Ryzen 9 Threadripper up to 16 Cores & 4.1GHz

[BoraMurdar]

AMD’s entire Ryzen 9 Threadripper CPU lineup has been leaked, featuring 16, 14, 12 and 10 core parts with clock speeds of up to 4.1GHz. The company’s brand new enthusiast CPU lineup is set to launch this June and bring the company’s outstanding Zen architecture to the high-end desktop.

The Ryzen 9 lineup, code named Threadripper, will be compatible with a modified version of the company’s SP3 socket, code named SP3r2, which was originally designed for AMD’s 32 core Naples server parts. The new high-end desktop platform is code named “Whitehaven” and brings support for quad channel DDR4 memory support and 44 PCIe lanes to hardware enthusiasts, content creators and developers.

AMD’s 16 Core Threadripper Monsters – Ryzen 9 1998X & Ryzen 9 1998
The Ryzen 9 1998X is allegedly the flagship of the new lineup, featuring 16 cores, 32 threads, a base clock speed of 3.5GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.9GHz with XFR ( Extended Frequency Range ). Amazingly, this CPU is only rated at 155W, 5 watts less than Intel’s upcoming Core i9-7920X 12 core flagship Skylake X CPU.
The Ryzen 9 1998 is the 1998X’s little brother, featuring 16 cores with slightly lower clock speeds of 3.2GHz base and 3.6GHz boost and the same 155W TDP.

14 Core Threadripper CPUs – Ryzen 9 1977X & Ryzen 9 1977
There are again two 14 core parts, the Ryzen 9 1977X is a 155W 14 core, 28 thread part with a base clock speed of 3.5GHz and a boost clock speed of 4.1GHz with XFR. The Ryzen 9 1977 features a base clock speed of 3.2GHz, a boost clock speed of 3.7GHz and a slightly lower TDP of 140W.

12 Core Threadripper CPUs – Ryzen 9 1976X, Ryzen 9 1956X & Ryzen 9 1956
The 12 core Threadripper Ryzen 9 lineup allegedly consists of three SKUs. The Ryzen 9 1976X is a 12 core, 24 thread 140W part with a base clock speed of 3.6GHz and a boost clock speed of 4.1GHz with XFR. The Ryzen 9 1956X is a 125W part, again with 12 cores & 24 threads. It runs at a base clock speed of 3.2GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.8GHz with XFR. The entry level 12 core part is the 1956, it’s rated at 125W and runs at a base clock speed of 3.0GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.7GHz.

10 Core Threadripper CPUs – Ryzen 9 1955X, Ryzen 9 1955
We also allegedly have two 10 core parts, both rated at 125W. The Ryzen 9 1955X runs at a base clock speed of 3.6GHz boosts to 4.0GHz with XFR. The Ryzen 9 1955 runs at a base clock speed of 3.1GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.7GHz.

The Whitehaven platform will compete directly with Intel’s upcoming HEDT X299 platform and Skylake X CPUs. The upcoming family of Ryzen 9 enthusiast Threadripper CPUs are considerably larger than the current Ryzen lineup which is why they will not be compatible with AM4. With up to 16 cores and 32 threads Ryzen 9 chips stand to be the most powerful desktop CPUs we’ve ever seen introduced in the desktop market.

 

[brambedkar59]

Shut up and take my money!
Love the name "Threadripper", like a beast.

 

[Deletedmessiah]

Can't wait for Ryzen on laptops!

 

[Parsh]

Finally what you and I waited for (since days) is here! I think I'm in need of some cash to upgrade soon
I don't have much idea about the AMD series but this lineup looks like a massive upgrade, for the ever-enthusiasts.

 

[frogboy]

Maybe this may even get @Lockdown interested in AMD computers again, but I doubt it.

 

[Deletedmessiah]

Maybe this may even get @Lockdown interested in AMD computers again, but I doubt it.

Whats the story with @Lockdown and AMD?

 

[frogboy]

Whats the story with @Lockdown and AMD?

It fried one of his machines big time. Not sure how now I forget.

 

[SHvFl]

Lol, who cares about this except the few thousands that might benefit. How about try and make a 6/12 that has a high frequency so that it doesn't suck in every game on the planet so that it makes sense buying that for high end gaming. Then amd can compete with intel again. For now it's only gimmick for most users.

EDIT: Sorry mod forgot again but even pg13 allows saying the F word at least once per movie .

 

[harlan4096]

 

[BoraMurdar]

Lol, who cares about this except the few thousands that might benefit. How about try and make a 6/12 that has a high frequency so that it doesn't suck in every game on the planet so that it makes sense buying that for high end gaming. Then amd can compete with intel again. For now it's only gimmick for most users.

AMD is actually beating Intel in every segment now when Ryzen came out. Except in those cases where you have a 144Hz monitor and seek for more than 120FPS in 1080p or 1440p on high-ultra settings.
Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500X beats i5 7400 and 7500 in almost all cases (gaming, creating)
Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X beats overclocked i5 7600K and in some cases matching the gaming performance of Ryzen 7s
Ryzen 7 1700, 1700X and 1800X are a way faster in creativity and somewhat slower in gaming compared to high-end Intel's offerings BUT : as I said, a margin is visible for 1080p gaming. As I assume most people will pair high-end CPU with a high-end GPU, you will get 130 FPS with AMD and 150 FPS with Intel if you play in 1080p. If you play on higher resolutions that margin will get thinner. Yes, Intel i7 is faster, but not that much in a practical manner.

Long story short, comparing top line i7 and Ryzen 7, if you game in 1080p, you probably won't notice a difference between a 130FPS and 150 FPS, or 110 FPS and 130FPS if your monitor refresh rate is adequate. If you game on higher resolutions the difference will be even smaller. If you create music, video or any content you will be able to do it faster with Ryzen for the less money. If you buy unlocked versions of Intel CPUs you will have to buy an aftermarket cooler, AMD coolers are pretty good for overclocking all Ryzen CPUs to the 4GHz. Also, if you plan to overclock, B350 mobos are cheaper than Z270 mobos.

[note: facts are supported by the reviews from Techspot, Guru3D, Hexus and TomsHardware]

 

[brambedkar59]

AMD is improving a lot but not impressive. those extreme tests don't work to regular gamer user, Nobody is going to play in 4 ghz with nitro. Nowadays, you do not need so many cores or gigahertz, only videocard that you need.

You are absolutely right about the importance of GPU for gamers. AMD might not beat Intel in raw fps in games but it still has better performance/cost ratio (and Ryzen architecture is also pretty efficient). In future, i do hope new games are optimized for Ryzen.
All in all, the rise of AMD (to a competitive level) will benefit consumers as competition usually drive prices lower (especially for Intel cpus).

 

[SHvFl]

AMD is actually beating Intel in every segment now when Ryzen came out. Except in those cases where you have a 144Hz monitor and seek for more than 120FPS in 1080p or 1440p on high-ultra settings.
Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500X beats i5 7400 and 7500 in almost all cases (gaming, creating)
Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X beats overclocked i5 7600K and in some cases matching the gaming performance of Ryzen 7s
Ryzen 7 1700, 1700X and 1800X are a way faster in creativity and somewhat slower in gaming compared to high-end Intel's offerings BUT : as I said, a margin is visible for 1080p gaming. As I assume most people will pair high-end CPU with a high-end GPU, you will get 130 FPS with AMD and 150 FPS with Intel if you play in 1080p. If you play on higher resolutions that margin will get thinner. Yes, Intel i7 is faster, but not that much in a practical manner.

Long story short, comparing top line i7 and Ryzen 7, if you game in 1080p, you probably won't notice a difference between a 130FPS and 150 FPS, or 110 FPS and 130FPS if your monitor refresh rate is adequate. If you game on higher resolutions the difference will be even smaller. If you create music, video or any content you will be able to do it faster with Ryzen for the less money. If you buy unlocked versions of Intel CPUs you will have to buy an aftermarket cooler, AMD coolers are pretty good for overclocking all Ryzen CPUs to the 4GHz. Also, if you plan to overclock, B350 mobos are cheaper than Z270 mobos.

[note: facts are supported by the reviews from Techspot, Guru3D, Hexus and TomsHardware]

It depends on the games you play. I play mostly fps and even at 1080p the few fps you lose might matter. As everything in life it depends but for sure Ryzen isn't beating anything by enough to make anyone consider an upgrade on a new platform and its issues. You disagree with that?
Sure if i had to buy then maybe i would consider the 1700/x but other than that doubtful. I would probably wait for the new releases for both companies and then decide. We are not at that point that more cores do miracles for most software.

 

[mekelek]

and i thought my Ryzen 7 has too many cores

 

[Kuttz]

Just call the procy as AMD ThreadRipper which sounds super aggressive and powerful.

 

[BoraMurdar]

It depends on the games you play. I play mostly fps and even at 1080p the few fps you lose might matter. As everything in life it depends but for sure Ryzen isn't beating anything by enough to make anyone consider an upgrade on a new platform and its issues. You disagree with that?
Sure if i had to buy then maybe i would consider the 1700/x but other than that doubtful. I would probably wait for the new releases for both companies and then decide. We are not at that point that more cores do miracles for most software.

You won't notice a difference in program's execution or loading as IPC model is more powerful in Intel CPUs. But those are measured in milliseconds and the difference is unnoticeable. But if you encode, encrypt, decrypt, compress, calculate, stream, virtualize, create any media content I think that difference in seconds/minutes is quite important.

I look at this in this way, not everyone is a hardcore gamer, and games nowadays are so much dependable on GPU than on CPU. The time has passed when AMD FX 8 core gave 34 FPS when Intel 4 core gave 60+ FPS, as if you go with powerful enough GPU, a processor will not bottleneck it.
A friend of mine bought Asus GTX 1080 and paired it with i5 7600K (4.6 Ghz overclocked). It's a beast. But he is playing 1080p games on 75Hz monitor. He will not notice a difference between 100 and 120 FPS.
It's like a smartphone promotion where operator A is giving you a 10 000 free minutes and operator B gives you 25 000 free minutes monthly. I can't spend all those minutes in both cases even operator B is giving me more. This is that case where more doesn't mean better.
I am a user that targets a CPU for ~200$. Yes, Ryzen 5 is a clear choice for me as it will give me better creation performance and little less gaming performance for the less money. I am telling this to myself I need to craft a machine that will suit my needs but there's always something more important in my current situation. At the end, if money isn't a problem, and you want the best performance, you go with Intel. All this is very healthy as all of us will profit, as the prices will continue to drop

 

[SHvFl]

You won't notice a difference in program's execution or loading as IPC model is more powerful in Intel CPUs. But those are measured in milliseconds and the difference is unnoticeable. But if you encode, encrypt, decrypt, compress, calculate, stream, virtualize, create any media content I think that difference in seconds/minutes is quite important.

I look at this in this way, not everyone is a hardcore gamer, and games nowadays are so much dependable on GPU than on CPU. The time has passed when AMD FX 8 core gave 34 FPS when Intel 4 core gave 60+ FPS, as if you go with powerful enough GPU, a processor will not bottleneck it.
A friend of mine bought Asus GTX 1080 and paired it with i5 7600K (4.6 Ghz overclocked). It's a beast. But he is playing 1080p games on 75Hz monitor. He will not notice a difference between 100 and 120 FPS.
It's like a smartphone promotion where operator A is giving you a 10 000 free minutes and operator B gives you 25 000 free minutes monthly. I can't spend all those minutes in both cases even operator B is giving me more. This is that case where more doesn't mean better.
I am a user that targets a CPU for ~200$. Yes, Ryzen 5 is a clear choice for me as it will give me better creation performance and little less gaming performance for the less money. I am telling this to myself I need to craft a machine that will suit my needs but there's always something more important in my current situation. At the end, if money isn't a problem, and you want the best performance, you go with Intel. All this is very healthy as all of us will profit, as the prices will continue to drop

Yeah, we all wish for the competition to bring prices down for cpu. This is the only thing all agree i would hope.

 

[ant_gamal]

The score of performance of ryzen will be better than shows

When programmers write support codes for Amd as intel

Amd came to rock again
The failed was empty cos Intel play alone last few years

This be good for us

And I wait when price blanced to get my new pc
I will get VR as I wish

 

[509322]

Whats the story with @Lockdown and AMD?

Just problems in the past between AMD\ATI drivers and various security softs (most notably COMODO), SSDs (Samsung Evos) and such. Plus, Windows 10 upgrade killed an AMD system BIOS.

AMD is OK, but I prefer Intel. Less overall driver and other problems in my personal experience.

 

[509322]

Maybe this may even get @Lockdown interested in AMD computers again, but I doubt it.

AMD has always used slick marketing to convince buyers that AMD processors are every bit the equivalent or better than Intel ones.

Get the same or better performance at less than half the price...

In the real world, AMD claims have never lived up to expectations - at least not in my own personal experience with their processors.

I will believe it when I see it.

 

[frogboy]

AMD has always used slick marketing to convince buyers that AMD processors are every bit the equivalent or better than Intel ones.

Get the same or better performance at less than half the price...

In the real world, AMD claims have never lived up to expectations - at least not in my own personal experience with their processors.

I will believe it when I see it.

Agreed 100% with that.