Last I checked $2000 CPUs generally weren't for "casual everyday programs". Not really $750 ones either.
Performance hungry productivity applications can on the other hand make use of 16 quite commonly, though 32 is still a stretch. Then again there's some value to a workstation that's fully usable even when running a compile, render, or other multi-hour heavy workload.
People were saying the same thing 3 years ago about the 8 core Zen 1 CPUs and yet here we are, a majority of new games coming out utilizing 8 cores. Give it another 3 years, I wouldn't be surprised to see if that doubles again.
Agreed. What's more likely is that we'll see games / engines that depend on 4+ cores becoming commonplace, with maybe an outlier or two that can squeeze marginal gains from 8+.
With the Ryzen 7 release in 2017, and then the release of the i9-9900k, no one questions that we are now in the era where games and programs should at least be able to scale with 8 core/16 threads. Now, once you actually have a properly multi-threaded design, it becomes simple to just use a design to use more and more threads, and if you have fewer cores, no problem because the scheduler will just assign the threads to CPU cores.
You don't really target a given number of cores, you either go for a multi-threaded design, or you don't. Allow those who have a higher end processor get the advantage of more cores/threads, it doesn't HURT those with lower tier chips.
Absolute dominance, I love it. Crazy that I can use my 3700x now (which is already incredibly fast) and buy a used 3950x in a couple of years for an upgrade with double the cores (or just get a zen 3 chip).
Well, AMD is trying the Intel seat and it likes it. We can see that the 32 core part is now more expensive than the previous gen 32 core part, 2000$ vs 1800$.
While this is more than many had expected, the only Intel CPU / platform that comes remotely close to the TR3 platform is the 28C Xeon W-3175X, which costs $ 3,000 and requires a separate very expensive mainboard.
The 32 core TR2 had a very awkward memory architecture where not all the CPUs had direct access to memory and on many workloads it performed no better than a 16 core. If you wanted a "normal" 32 core CPU you'd have to buy EPYC server chips which cost a lot more for much lower speeds. So while you can't read it out of that spec sheet the TR3 is actually a much more capable product.
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
171 Comments
View All Comments
Valantar - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Last I checked $2000 CPUs generally weren't for "casual everyday programs". Not really $750 ones either.Performance hungry productivity applications can on the other hand make use of 16 quite commonly, though 32 is still a stretch. Then again there's some value to a workstation that's fully usable even when running a compile, render, or other multi-hour heavy workload.
evernessince - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
People were saying the same thing 3 years ago about the 8 core Zen 1 CPUs and yet here we are, a majority of new games coming out utilizing 8 cores. Give it another 3 years, I wouldn't be surprised to see if that doubles again.Oliseo - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
Enough with the hyperbole already. Games will NOT be using 16 cores in another 3 years.I know it suits your argument an all, but get real.
Spunjji - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
Agreed. What's more likely is that we'll see games / engines that depend on 4+ cores becoming commonplace, with maybe an outlier or two that can squeeze marginal gains from 8+.Targon - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
With the Ryzen 7 release in 2017, and then the release of the i9-9900k, no one questions that we are now in the era where games and programs should at least be able to scale with 8 core/16 threads. Now, once you actually have a properly multi-threaded design, it becomes simple to just use a design to use more and more threads, and if you have fewer cores, no problem because the scheduler will just assign the threads to CPU cores.You don't really target a given number of cores, you either go for a multi-threaded design, or you don't. Allow those who have a higher end processor get the advantage of more cores/threads, it doesn't HURT those with lower tier chips.
jaju123 - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Absolute dominance, I love it. Crazy that I can use my 3700x now (which is already incredibly fast) and buy a used 3950x in a couple of years for an upgrade with double the cores (or just get a zen 3 chip).yeeeeman - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Well, AMD is trying the Intel seat and it likes it. We can see that the 32 core part is now more expensive than the previous gen 32 core part, 2000$ vs 1800$.Irata - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
While this is more than many had expected, the only Intel CPU / platform that comes remotely close to the TR3 platform is the 28C Xeon W-3175X, which costs $ 3,000 and requires a separate very expensive mainboard.TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
It also brings gen 4 PCIe, which aint cheap.Kjella - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
The 32 core TR2 had a very awkward memory architecture where not all the CPUs had direct access to memory and on many workloads it performed no better than a 16 core. If you wanted a "normal" 32 core CPU you'd have to buy EPYC server chips which cost a lot more for much lower speeds. So while you can't read it out of that spec sheet the TR3 is actually a much more capable product.