Comments Locked

109 Comments

Back to Article

  • Alistair - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Buy a Mac Pro with a slow old Xeon 8 core, or build a Threadripper system for the same price with 64 cores? :)
  • PickUrPoison - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Max 256GB RAM doesn’t cut it given the high-end configs Apple wants to support with Mac Pro.
  • mdriftmeyer - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    With the Mobile and now Threadripper Apple should abandon Intel now. Zen supports up to 2TB of DDR4 Ram so perhaps Apple will release an update sooner rather than later with upcoming RDNA 2.0 GPGPUs and Zen 3.0 Threadripper 4000 series at the earliest.
  • PickUrPoison - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Did you intend to reply to my post? We’re discussing Mac Pro. So ECC.
  • PloniAlmoni - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Threadripper fully supports ECC....
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    And by “fully supports” you mean doesn’t support RDIMMS or LRDIMMS at all.

    So exactly what is the maximum memory that threadripper can support with single- or dual rank UDIMMs?
  • Pence - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    ECC stands for error correcting code. It uses extra memory to detect and correct data corruption. RDIMM and LRDIMM are types of buffered memory that reduce the electrical load on the memory controller. This allows more for more memory per memory channel. While most unbuffered memory lacks ECC and most buffered memory includes it, they are separate technologies and there is both unbuffered ECC memory and buffered non-ECC memory. Hope this helps. :)
  • gsvelto - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Most ThreadRipper motherboards claim a maximum of 128GiB memory supported which means either 16x8 or 32x4 DIMMs. I don't know if it's possible to load them with 8 dual-ranked 32GiB unbuffered ECC DIMMs but those have been available for a while:

    https://memory.net/product/m391a4g43mb1-ctd-samsun...
    https://memory.net/product/aa335284-dell-1x-32gb-d...

    DDR4-2933 is also sampling in those sizes:

    https://memory.net/product/m391a4g43ab1-cvf-samsun...

    If motherboards will accept those then 256GiB should be possible.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    That is my understanding as well.

    That’s why I replied “Max 256GB RAM doesn’t cut it given the high-end configs Apple wants to support with Mac Pro” when OP crapped on the Mac Pro and suggested a threadripper build as an alternative :)
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    It is an alternative man.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Not a very good one if you need 512GB of RAM. Or 1.5TB for that matter. Or your workload is constrained by memory bandwidth. Or you want/need to run MacOS.
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    It's a better one actually. The 3990x can go up to 1TB memory capacity with the proper motherboard. TRX80 and WRX80 chipsets and motherboards have already been rumored a few months ago.

    "Or you want/need to run MacOS"

    Why would somebody that needs over 512GB RAM or more consider a Mac in the first place? Apple hasn't been in this segment for many years and companies or individuals that needed huge amounts of RAM have migrated to Windows or Linux many many years ago.
    Mac Pro supports a lot of RAM because of the Xeon CPU not because it was needed or was requested by somebody or there are many MacOS workloads that need +512GB RAM.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    You came in late, but the subject was Xeon workstations and whether threadripper was a viable alternative to Mac Pro as OP claimed.

    Xeon workstations by definition have ECC memory. Threadripper supports a max of 256GB ECC. That’s it. Not 512GB, or 1TB, or 1.5 TB. So if you need more than 256GB, TR is not even an option. A non-starter. Unusable.

    Customers are willing to pay $50-100k or more for Xeon Workstations for a reason. That you don’t understand the use cases for them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and is not particularly relevant. Educate yourself.

    PS Don’t get hung up on MacOS. People run Windows and Linux on Macs as well.
  • Nicon0s - Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - link

    Ryzen and Threadripper CPUs also support ECC memory. It's unbuffered but that doesn't matter as you aren't going to uses huge amount of RAM to need buffered or registered memory.
    Last generation Threaripper CPUs support more than 256GB RAM. The specs I've seen for the 3990x say it supports up to 1TB RAM(and it's possible buffered memory). Current TRX40 motherboards are limited to 256GB RAM not the CPU itself.

    "TR is not even an option. A non-starter. Unusable."

    LoL you must be joking. In terms of performance and efficiency it actually makes intel's Xeons look like a joke. And you don't even have to go up to a 3990x, the 3970x beats any CPU Intel has.
    You are concentrating too much on this niche RAM usage which is irrelevant for the vast majority Mac Pro users anyway and totally ignoring the CPU performance.
    What if you need more CPU performance? Then according to your logic Mac Pro is not even an option. A non-starter. Unusable.

    "Customers are willing to pay $50-100k or more for Xeon Workstations for a reason"

    Yeah for niche reasons, server farms or whatever not for Mac Pros although the Mac Pro itself is a niche so a niche within a niche.

    "That you don’t understand the use cases for them doesn’t mean they don’t exist"

    If you concentrate on a niche case it doesn't mean that that's all that matters and nothing else is relevant and that a Threadripper build can't even be considered an alternative to this incredible Mac Pro.

    "PS Don’t get hung up on MacOS. People run Windows and Linux on Macs as well."

    Yeah buy an overpriced Mac to install Windows on it because you only want/need to run MacOS. Nice backpedaling.
  • PickUrPoison - Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - link

    @Nicon0s—Hey troll, don’t selectively edit my quotes to create a straw man. I said “So if you need more than 256GB, TR is not even an option. A non-starter. Unusable.” TR is limited to 256GB of ECC RAM. So yes, if you need a workstation with more than 256GB, TR is not an option. That’s not hard for you to understand, is it?

    And motherboards aren’t the issue with respect to memory capacity. The TR memory controller doesn’t support buffered ECC, only UDIMMs. AMD reserves RDIMM and LRDIMM support to EPYC. EPYC is the appropriate CPU for this usage. Not TR. Educate yourself.

    re: OS support, if you want a workstation that supports MacOS, Linux and Windows, you have one option (professionals don’t steal the tools they use to do their work, they willingly pay for them, so I exclude Hackintosh). Bring that to you attention is hardly backpedaling.

    If you have a problem with Apple, Dell, HP and Lenovo only using Xeon in their workstations, the question of why is best put to their customers. Ask them why they prefer to buy Xeon.

    Get lost, you’re boring. And wrong. Back under your bridge.
  • Nicon0s - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    @PickUrPoison why don't you go on Macrumors and troll there like you always do, you fanboy.
    I didn't create any straw man, you are the one trying to ignore the huge CPU power difference between a Threadripper and this already outdated and late Mac Pro because of some niche RAM usage you haven't even exemplified at all up to this point.

    "And motherboards aren’t the issue with respect to memory capacity."

    There's no issue at all fanboy. And I only said that the latest Threadripper CPUs supports more RAM than the 256GB limit we see on TRX40 boards. Threadripper and EPYC CPUs use exactly the same silicone, it there are limitations they are artificial and can be enabled with more advanced boards, like the rumored TRX80. So you should educate yourself.

    "re: OS support, if you want a workstation that supports MacOS, Linux and Windows, you have one option (professionals don’t steal the tools they use to do their work, they willingly pay for them, so I exclude Hackintosh). Bring that to you attention is hardly backpedaling. "

    You said I shouldn't get hung up on MacOS when I pointed our that isn't a justifiable reason for needing a computer with this OS, if the usage requires huge amounts of RAM. So if the heavy lifting with RAM workloads would be done by Microsoft or Linux then the Mac Pro makes no sense and can be replaced by any other Mac computer, even a Mac Mini. More than 512GB of RAM and up to 1.5TB RAM + MacOS isn't a real match that a lot of people will need or want or try. And your answer to that was, just install Windows or Linux on it. Yeah like I've said nice backpedaling.
    The 2013 Mac Pro maxed out at 64GB RAM so it's like I've said, people that wanted huge amounts of RAM migrated away from MacOS and Macs years ago. The 256GB limit is perfume for people that only worked with Macs all their lives.

    "If you have a problem with Apple, Dell, HP and Lenovo only using Xeon in their workstations, the question of why is best put to their customers. Ask them why they prefer to buy Xeon."

    It's like you are tying to make it seem like they prefer to use Xeons or something. I suspect that this situation has more to do with Intel and their relations with these OEMs.

    The 3970x and 3990x are faster than any Xeon. AMD demoed a single 3990x beating a dual 28 core Xeon platinum config in a productivity workload. AMD's chips are so much faster it's comical and this is precisely what you keep ignoring.
    Apple's fancy Xeon computer is simply decimated in CPU performance by AMD's consumer CPUs. The 3970x is basically the same price Apple is asking for a 16 core Xeon and in CPU performance the Threadripper solution simply humiliates that 16 core Xeon.

    So yeah :
    Get lost, you’re boring. And wrong. Back under your bridge.
  • PickUrPoison - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    Sorry I triggered you with facts you can’t dispute. This is not a safe space—deal with reality, and deal with these facts:

    1) Altering quotes makes you a troll, and then proceeding to argue against that changed meaning is the very definition of a straw man argument. Educate yourself.

    2) The TR motherboards you keep referring to can only support 256GB of ECC RAM. The Mac Pro supports 1.5TB. Educate yourself.

    3) The 2013 Mac Pro supports 128GB of RAM, not 64GB.

    And the 2017 iMac Pro supports 512GB; the 2018 Mac Pro, 1.5TB. The 256GB of this $4,000 TR is hardly “perfume”. Educate yourself.

    4) I’m sure the fact that Mac users can also run Windows and Linux is upsetting to you, but it’s a fact. One of your major problems seems to be that you don’t know why workstation users need more than 256GB. Or why some users prefer Macs. Educate yourself.

    5) If a workstation user needs more than 256GB of RAM, TR is not an option. It doesn’t matter if it has 10,000 cores. Do you not understand that core count is only one factor in analyzing the suitability of a tool against its requirements? You can’t just throw cores at a problem that won’t even fit into memory. Educate yourself.

    6) Workstation customers have no interest in TR at all. Stop trying to push it for that market. It’s not usable. You’re being ridiculous. AMD doesn’t support RDIMM and LRDIMM on TR because they don’t want workstation customers buying less expensive CPUs, they have EPYC for that. It’s called market segmentation. Educate yourself.

    7) As I said downthread:

    “Completely agree TR doesn’t target Xeon, and EPYC does. That was never up for debate. OP proposed a TR build instead of a Mac Pro, and I disagreed.

“The rumored sWRX8 chips would be extremely interesting for workstation usage (if they exist as has been rumored). They could trounce Intel. 8-channel memory, 96-128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, a ton of cores and RAM, good base clocks, good pricing... sounds good to me :) “

    I guess that makes me an AMD fanboy?

    8) If you think you can dispute any of the above points 1 through 7 please do try. But you’re out of gas, aren’t you lol.
  • Nicon0s - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    LoL the funny thing is that after so many "Educate yourself" you still failed to give any example about who and what fancy Mac Pro users need more than 256GB RAM and you still ignored the massive performance difference between the CPUs.
    Yeah a niche within a niche like I've said.

    "8) If you think you can dispute any of the above points 1 through 7 please do try. But you’re out of gas, aren’t you lol. "

    Well you didn't really dispute any of my points so your comment is a waste of time in the first place. Go back and dispute what I wrote and then have pretensions if not shut up, but you won't because you are an apple troll who gets mad like a school girl when somebody says something negative about apple.
  • PickUrPoison - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    There’s a reason I say “educate yourself” It’s not up to me to educate you about, for instance, the engineering and scientific workloads that’s require tons of RAM.

    There’s a reason Dell, HP and Lenovo sell expensive workstations with 512GB or a a terabyte (or more) of RAM. They don’t exist merely to make the 256GB limit of ECC RAM on threadripper inadequate and therefore frustrate you. Why do you think AMD makes EPYC lol? There’s no reason to get mad when someone says something truthful that you don’t like.

    No matter how upsetting it might be for you that Mac Pro competes in this space, that doesn’t change the facts. I’m not sure why you can’t admit that some users need more than 256GB of RAM, or why you want me to prove that to you.

    This whole exchange started because you didn’t know that TR could only use 256GB of ECC memory, and therefore wasn’t an alternative to a Mac Pro for those who require greater than 256GB of RAM. You also seemed unaware that Macs can run Linux and Windows as well as OSX ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    In any case, no matter how many ad hominem attacks you throw my way, it won’t change a thing. I don’t know why you continue to insist TR is a substitute for Xeon in a Mac Pro or any other workstation. You are familiar with EPYC, are you not? You do understand that AMD makes them because they meet the requirements of some users, whereas TR cannot? Educate yourself. If you’re really interested in this stuff, perhaps you might want to consider pursuing a degree in computer science. Good luck in your future endeavors :)
  • Nicon0s - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    There's a reason, there's a reason bla bla.
    OK so you said:

    "The TR motherboards you keep referring to can only support 256GB of ECC RAM. The Mac Pro supports 1.5TB. Educate yourself."

    But before than you claimed:

    "Threadripper supports a max of 256GB"

    I explained multiple time that that's the TRX40 limit no Thredripper's but you ignored it until you repeated what I said multiple times and finished with: "Educate yourself"
    Yeah man you are so cool and smart and so fair and honest.

    But anyway, why don't you give any examples of those Mac Pro engineering and scientific workloads that require tons of RAM and would would run them?
    You think you are so smart but you haven't realized up to this point that you are talking about pure exceptions. You generalized that a Threadripper computer is not an alternative to a Mac Pro because you can't install as much RAM but you ignore the fact that for over 95% of the market, this is irrelevant anyway and the most important thing is the actual performance of the workstation not that it support 1.5TB RAM. The the RAM thing is only an excuse to try to insinuate that the massive price and performance difference vs a 3990x is irrelevant in general and you obviously continue to ignore the simple fact that the 3990x absolutely murders the top of the line Xeon Mac Pro in most common CPU intensive workloads.

    "Mac Pro competes in this space"

    Mac Pro is a glorified hipster box that will mostly only be used buy YouTubers and other similar hipsters to edit videos on Final Cut, so a situation where the over 512GB RAM support doesn't matter anyway or more exactly it doesn't matter for most of the potential Mac Pro market. Criticizing it's value vs a cheaper and 2X faster alternative is a very valid point.

    It's funny you keep trying to bring Dell and other PC OEMs into the discussion. Dell will sell you anything, with as many cores, ram and GPUs you want, they aren't a hipster company that needs 6 years to redesign a classic PC box. Its weird you are trying to use them to make a positive point for Apple.
  • vhhvhh - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link

    You are probably Romanian so you don't understand paying for performance and stability.
    One should never take seriously any benchmark presented by the selling entity AMD or Intel.
    The MacPro is over priced indeed as a starting point but everything else -> take it up with Intel.
    You clearly don't understand manufacturing and buying cycles at the corporate level:
    3 Years from now if Ryzen is still king then you will see the switch... For now a third generation 'finally faster' product would be very difficult to explain to any purchasing department.
  • Zizo007 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Threadripper is 256Gb max but Xeon is not meant to compete with TR, its targetting Epyc.
    Epyc supports up to 4TB RAM 256 Threads 2 sockets which pretty much destroys any Mac Pro, Apple should really start to think about using AMD now.
  • Zizo007 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Also Epyc is much cheaper than the Xeon in the Mac Pro. Mac Pro is waaay overpriced and not even the top of the line.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    IBM, Dell and Lenovo don’t sell EPYC workstations either. They are probably evaluating them, and Apple probably is as well. Will AMD be able to crack the high end Xeon workstation market? That remains to be seen. Those customers aren’t particularly price conscious.
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Dell actually sells AMD based servers.
    https://www.dellemc.com/en-us/servers/amd.htm#scro...

    AMD is steadily gaining server market share which isn't a surprised with almost 2x the performance in many workload vs Intel's top Xeon and like 2x the power efficiency.
    Apple doesn't have a strong base of enterprise server and workstation costumers like Dell, Lenovo or HP so the more they wait to adopt in their products the obvious top performing CPUs on the market the more will hurt them. Which is fine by me actually.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Dell, Lenovo and HP don’t use AMD in their workstation products. That could change in the future if customers want EPYC instead of Xeon. Who knows?

    Apple doesn’t really target the server market, they discontinued those products upwards of a decade ago. So regardless of what the big three do, I’d expect Apple’s share to remain roughly zero ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Completely agree TR doesn’t target Xeon, and EPYC does. That was never up for debate. OP proposed a TR build instead of a Mac Pro, and I disagreed.

    The rumored sWRX8 chips would be extremely interesting for workstation usage (if they exist as has been rumored). They could trounce Intel. 8-channel memory, 96-128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, a ton of cores and RAM, good base clocks, good pricing... sounds good to me :)
  • phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    There are 64 GB LRDIMM unbuffered ECC modules available. Expensive, but available (Crucial sells them, for example: https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct64g4lfq4266). That would give you 512 GB of RAM in an 8-slot TRX40 motherboard. RAM speed is reduced, though, compared to the smaller sizes (DDR4-2666).

    Most motherboards are only certified to use 32 GB modules, but 64 GB modules should work.

    The nice thing is that AMD gives you a nice selection of core count vs memory controllers vs PCIe lanes, so you can pick and choose the CPU/motherboard/RAM that fits your needs.

    02-16 cores with two memory controllers and 24 PCIe 3.0 / 4.0 lanes (depending on motherboard).
    24-64 cores with four memory controllers and 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes.
    08-64 cores with eight memory controllers and 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes.

    Figure out what your computing needs are, then find the CPU that fits best.
  • PickUrPoison - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    To my knowledge, all load-reduced DIMM modules use a buffer; that’s how they are able to present a normal load to the memory controller and then fan out the signals to more memory chips than would otherwise be possible. AMD only supports LRDIMM and RDIMM modules with EPYC. Also, those DIMMs you linked are quad ranked, and afaik, threadripper only supports single or dual ranked DIMMs.

    But there’s nothing wrong with AMD limiting large memory capacities to EPYC; that’s perfectly legit. EPYC also offers other enterprise-related features that make it a better choice for high end workstations and servers like eight-channel memory controllers, and OOB management for servers is a requirement for many.
  • leexgx - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    So much popcorn reading this (fully agree with PickUrPoison poster)

    Funny when people don't concede to there lack of knowledge on said subject
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    I found quite a few TRX40 that support 256GB RAM and it seem quite a common thing.
  • colonelclaw - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Every single TRX40 motherboard for sale at scan supports 256GB RAM. All 14 of them at time of posting.
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    So what? it still supports unbuffered ECC memory and unbuffered regular RAM so it offers a higher degree of flexibility in comparison to a Mac Pro because you don't need to only install what type RAM Apple wants even if you need it or not. And it's not like buffered ECC memory is needed for 256GB max anyway.
  • Hul8 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Read it again. The point was that he didn't want to be limited to 256 GB... :-/
  • tamalero - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    I'm still confused by the fact that he wants more than 256Gb of ram, but talks about a 8 core processor.
  • alpha754293 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    @tamalero
    "I'm still confused by the fact that he wants more than 256Gb of ram, but talks about a 8 core processor."

    Highly memory intensive applications is very much a niche corner of the market.

    But I agree with @Zizo007:

    "Threadripper is 256Gb max but Xeon is not meant to compete with TR, its targetting Epyc."

    Comparing a HEDT processor like Threadripper to Xeon isn't the wisest nor the smartest thing to do.

    If you're going to compare against Xeon, then you should compare it against AMD's EPYC, which, as correctly stated, supports up to 4 TB of RAM.

    And if cost wasn't an issue, I would actually use a whole bunch of those as blade nodes where the host would only get like maybe 64 GB of RAM or something like that, and the rest out of the 4 TB would be used a volatile RAM cache server or something with multiple, beefy UPSes so that I don't have the write endurance problem with U.2 NVMe SSDs.

    It costs more, but believe it or not, it will actually save me money in the end doing it this way rather than constantly replacing U.2 NVMe SSDs two or three years from now.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    If “he” is I, you’ve confused yourself. Only OP mentioned 8-core; my replies have been to refute that a TR build is a proper substitute for a Xeon workstation (Mac Pro or otherwise).
  • xrror - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    LRDIMMs and RDIMMs were nasty mem-hacks anyway - quit trolling like an idiot.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Nasty mem-hacks? Yes, quit trolling like an idiot, indeed.
  • Pence - Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - link

    You don't even know what those mean do you? (L)RDIMM is how EPYC processors support as much memory per slot as this thing supports in total.
  • Hul8 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    What ever happened to those rumors about possible Threadripper variant for workstations - essentially a higher clocked WS variant of EPYC? 8 ch, ECC, RDIMMs.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    I haven’t seen anything since the Gamers Nexus leak early last September. Supposedly a workstation version, WRX8 socket and WRX80 chipset. Baby Epyc.
  • karwa - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Apple isn't going to go through the effort of redesigning the Mac Pro so soon after release (it's not just the board changes, either - they'd also have to write new, high-performance drivers).

    In fact, at this point, I don't expect we'll see Apple make major architectural changes to any of their Macs unless it's to put Apple's own SoCs in there. We all know that's the eventual goal; it's just a matter of time before they're able to build a viable product. There are lots of rumours that it may start as early as this year for the low-power portables like the MBA. Once that happens, we're probably no more than 3 years away from an ARM-based MBP, too.
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Exactly what high end configs does Apple want to support with the Mac Pro that more than 256GB RAM is so essential?
    Most Mac Pro users will have less than 256GB Ram in their cases.
    Anyway Epyc supports up to 2TB RAM and can run in dual socket configs so it's not like Apple offers the impossible.

    You can't deny the fact that this Threadripper CPU offers almost double the performance of Intel's 28 core Xeon at a much lower price.
  • RedButler - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    so get a 7x EPYC - 1TB ram is quite a lot
  • smilingcrow - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    No problem as Threadripper is just a cut down version of the EPYC platform and AMD are known for semi-custom design. So easy enough to use the full EPYC platform which currently supports 2TB per socket, 8 channel RAM, 64 cores and PCIE 4.0 which would give it a major boost over the Intel platform in the Mac Pro.
    Or they could cut it back to support only 1.5TB and offer 6 channel RAM a per the Intel platform.
    As the I/O is on a separate die that's not an issue as it isn't with the Threadripper which is limited quad channel RAM.
  • 808Hilo - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link

    There is just no software for the MacPro except Apples homebaked music- and video-apps. A Macpro does not mesh well with 99.9% of all production. They lack drivers for graphic cards, no 4.0 bus, old intel chips, passive cooled, proprietary hardware, apple dongle. This is the killing criteria for 30 years and fewer and fewer people buy into this. Apple crippled their own marketshare and for the forseeable future AMD CPUs and Nvidia cards, and, maybe, the new highend AMD card are the hotticket.
  • fred666 - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link

    99% of Mac Pro sold are going to have 256 GB RAM or less anyways.
  • bull2760 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link

    Threadripper is not a server grade CPU like the Xeon. If your going to compare and Apple with an Apple you need to use EPYC. In that case EPYC more pci express lanes and double the memory capacity of Intel. Apple could very easily adopt the EPYC platform for use in a Mac Pro. Than you would be comparing an Apple to an Apple.
  • tyaty1 - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link

    You can use an EPYC based WS in that case .
    But it very rare that you need more the 256gb for workstation type load.
  • eastcoast_pete - Saturday, January 11, 2020 - link

    Know I'm late to the party, but you'd be better of spending the extra $ 500 and getting the corresponding EPYC chip. Those and their MoBos can support the amount of ECC memory and the many PCIe lanes you'd probably want in a mid- to high-end workstation.
  • HebrewHammer007 - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    So they fixed the NUMA issues with the 3970x... n00b question, but will this also be a single node on the 3990x? Or is that what the eight channels on EPYC allow?
  • Meaker10 - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    The only node is the i/o die, the chiplets have no memory controller so one numa node.
  • oleyska - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    All zen2 cpu's in single socket have ONE numa.
    Only One, never more.

    Running more than 64 threads in a single socket in Windows, and Windows only will display them as Two numa domains.
    In fact what windows does is creating two processor groups as windows cannot address more than 64 threads per processor group.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Impressive stuff, but not for someone like me at all. I'm still muddling along with a couple of dual core chips (Bay Trail and Athlon II P360) and they're just fine for my gaming (native Linux stuff and a little bit of DOSBox & WINE when necessary) and running a couple of machines in VirtualBox. I can see needs for these sorts of halo products in a few niche markets, but even the server hardware I use for testing and development at work has half of fewer CPU cores than one of these monsters.
  • PrayForDeath - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Who said it was for someone like you?
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    If you're not self-aware enoug to fully comprehend the first line in my comment, then it makes sense that you would ask a question like that.
  • Retycint - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    Why even comment then? Nobody wants to know that you don't need it
  • hetzbh - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Go for the enterprise? What enterprise? seen any workstation motherboard for EPYC? there isn't even a workstation from any of the 3 big vendors, which is quite a shame for AMD.
  • Freakie - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    What? There are plenty of workstation motherboards for EPYC? Both single and dual socket? Not that most people using these CPUs are using them as workstations. I would think the majority of people interested in EPYC are putting them on a rack with their other systems they use for computation and VM tasks.

    https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100852134%2060130309...
  • numalizard - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    um, yeah actually, gigabyte, supermicro, tyan and asrock do them, this one is ESPECIALLY good the asrock EPYCD8-2T/R32 - has two on board nvme (full 4x speed), 4x pcie16, 3x pcie8, got dual intel 10 gig network.. don't bitch about there not being decent epyc mobos :V
  • AdhesiveTeflon - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Big three as in HP, Dell, Lenovo. Those three rule the enterprise market and if there's no infrastructure for this (or any other CPUs) then the market for this is even smaller. System and network admins don't have time to customize and build server racks; they purchase pre-configured systems that come with warranty, and have parts that are 'certified' to work together (among other enterprise-only benefits.)
  • smdork - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Don't forget Supermicro's H11SSL-NC

    Compatible with 1st and 2nd gen EPYC, 3 PCIe x16, 3 PCIe x8, dual GbE, 2 NVMe. Broadcom 3008 and on board graphics
  • MDD1963 - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    3990X, only $3990..! <sigh!> Eager for this to fall to $499! :)
  • Threska - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    "Only" is shorthand for, "you never should have asked". As for workstation someone doing VFX along with a good graphics card could benefit.
  • Freakie - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Some science benchmarks maybe? Plenty of us grad students, post-docs, and university researchers on tight budgets that have systems in our own labs for our computation work instead of renting out time on a university's main HPC farm.
  • DCide - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    I think these would be interesting too - do you have any specific benchmarks or applications in mind?

    It’s interesting that a university would “overprice” their HPC farm time - could it actually pay for e.g. a $10K Threadripper/NVIDIA system over the course of a year?
  • Freakie - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    I use GROMACS, and there are a number of GROMACS based benchmarks out there, so I guess it would be cool to see benchmarks for that!

    They don't always overprice themselves, especially if they have a cluster that isn't revenue generating and they sell the time at-cost. But there are still speed bumps and annoyances with using an HPC farm, flexibility being the largest issue. No matter what, you're going to have some sort of dedicated test system before sending out a larger job to a farm because trying to schedule each test run and iteration with the farm, and any and all paperwork/proposals that might go with it, is just not something anyone bothers with. And if you're going to pay for a test system, and pay for the compute time for a large computation on a farm as well, why not just spend all the money a beefier test system?

    And having your own servers means you can also dynamically allocate resources to your undergrad and grad-students for their projects as well (if you're a PI and professor). So using grant money for your research as well as any funds the school gives to maintain the computation course that you instruct, you can get a pretty good setup going where your classroom server(s) can double as you and your grad-student's test servers when they're underworked/between semesters. Then use all of your grant money to have your own little HPC cluster for you and your grad student's actual research computations.

    Of course some grad-students may have to send their projects out to a shared cluster if they're working on something particularly ambitious and need it done quicker. But that's not too big of a deal, proposal writing and submitting is more annoying than the cost usually.
  • DCide - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Very interesting - this is exactly what I was wondering about. I taught Computer Science a few decades ago and we would’ve loved these systems then (we’d just changed to doing almost everything on PCs and workstations). But I didn’t realize they’re still nearly as relevant today when we have so much cloud computing and clusters available.

    Hopefully Ian will run some relevant tests.
  • sturmen - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    I'd love to see some benchmarks with what I think is a very scalable workload: Intel's SVT-AV1 video encoder.
  • SanX - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    Ian,
    Take for the test the simple linear algebra Ax = B solution with randomly filled dense matrix 20000x20000 or more. For the intrigue use Intel MKL library which now supports AVX512 and if AMD will beat Intel processors even on the Intel own field then the game for Intel is over. Fortran test like that is only ~10 lines of source code and will run with many free Fortran compilers. Let me know if you need the source text
  • Everett F Sargent - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link

    AMD does not support AVX-512 in hardware.
  • japhmo - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    I think the point is that if AMD-Threadripper can beat/be competitive with Intel on an Ax=B solution where the Intel-based workstation is able to use AVX-512 commands, while the AMD-based workstation is not, then this new chip would be an absolute win for AMD (until Intel can come out with something competitive...). I would also be very interested in this kind of test, as I am looking to build in-house-systems to run the size of problem (~256-512Gb-ish home-brew parallel finite element codes) that could easily fit onto a single Threadripper-based compute box.
  • Everett F Sargent - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    It would get complicated real fast, L1, L2, L3, L4 (main memory) and L5 (SSD or what most people would call a page fault). But regardless, the answer is 2X (AVX-512 will be 2X faster than AVX2 assuming all things are equal (which they ain't) including respective clocks (AVX carries a clock penalty)). The length of the respective pipelines doesn't matter for large arrays.
  • wolfesteinabhi - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    we know what you have been doing there (title pic) ...

    IC IC on IC
  • Lux88 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Some compilation benchmarks this time?
  • satai - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Yes, please.
  • Santoval - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    TR 3990X is going to be seriously memory bottlenecked whenever all the cores are busy. 4 memory channels per 64 cores means that there is 1 memory channel per 16 cores. That is half the channels of the Ryzen 9 3950X, which is already slightly bottlenecked.
    Will TR 3990X's large amount of cache be enough to mitigate the issue of too little memory for too many cores?
  • Rudde - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    I hope this gets addressed in the review.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    And in the benchmarks. What would be the best benchmark for memory bandwidth? It would be interesting to the difference of when the data is and is not in the cache (assuming both are reflective of real world usage).
  • Nicon0s - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    The same was claimed for months about the 3950x and practice this Ryzen CPU with only dual channel memory goes toe to toe with Intel's top HEDT CPU in many benchmarks and workloads.
  • leexgx - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    The TR uses 4 channel, it have to be some quite special cases where it wasn't enough (L3 was also doubled to 16mb per 4 cores) and 3960x and higher don't have the issue with ccx to ccx jumping to get to ram access any more so the latency matters more then speed
  • werpu - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    A full build with this is still cheaper than the 8 core macpro...
  • wolfesteinabhi - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    For benchmark ... how about running some local docker/container cloud with mixed workload ... DB/Web/App/Java?

    or say a swarm of VMs(with 8 cores each or something?) running Cinebench R15 in parallel
  • Jackbender - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    I would suggest a scientific benchmark in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) but there is none readily available to the best of my knowledge.

    Some workloads on 64 cores beg for 8 memory channels and/or gigantic amounts of RAM.
    I'm wondering... Where are the TRX80 and WRX80 chipsets and motherboards we heard about in August 2019?
    If they are to be released, will they expose 8 memory channels? (same CPU pin count for Threadripper and Epyc, eh)
    Will they all accept all 3000-series Threadripper models? Meaning, all Threadripper 3000-series CPUs would work on all TRX40, TRX80 and WRX80 motherboards but unlock features on higher end chipsets and motherboards? (more memory channels, more PCI-E lanes)
    Will they allow for the use of memory modules beyond UDIMMs? (RDIMMs and LRDIMMs)
  • hammer256 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Wait, so you are hoping to get an EPYC feature set but with threadripper clocks?
    The EPYC 7702P already has all that you asked for, but at lower clocks, and that processor is already more expensive than the 3990X.
    Maybe AMD will offer an EPYC single socket at threadripper clocks for workstation uses, but no way is that going to be at threadripper prices.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Single-socket EPYC workstation is what was rumored. 96-128 PCIe lanes, 8-channel memory controller, and RDIMM/LRDIMM support. Sure it’ll be expensive, this 3990X at $4k is already not cheap.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Not EPYC per se; EPYC lite. Threadripper 3000 with a higher end chipset.
  • PickUrPoison - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    To be clear, the workstation CPUs would be different parts, not those already announced. WX suffix, rumored to be using a socket WRX8.
  • Nicon0s - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    "this 3990X at $4k is already not cheap"

    LoL
    You are talking about a CPU that beats two dual platinum 28 core Xeons which cost 20.000$ so 4000$ is cheap for what performance you are getting. A similar core count Epyc CPU would only be 500$ more so also not expensive at all.

    https://imgur.com/yYsIVzC
  • PickUrPoison - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    @nicon0s Who’s talking about Xeon? I’m speculating about the price of the 3990X vs. the rumored sWRX8/WRX80 chipset motherboards with 8-channel and RDIMM and LRDIMM support.

    Did you even read hammer256’s comment that I was replying to? Keep up.
  • Nicon0s - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    I made it clear what I was referring to: "this 3990X at $4k is already not cheap".
    So the rest of the comment doesn't matter and it's not really connected to what I quoted. Saying that the 3990x is not exactly cheap is a generalized claim which I can address separately if I want to so I don't care that you are bothered by the fact that you are wrong.
  • Jackbender - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Understand what you mean. It's rather curiosity than hope on my part.
    I'm mostly wondering what are those TRX80 and WRX80 platforms that could be announced soon, if they are to be announced at all.

    It could be all wrong but, TRX40 is 4-channel, so what could TRX80 be?
    Many things, including 8 memory channels, which would make sense for memory-bandwidth-bound workloads, especially true at high thread counts.

    Some features are bound to remain accessible only to EPYC parts for the current generation I guess:
    - Secure Encrypted Virtualization
    - Secure Memory Encryption
    - 2-way multiprocessor (on some EPYC models)
    - Supported RAM capacities up to 4TB
    - 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes per CPU (64 only for Threadripper)
    Some platform features such as IPMI too are very unlikely to be seen on a premium desktop motherboard ecosystem but could be crucial to some server applications.

    With all these aspects in mind it's unlikely AMD would cannibalize their server market with high-end desktop parts having the same core count, same memory channel count as their server counterparts because mission-critical features would still be lacking for proper commercial server use.
  • hammer256 - Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - link

    Yeah I'm curious too frankly. There is the potential for some beastly workstations if the T/WRX80 rumors are true. It's just that nothing solid has surfaced since the initial rumors, so I'm keeping my hopes low.

    But if AMD is to do this, do you think they might raise the TDP further for higher clocks? I can imagine pricing the 64 core processor at 7702P levels or a bit more expensive.

    I guess we'll see, it's shaping up to be an interesting year!
  • Jackbender - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    Threadripper 3960X, 3970X, 3990X and EPYC 7H12 all have a 280W TDP. That's the highest TDP of any x86 CPU I know of from an absolute standpoint.

    But in terms of heat flux, there's still headroom I would guess because there's so much surface available to conduct that thermal power away (there are other CPUs with higher values of watts per square millimeter of total die area). The configuration with 8 chiplets and 1 central I/O die shines from the standpoint of spread thermal power diffusion.

    I think I read somewhere that Threadripper overclockers can get away with 400W power draw from the TR4 socket (4096-pin LGA).

    Already at the 280W power level there's a restricted choice of CPU coolers on the market (big tower coolers or watercooling with enlarged base plate only, in order to cover most or all of the integrated heat spreader).
    Raising the TDP bar higher would make the matter worse.
  • resa87 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    good
  • Frank_M - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    How about some benchmarks for audio processing like Pro -Tools and Cakewalk.
    In general audio software uses one core or thread per track so more cores makes a difference.

    Another Benchmark I would like to see is the pre-compiled LaPack tests measured in FLOPS (kind of a real world Linpack test).

    There are other customers for multi core besides graphic artists.
  • Zizo007 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Apple should really think about using AMD now. Dual EPYC supports 4TB RAM 256 Threads and is much cheaper than any competing Xeon. Apple is waaay overpriced and its not even the top of the line. Dell should also start using AMD.
  • henryiv - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    One one hand, it is sad that this processor stays on a 4 memory channel trx40 platform; the performance will most likely be bogged down by the lack of bandwidth for feeding 128 threads. On the other hand, I am happy to have a drop-in upgrade to my 3970x system.
  • PickUrPoison - Thursday, January 9, 2020 - link

    Yup. But if TRX80/WRX80 are real, instead of just rumors, things could get much more interesting. Would be worth buying a new motherboard, for sure :)
  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    This could be great for PostgreSQL - queries can scale well as long as the workload`s large enough.

    Of course memory bandwidth can be an issue, too, but it depends on what the queries are doing; usually there`s something complex enough for a bit of raw CPU power to be useful as well.
  • brucethemoose - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Crysis on SwiftShader!

    https://github.com/google/swiftshader

    Can a 3990X run Crysis, all by itself?
  • bull2760 - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link

    Yes HP does in fact use AMD CPU's in it'w lineup of workstations. The Z 705 series is Ryzen Based.
    https://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/business-solutions/...
  • HarisM - Friday, January 10, 2020 - link

    I would really, really like to see benchmarks of linear algebra, such as matrix multiplication, e.g. LAPACK, BLAS, compared to XEON. So far, these have been far better optimized for Intel CPUs, and I want to know if AMD has caught up on the software side of these libraries.
    I have scripts to do those benchmarks in Mathematica if you are interested, and they can be done with a temporary (evaluation) Mathematica license. I work at NCSA, let me know if I can help.
  • Frank_M - Monday, January 13, 2020 - link

    AMD has a proprietary compiler for linux.

    https://developer.amd.com/amd-aocc/

    A completion between AMD hardware with AMD compiler against NVIDIA with portland, and Intel with Intel compiler would be sweet.

    The intel compiler is powerful. I used to compile for a 2687w and it would fly.
  • Jackbender - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    Benchmark suggestion: simultaneous benchmarks!

    Raytracer rendering (e.g. Blender)
    + video editor rendering (e.g. Adobe Premiere)
    + video transcoding (e.g. Handbrake)
    + lossless compression (e.g. 7-Zip)
    + video game
    + live streaming
  • ballsystemlord - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link

    Yes, it's time for simultaneous benchmarks!
    You can pick exactly what you'd want to do. I personally typically compile, transcode, or render while preforming some lighter task. Like arcade games, watching movies, using a file manager. If I could do more it would be nice.
    OTOH: If I could do more transcoding simultaneously that would also be a big win!
  • Fataliity - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    @Ian Cuttress

    This is how you will probably have to test a 64Core.

    https://www.amd.com/en/system/files/documents/rade...

    AMD Case Study on Epyc 7371 in 2U (64Thread tests)

    ---Might help you on benching this beast.
    Also, try contacting synopsys for a file to use for compile benchmarks, and write a script to do 1 on each thread, so 128 compiles at once. Just like this explains.
  • hehatemeXX - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link

    Can we please get some container benchmarks, or VM workload benchmarks? Essentially, launch 128 VM's, with each getting a single or dual core allocation, and run PCmark or something. For the containers, launch 128 containers, with default NGINX, and run apache bench or something.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now