AMD Threadripper 3990X Scores Another Win: We Test New SPECWorkstation 3 Up

atmapuri

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2011
4
0
18,510
0
The benchmark is now optimized for the CPU, but the actual software not yet? What is that good for? And they even want to do more code which runs well for benchmark only. Maybe time for a new "dreamer" category of articles?
 

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
746
101
11,160
0
The benchmark is now optimized for the CPU, but the actual software not yet? What is that good for? And they even want to do more code which runs well for benchmark only. Maybe time for a new "dreamer" category of articles?
The majority of the benchmarks do show massive performance improvements, though a few aren't scaling due to the nature of the program. If the program can't scale in real life, or isn't designed to, it doesn't benefit anyone to game the benchmark software to present unrealistic results.
 

CerianK

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
118
3
18,695
2
For those of us that write and run custom parallel code applications, these benchmarks shed some more light on the potential. However, there is no substitute for actually testing the applications you plan to use. I have already jumped ahead and finished testing the very applications I need to run on a 3800X to project the performance improvement over my dual E5-2690 workstation when moving to a single 3990X: > 5x.

This is indeed a niche processor for those that know they need it, and I'm sold. But since I am a private researcher, maybe I should go after that $9000 prize mentioned to defray costs... I might have a little extra time available once I finish building new automation tools to keep the beast fed.

The main down-side I see for my work is that, ideally, I would need to have access to 4GB per thread... AMD needs to get that mess straightened out, if not for this generation, then the next. As is, some of my workloads would take twice as long as otherwise necessary, and no, I will not build two 3970X systems, go with EPYC, or upgrade to yet more Xeons... too cost and/or power prohibitive (thought the 3990X is certainly pushing the line for cost here also).

Question: Do some of the 3970X (and possibly 3960X) benchmarks need to be re-run also, or is the funny scaling for some of those benchmarks due to glitches in SPEC's new code adjustments?
 
Last edited:

Stevemeister

Distinguished
Mar 18, 2006
337
0
18,810
19
You seem to have completely missed the point of the article which was to point out that currently most applications ARE NOT optimized to take advantage of what this chip is capable of IF applications were to be optimized for it . . . . basically there is potential for applications to run 2-3 times faster than they currently do if the software get optimized.
 

RodroX

Notable
Aug 4, 2019
850
245
940
41
Nvidia launched the RTX gpus more than a 17 months ago, and the Ray Tracing tech is still not supported by many games and been optimized little by litte, and those games that do support it see an important drop in FPS when active (but they do look amazing).

AMD launched a new category of HEDT cpu the TR 3990X less than a month ago, so I think is fair to give some time for the software industry to catch up.

Other than that tumbs up! to TomsHardware to keep updating the info and benchmarks results as new software shows up. How knows what the cpu and gpu future brings when software gets tunned a bit more.

Cheers
 

Rob1C

Reputable
Jun 2, 2016
65
1
4,635
0
The main down-side I see for my work is that, ideally, I would need to have access to 4GB per thread... AMD needs to get that mess straightened out, if not for this generation, then the next. As is, some of my workloads would take twice as long as otherwise necessary, and no, I will not build two 3970X systems, go with EPYC, or upgrade to yet more Xeons... too cost and/or power prohibitive (thought the 3990X is certainly pushing the line for cost here also).
On the basis of memory cost alone for your application (4GB / Thread) the Epyc CPU is well over $1000 less expensive when you add the price of a 64 core ThreadRipper with 4x128GB sticks versus the Epyc with 8x64GB sticks; while there's a difference in clock speed the 7H12 benefit for the additional cost is unlikely useful for your cost constraints. The extra 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes could allow a speedy RAID card which might be useful.

Sometimes looking at total costs rather than focusing on the price, longevity, and capabilities of a single part is what's needed. It's a certainty that there's a much better selection of ThreadRipper MBs (PCIe 4.0) than what is available for the Epyc; and the TR MBs are more feature filled and capable for the price. The best TR MB won't add epic features to a ThreadRipper, nor is there an overclocked server MB for the Epyc (not counting the normal running speed for a dual 7H12, and the loss of arm, leg, and organs).

But, buy as you wish.
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
746
20
18,985
0
Nvidia launched the RTX gpus more than a 17 months ago, and the Ray Tracing tech is still not supported by many games and been optimized little by litte, and those games that do support it see an important drop in FPS when active (but they do look amazing).

AMD launched a new category of HEDT cpu the TR 3990X less than a month ago, so I think is fair to give some time for the software industry to catch up.

Other than that tumbs up! to TomsHardware to keep updating the info and benchmarks results as new software shows up. How knows what the cpu and gpu future brings when software gets tunned a bit more.

Cheers
Don't think we will see a push for Ray Tracing in games until both next Gen consoles are out.
 

CerianK

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
118
3
18,695
2
On the basis of memory cost alone for your application...
Actually, it is applications (plural), where the 4GB/thread applies to only one of the applications, so not a deal-breaker if only 2GB/thread is available. The concern is more of a future-proofing issue, where you are right that EPYC might be a better choice in the long run, but would also require an additional 3950X (for example) to handle more lightly threaded time-sensitive workloads. So, not necessarily a less-expensive option.

Still, my understanding is that if one were able to install 8x64GB on Threadripper, it would only see 256GB, which others have commented on as a means to artificially limit VM deployment, or other traditionally server (i.e. EPYC) workloads, on the 3990X. I am not sure if there is any more to it than that, but it makes sense from a marketing standpoint (regardless of my opinions on the subject).

Regarding memory type, ECC is not a requirement for me. Something like G.SKILL F4-3200C16Q2-256GVK for $1200 US would likely be fine, from what I can tell.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS