because I needed more slots on the motherboard. I was very surprised by how much quicker the whole system was, even if I was under the same impression, that in the last years things didn't change a lot.
CPUs get faster by around 20% per year, but in 8 years this can get compounded a lot.
Threadripper has half the memory channels and half the PCIe lanes.
EPYC is available with up to twice the cores.
The main advantage I see for Threadripper is that at 16 cores EPYC will have half the cores disabled, so for problems that fit in L2 you lose some performance from the reduced L2 sharing. That and it should be priced better than server chips, with I suspect the 12 - 14 core being the sweet spot.
Based on leaks I think Threadripper might boost a few 100 MHz higher, with base clock up to 3.6GHz.
Is there any info on cache architecture for Zen?
Zen has 512K L2 per core and 8M L3 per CCX (two CCX per dice). L3 is a victim cache iirc, unlike previous generations where the L3 was inclusive.
Intel usually went with a similar scheme in the last few years, where the L3 is partitioned into slices assigned to cores; accessing the local slice is faster than a non-local slice. Skylake-SP deviates from this (significantly), for better ... or worse.
That doesnt make sense to me. I can't find any good info on this.
If this applies to multi die solutions like Threadripper, there will be no 10 and 14 core parts as they would require uneven CCX combinations.
If the Epyc lineup is an indication this might be true. Especially since there is no 12 core part for Epyc. Since it has 4 dies you could produce 12 cores by using only 3 cores of each die, but this would require uneven CCX (1+2 or 0+3).
IOW core #13 is the 5th core in the second die, aka the 1st core in the second CCX on the second die. So it would have a direct link to the 1st core in the first CCX on the second die, as well as a link to the 5th core in the other 3 dies as well as a link to the 13th core on the second chip if in 2P.
So it seems quite likely that all 16 CCX's in a 2P server must have the same number of cores.
I think AMD also stated there will be no dual CPU Threadripper setups. so the CPU interconnect stuff also won't need to exist on threadripper motherboards.
See eg. or Socket 'L' vs. 'F' in AMD's history (hint -- they're the same thing), or the various Socket 2011 Intel iterations across server/enthusiast markets.
You may lose out on some features (eg. RDIMM support with server CPU, overclocking support in either direction, etc.)
Untimately, I hope, the cross-compatibility of EPYC CPUs on enthusiast chipsets will be a decision for motherboard manufacturers to make, as it has been in the past. 64 PCIe lanes should be enough for... at least some of us ;)
ETA:
As parent mentioned, the situation this time is more complicated.
Threadripper in an EPYC board is likely to be problematic -- the CPU doesn't have enough PCIe/Infinty Fabric connectivity to allow CPU links and PCIe to be active simultaneously. Even in a 1P system, only half of the board's potential PCIe lanes would be available. Due to these issues, it's likely such a setup may not be supported. It would be a strange thing to try in the first place, however, especially if equivalent EPYC parts end up similarly-priced to Threadripper.
EPYC in a Threadripper board is the news I'm hoping (and expecting) to be better -- the parent talked about powering the extra dies... an interesting consideration, though I expect (and hope) the only pins which won't be broken out on a Threadripper board will be the extra PCIe lanes.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6icdyo/amd_threadrippe...