Precision Boost 2

Exact per-core turbo timings for the new processors will be determined by AMD’s voltage-frequency scaling functionality through Precision Boost 2. This feature, which we covered extensively in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, relies on available power and current to determine frequency, rather than a discrete look-up-table for voltage and frequency based on loading. Depending on the system default capabilities, the frequency and voltage will dynamically shift in order to use more of the power budget available at any point in the processor loading.

The idea is that the processor can use more of the power budget available to it than a fixed look up table that has to be consistent between all SKUs that are stamped with that number.

Precision Boost 2 also works in conjunction with XFR2 (eXtreme Frequency Range) which reacts to additional thermal headroom. If there is additional thermal budget, driven by a top-line cooler, then the processor is enabled to use more power up to the thermal limit and get additional frequency. AMD claims that a good cooler in a low ambient situation can compute >10% better in selected tests as a result of XFR2.

Ultimately this makes testing Threadripper 2 somewhat difficult. With a turbo table, performance is fixed between the different performance characteristics of each bit of silicon, making power the only differentiator. With PB2 and XF2, no two processors will perform the same. AMD has also hit a bit of a snag with these features, choosing to launch Threadripper 2 during the middle of a heatwave in Europe. Europe is famed for its lack of air conditioning everywhere, and when the ambient temperature is going above 30ºC, this will limit additional performance gains. It means that a review from a Nordic publication might see better results than one from the tropics, quite substantially.

Luckily for us we tested most of our benchmarks while in an air conditioned hotel thanks to Intel’s Data-Centric Innovation Summit which was the week before launch.

Precision Boost Overdrive

The new processors also support a feature called Precision Boost Overdrive, which looks at three key areas for power, thermal design current, and electrical design current. If any of these three areas has additional headroom, then the system will attempt to raise both the frequency and the voltage for increased performance. PBO is a mix of ‘standard’ overclocking, giving an all core boost, but gives a single core frequency uplift along with the support to still keep Precision Boost trying to raise frequency in middle-sized workloads, which is typically lost with a standard overclock. PBO also allows for idle power saving with a standard performance. PBO is enabled through Ryzen Master.

The three key areas are defined by AMD as follows:

  • Package (CPU) Power, or PPT: Allowed socket power consumption permitted across the voltage rails supplying the socket
  • Thermal Design Current, or TDC: The maximum current that can be delivered by the motherboard voltage regulator after warming to a steady-state temperature
  • Electrical Design Current, or EDC: The maximum current that can be delivered by the motherboard voltage regulator in a peak/spike condition

By extending these limits, PBO gives rise for PB2 to have more headroom, letting PB2 push the system harder and further. PBO is quoted by AMD as supplying up to +16% performance beyond the standard.

AMD also clarifies that PBO is pushing the processor beyond the rated specifications and is an overclock: and thus any damage incurred will not be protected by warranty

StoreMI

Also available with the new Ryzen Threadripper 2 processors is StoreMI, AMD’s solution to caching by offering configurable tiered storage for users that want to mix DRAM, SSD, and HDD storage into a single unified platform. The software implementation dynamically adjusts data between up to 2GB of DRAM, up to 256 GB of SSD (NVMe or SATA), and a spinning hard drive to afford the best reading and writing experience when there isn’t enough fast storage.

AMD initially offered this software as a $20 add-on to the Ryzen APU platform, then it became free (up to a 256GB SSD) for the Ryzen 2000-series processors. That offer now extends to Threadripper. AMD’s best case scenario is citing a 90% improvement in loading times.

Core to Core to Core: Design Trade Offs Feed Me: Infinity Fabric Requires More Power
Comments Locked

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • edzieba - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Not really. In chasing Moar Cores you only excel in embarrassingly parallel workloads. And embarrassingly parallel workloads are in GPGPU's house. And GPU lives in GPGPU's house.
  • boeush - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Try to run multiple VMs/Containers and/or multiple desktop sessions on a GPGPU: you might find out that GPGPU's house isn't all it's cracked up to be...
  • SonicKrunch - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Look at that power consumption. I'm not suggesting AMD didn't create a really great CPU here, but they really need to work on their efficiency. It's always been their problem, and it's not seemingly going away. The market for these near 2k chips is also not huge in comparison to normal desktop space. Intel has plenty of time to answer here with their known efficiency.
  • The_Assimilator - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Yeah... look at the number of cores, numpty.
  • somejerkwad - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    The same efficiency that has consumer-grade products operating on more electricity in per-core and per-clock comparisons? Overclocking power gets really silly on Intel's high end offerings too, if you care to look at the numbers people are getting with an i9 that has fewer cores.
  • eddman - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Interesting, can you post a link, please? I've read a few reviews here and there and when comparing 2600x to 8700k (which is more or less fair), it seems in most cases 8700k consumes less energy, even though it has higher boost clocks.
  • CrazyElf - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    The 8700k is not the problem. It is Skylake X.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylak...

    Power consumption when you OC X299 scales up quickly. Threadripper is not an 8700k competitor. It is an X299 competitor. The 32 core AMD is clearly priced to compete against the 7980X, unless Intel cuts the price.
  • eddman - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    I should've made it clear. I was replying to the "more electricity in per-core and per-clock" part. Also, he wrote consumer-grade, which is not HEDT. I do know that TR competes with SKL-X.

    Comparing OCing power consumption is rather pointless when one chip is able to clock much higher.

    Even when comparing 2950 to 7980, there are a lot of instances where 7980 consumes about the same power or even less. I don't see how ryzen is more efficient.
  • alpha754293 - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    @ibnmadhi
    "It's over, Intel is finished."

    Hardly.

    For example, the Threadripper 2990WX (32C, 3.0 GHz) gets the highest score in POV-Ray 3.7.1 benchmark, but when you compute the efficiency, it's actually the worst for it.

    It consumes more power and only gets about 114 points per (base clock * # of cores - which is a way to roughly estimate the CPU's total processing capability).

    By comparison, the Intel Core i9-7980XE (18C, 2.6 GHz) is actually the MOST EFFICIENT at 168 points per (base clock * # of cores). It consumes less power than the Threadripper processors, but it does also cost more.

    If I can get a system that can do as much or more for less, both in terms of capital cost and running cost (i.e. total cost of ownership), then why would I want to go AMD?

    I use to run all AMD when it was a better value proposition and when Intel's power profile was much worse than AMD's. Now, it has completely flipped around.

    Keep also in mind, that they kept the Epyc 7601 processor in here for comparison, a processor that costs $4200 each.

    At that price, I know that I can get an Intel Xeon processor, with about the same core count and base clock speed for about the same price, but I also know that it will outperform the Epyc 7601 as well when you look at the data.

    As of August, 2018, Intel has a commanding 79.4% market share compared to AMD's 20.6%. That's FARRR from Intel being over.
  • ender8282 - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    base clock * number of cores seems like a poor stand in for performance per watt. If we assume that IPC and other factors like mem/cache latency are the same then sure base clock * num cores effectively gives us performance unit of power but we know those are not constant.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now