AfterDawn: News

AMD reveals new Threadripper CPUs to challenge Intel's i9

AMD's Ryzen brand processors have managed to challenge some of the Intel's Core CPUs fairly well already but there's one product family that AMD is unable to beat or even compete with. To right this wrong AMD has unveiled new Threadripper CPUs that will be released as soon as next month.

AMD has revealed more about upcoming Ryzen CPUs on a press release on their website. According to it the CPUs first unveiled at Computex earlier this year will be named Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X



These processors are designed exclusively to challenge Intel's top tier Core units, and as you might guess from their name there are threads – and cores – aplenty. The top of the line Threadripper 1950X is a 16-core beast with 32 threads and a clock speed of 3.4Ghz (Turbo 4.0 Ghz). Obviously theses type of specs come with a hefty price tag.

1950X has a suggested retail price of $999 which is around the same as a Core i9 7900X. However AMD also has in store another Threadripper, the 12-core and 24 thread 1920X, which is "only" $799.

Both of the new CPUs are said to beat the aforementioned i9 7900X. Both of them will be available from early August onwards. AMD also revealed that it will be releasing new Ryzen 3 CPUs for affordable setups later this month.


Written by: Matti Robinson @ 14 Jul 2017 11:19

• Previous article

• Ahoy, Commodore 64 fans! The savior of your beloved C64 is coming

• Next article

• Amazon wants to challenge Facebook's messaging empire

• 15 comments

• hearme0

  Good for AMD. Always loved them but prefer Intel. Back in the older AMD Thunderbird 1GHz processor days, AMD did not build in temperature sensors to shut the proc down before overheating. Intel did do this early on and had more reliable procs and hence why I went with them.
  
  These new AMD procs are just sweet.......plain and simple.

  14.7.2017 14:08 #1

• Bozobub

  Intel also tends to have quite a bit more thermal "headroom" — implying good overclocking potential — than AMD CPUs, historically. Although, you can generally compensate by spending the same on AMD, thus getting far more base performance at the same cost, so it's pretty hard to say which is the best value, in the end.
  
  All in all, however, their base performance isn't dependent on individual, random processor variations like overclocking can be, so I think AMD is really starting to eat Intel's lunch, dollar for dollar.

  15.7.2017 21:22 #2

• KillerBug

  I am glad that they are forcing Intel to release what they should have released years ago but didn't have to due to being a virtual monopoly. If there were Windows 7 drivers I'd probably either have an AMD rig right now or be waiting for threadripper. Instead I am seriously considering picking up a used Xeon...lots of 8-core xeons coming off of lease right about now.

  17.7.2017 21:04 #3

• Tarsellis

  Glad to see AMD is finally starting to get their act together. I think these are a bit overhyped, but they do have their place, mostly to push Intel to not hold back as much.
  
  That said, even if they prove to be a little faster, they've got a LONG way to go before I'll start using them again. The plan fact is, as a system, they lack the driver support and reliability of an Intel system with NVidia should you need a GPU. It would take a large difference for a specialized application for a very large deployment for me to risk all the extra time to get the stability I get from Intel easier.

  18.7.2017 11:11 #4

• LordRuss

  I'm currently using AMD with pretty good results; would love to upgrade, but that price range is almost cost prohibitive.
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  18.7.2017 13:49 #5

• Digmen1

  I'm not into high end gaming machines, just for my home desktop.
  
  I have always bought AMD to support them, because without competition Intel could/would still be charging us heaps for our CPU's.
  
  Good to see that AMD are trying to catch up.

  18.7.2017 14:08 #6

• Bozobub

  Originally posted by Tarsellis: Glad to see AMD is finally starting to get their act together. I think these are a bit overhyped, but they do have their place, mostly to push Intel to not hold back as much.
  
  That said, even if they prove to be a little faster, they've got a LONG way to go before I'll start using them again. The plan fact is, as a system, they lack the driver support and reliability of an Intel system with NVidia should you need a GPU. It would take a large difference for a specialized application for a very large deployment for me to risk all the extra time to get the stability I get from Intel easier.
  Ummm... You ARE aware that just about any motherboard can take a single GPU from any vendor, correct? And as for SLI on AMD boards (which was discontinued for a few years, annoyingly): https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/sli-for-amd

  18.7.2017 14:16 #7

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by Digmen1: I'm not into high end gaming machines, just for my home desktop.
  
  I have always bought AMD to support them, because without competition Intel could/would still be charging us heaps for our CPU's.
  
  Good to see that AMD are trying to catch up.
  I don't really think the threadripper is for gaming. I mean, it will play games, but most games are all about the GPU(s). It should be great for things like video editing and CAD...and I think that is the kind of customer that both Intel and AMD are going after with these 12+ core processors; people who are currently using Xeons to get enough cores.

  18.7.2017 22:10 #8

• pmshah

  Just hope these too don't end up in a fiasco like the dual core Athlons that would simply shutdown every few minutes due to overheating and VERY poor OEM cooling system.

  18.7.2017 22:59 #9

• Bozobub

  Originally posted by KillerBug: Originally posted by Digmen1: I'm not into high end gaming machines, just for my home desktop.
  
  I have always bought AMD to support them, because without competition Intel could/would still be charging us heaps for our CPU's.
  
  Good to see that AMD are trying to catch up.
  I don't really think the threadripper is for gaming. I mean, it will play games, but most games are all about the GPU(s). It should be great for things like video editing and CAD...and I think that is the kind of customer that both Intel and AMD are going after with these 12+ core processors; people who are currently using Xeons to get enough cores.
  Quite a few games these days are more often CPU-bound, actually, than GPU-bound, and the single-core performance of these chips ought to be pretty good. Additionally, games are getting better, overall, at utilizing multiple cores, although there are glaring exceptions (Unity, you should be ashamed of yourself!).
  
  That said, at those prices, yeah, I'd personally probably go for a high-clock i5 instead ^^' .

  19.7.2017 03:00 #10

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by pmshah: Just hope these too don't end up in a fiasco like the dual core Athlons that would simply shutdown every few minutes due to overheating and VERY poor OEM cooling system. I never had issues with those, ran them heavily overclocked too. Of course I only found out recently that they were even available with CPU coolers; at the time I thought AMD CPUs only came as OEM...I never saw a boxed one.

  20.7.2017 19:35 #11

• supersaiyaman

  a Originally posted by Digmen1: I'm not into high end gaming machines, just for my home desktop.
  
  I have always bought AMD to support them, because without competition Intel could/would still be charging us heaps for our CPU's.
  
  Good to see that AMD are trying to catch up.
  agreed without competition Intel would be dragging their ass. just like they have bean doing for the last 8 or so years.i own a core i 7 and this is the first time a cpu has come out that i would even think of building a new computer for. i would sujest unless you are into emulation game consol wise. you go for a amd threadriper.i will be getting a core 16 intel only because of emulation for the ps3.
  

  22.7.2017 20:15 #12

• cart0181

  Originally posted by Tarsellis:
  That said, even if they prove to be a little faster, they've got a LONG way to go before I'll start using them again. The plan fact is, as a system, they lack the driver support and reliability of an Intel system with NVidia should you need a GPU. It would take a large difference for a specialized application for a very large deployment for me to risk all the extra time to get the stability I get from Intel easier. Your comment makes no sense...
  
  Do you even own a PC?
  
  Specialized applications for large deployments??? Do you even know what a CPU does?
  
  So many things you said there have zero relevance... I don't know where to begin.
  

  28.7.2017 12:58 #13

• Tarsellis

  Originally posted by cart0181: Originally posted by Tarsellis:
  That said, even if they prove to be a little faster, they've got a LONG way to go before I'll start using them again. The plain fact is, as a system, they lack the driver support and reliability of an Intel system with NVidia should you need a GPU. It would take a large difference for a specialized application for a very large deployment for me to risk all the extra time to get the stability I get from Intel easier. Your comment makes no sense...
  
  Do you even own a PC?
  
  Specialized applications for large deployments??? Do you even know what a CPU does?
  
  So many things you said there have zero relevance... I don't know where to begin. Have you ever tried to deploy more than your crappy little unstable one off machine in your home? AMD's drivers on it's video cards are flaky, at best. Building an AMD solution requires much more work, which offsets and small one time savings you save using their CPUs or GPUs.
  
  Do you even know what a system is? A CPU is NOT a system. a GPU is NOT a system. A motherboard, hard drive, raid controller, etc is NOT a system. A system is an aggregate of components working together.
  
  Do you know what "should" means? "Should you need a GPU" to most English speaking bipeds would indicate it is an optional component to be added if "needed".
  
  AMD fails not only with their CPU and GPU drivers and compatibility, but also components built into motherboards designed around them. North and south bridges, lights out management, network controllers and the rest.
  
  The point is I'm not shooting myself in the foot causing compatibility issues and headaches by using anything AMD to save what amounts to an hours worth of my billable rate.
  And in a multi-system deployment, the small once per box savings aren't going to pay for the extra hours I have to pay staff to fix problems or reach my expected operational state.
  
  Yes, some pressure on Intel by having a theoretical performance competitor is good. I hope you people will be blinded by short term numbers, fancy marketing, and an incomplete understanding and go out buy AMD products, giving Intel something to fight against and myself a competitive advantage.

  28.7.2017 13:53 #14

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by Tarsellis: Originally posted by cart0181: Originally posted by Tarsellis:
  That said, even if they prove to be a little faster, they've got a LONG way to go before I'll start using them again. The plain fact is, as a system, they lack the driver support and reliability of an Intel system with NVidia should you need a GPU. It would take a large difference for a specialized application for a very large deployment for me to risk all the extra time to get the stability I get from Intel easier. Your comment makes no sense...
  
  Do you even own a PC?
  
  Specialized applications for large deployments??? Do you even know what a CPU does?
  
  So many things you said there have zero relevance... I don't know where to begin. Have you ever tried to deploy more than your crappy little unstable one off machine in your home? AMD's drivers on it's video cards are flaky, at best. Building an AMD solution requires much more work, which offsets and small one time savings you save using their CPUs or GPUs.
  
  Do you even know what a system is? A CPU is NOT a system. a GPU is NOT a system. A motherboard, hard drive, raid controller, etc is NOT a system. A system is an aggregate of components working together.
  
  Do you know what "should" means? "Should you need a GPU" to most English speaking bipeds would indicate it is an optional component to be added if "needed".
  
  AMD fails not only with their CPU and GPU drivers and compatibility, but also components built into motherboards designed around them. North and south bridges, lights out management, network controllers and the rest.
  
  The point is I'm not shooting myself in the foot causing compatibility issues and headaches by using anything AMD to save what amounts to an hours worth of my billable rate.
  And in a multi-system deployment, the small once per box savings aren't going to pay for the extra hours I have to pay staff to fix problems or reach my expected operational state.
  
  Yes, some pressure on Intel by having a theoretical performance competitor is good. I hope you people will be blinded by short term numbers, fancy marketing, and an incomplete understanding and go out buy AMD products, giving Intel something to fight against and myself a competitive advantage. AMD definitely has some issues on the driver front from time to time, but if you are going with AMD then you probably are not going for bleeding edge anyway...so you can wait and buy something a month old. That way you know if the drivers for something are all screwed up. nVidia and Intel are not perfect when it comes to software either. My company just had to roll back the drivers for our nVidia cards because one of the panels in our cad software just sort of went blank. My new Intel-powered tablet won't load x64 operating systems because the UEFI is 32-bit only in spite of the CPU being 64-bit. ...And neither Intel nor AMD make Windows 7 drivers, even for enthusiast grade hardware.

  29.7.2017 22:18 #15