16-core Threadripper will still make sense even if they release Ryzen with 16 cores - for more memory and IO intensive applications. Technically it has more sense than Ryzen 16.
No need to rip Intels balls off violently. Obviously there is room to maneuver. Space for more cores, higher mhz. Save some for later, when Intel desperately tries to respond and stumble, like they usually do.
AMD may have held back on the 16 core, just to see what the Intel response will be here. If a 4.6GHz boost from AMD is able to beat the 5.0GHz boost from Intel, if Intel does release a 12 core, no matter the speed, AMD is in the position to easily release 16 core chips. Power IS a concern, since many motherboards without good VRMs just won't be able to handle that rumored 135W TDP for those processors. AMD COULD do it at launch, but if only five existing motherboards could handle it, that hurts the perception that first generation motherboards can handle the third generation processors.
As far as the memory channels go, increased cache helps at least. Next year there should be a new socket, and AMD could potentially make it compatible with first through third generation processors.
AMD needs to keep something back for when Intel inevitably leapfrogs them back.
Once Intel takes back the mainstream performance crown (if they end up losing it this time around), a week later AMD can announce a pre-prepared 16 core, stealing at least some of Intel's thunder.
Also, why only sell a 16-core CPU to an enthusiast when you can first sell them 12-core, and 3 - 6 months later an additional 16-core?
Intel doesn’t seem to have anything other than pushing up max clock a little and they probably will not have anything for a while. The 10 nm parts they seem to have coming out in a reasonable time will probably be mobile parts. While I wanted a 16 core part, it may be the case that it would be significantly above the TDP designed into existing AM4 boards. If they want to sell it they may need to sell it at lower clock speeds, but people with boards that could support the power draw could then overclock it.
ok, that does NOT make sense..... for cooling and power spec, ok, might make sense, but BECAUSE they use a mix of 7 and 14 (especially when the 7 are the actual cores no longer tied down to being more or less 1:1 sync (so not crash etc)
If anything, by splitting up the 7 and 14 from one another it actually allowed them to get clocks etc as high as they ARE....
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
307 Comments
View All Comments
ishould - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
I'm guessing 24, 36, and 48 core Threadrippers. Not sure if we're going to see 64 core Threadrippers as they may cannibalize Epyc salesishould - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
32 cores*peevee - Friday, May 31, 2019 - link
16-core Threadripper will still make sense even if they release Ryzen with 16 cores - for more memory and IO intensive applications. Technically it has more sense than Ryzen 16.deil - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
I think it's in the making as last resort, appearing as 3900X around january or later if intel will not play any amazing new things.brunis.dk - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
No need to rip Intels balls off violently. Obviously there is room to maneuver. Space for more cores, higher mhz. Save some for later, when Intel desperately tries to respond and stumble, like they usually do.gojapa - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
What a flip from a few years agoTargon - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
AMD may have held back on the 16 core, just to see what the Intel response will be here. If a 4.6GHz boost from AMD is able to beat the 5.0GHz boost from Intel, if Intel does release a 12 core, no matter the speed, AMD is in the position to easily release 16 core chips. Power IS a concern, since many motherboards without good VRMs just won't be able to handle that rumored 135W TDP for those processors. AMD COULD do it at launch, but if only five existing motherboards could handle it, that hurts the perception that first generation motherboards can handle the third generation processors.As far as the memory channels go, increased cache helps at least. Next year there should be a new socket, and AMD could potentially make it compatible with first through third generation processors.
Hul8 - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
AMD needs to keep something back for when Intel inevitably leapfrogs them back.Once Intel takes back the mainstream performance crown (if they end up losing it this time around), a week later AMD can announce a pre-prepared 16 core, stealing at least some of Intel's thunder.
Also, why only sell a 16-core CPU to an enthusiast when you can first sell them 12-core, and 3 - 6 months later an additional 16-core?
jamescox - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Intel doesn’t seem to have anything other than pushing up max clock a little and they probably will not have anything for a while. The 10 nm parts they seem to have coming out in a reasonable time will probably be mobile parts. While I wanted a 16 core part, it may be the case that it would be significantly above the TDP designed into existing AM4 boards. If they want to sell it they may need to sell it at lower clock speeds, but people with boards that could support the power draw could then overclock it.Dragonstongue - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
ok, that does NOT make sense..... for cooling and power spec, ok, might make sense, but BECAUSE they use a mix of 7 and 14 (especially when the 7 are the actual cores no longer tied down to being more or less 1:1 sync (so not crash etc)If anything, by splitting up the 7 and 14 from one another it actually allowed them to get clocks etc as high as they ARE....