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

[vienna]

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

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



<O>

[BarracudaUAK]

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

Had a feeling this is what they would do next.

Barracuda

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by vienna

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

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



<O>

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

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


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


Thanks for the info Vienna.

[vienna]

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regular workers actually producing the results, but executives will squeeze the last bit of use out of those workers' outdated/inadequate technology and then wonder why productivity has lessened; in the mean time, those same executives feel no considerations of cost when they select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




<O>

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by vienna

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




<O>

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

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

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

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

[Commander Wallace]

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

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

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


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


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



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

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


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

[Rockin Robbins]

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

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

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

[propbeanie]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

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

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

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


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


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



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

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


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

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