Question Why is AMD ThreadRipper not made like Epyc with integrated chipset?

[nofanneeded]

Hello,

This really puzzles me , AMD reached the point where they can include Eight Channels controller , Chipset inside the CPU . it became like ARM SOC.

Why on earth did they ignore this for Threadrippers ?

This would reduce the motherboard cost alot , and over that reduce the size of the motherboard as well.

 

[USAFRet]

Threadripper and Epyc are for different markets and use cases.
Why should they be the same?

 

[NightHawkRMX]

They didn't include 8 channel support on Threadripper likely to help differentiate it from Epyc so they don't compete for space in the same market.

Threadripper is HEDT, Epyc is server.

 

[nofanneeded]

Threadripper and Epyc are for different markets and use cases.
Why should they be the same?

I know they are different market , I am talking about including the Chipset inside the CPU .. like the Epyc.

it is about time all chipsets to move into the CPU.

Even cheap Mobile CPU today are complete SOCs ..

They didn't include 8 channel support on Threadripper likely to help differentiate it from Epyc so they don't compete for space in the same market.

Threadripper is HEDT, Epyc is server.

I am not talking about 8 channle memory , I am talking about chipset inside CPU.

when I mentioned the 8 channels memory , I was saying : Thread rippers does not have 8 channel and yet the Eypic has the chipset inside (which is harder with 8 channels controller)

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I fail to see what you mean. Its still has the IO die (soc) just like all other Zen 2 CPUs.

 

[nofanneeded]

I fail to see what you mean. Its still has the IO die (soc) just like all other Zen 2 CPUs.

Threadripper motherboards have TRX40 chipset ... Epyc Motherboards dont have any chipsets at all .

 

[USAFRet]

I know they are different market , I am talking about including the Chipset inside the CPU .. like the Epyc.

it is about time all chipsets to move into the CPU.

Even cheap Mobile CPU today are complete SOCs ..

Why?
What is the compelling performance or $$ reason for doing so?

Server. mobile, desktop...all different markets and use cases.

Or should all "computing devices" just be a "more powerful phone with a bigger screen" ?

 

[nofanneeded]

Why?
What is the compelling performance or $$ reason for doing so?

Server. mobile, desktop...all different markets and use cases.

Or should all "computing devices" just be a "more powerful phone with a bigger screen" ?

we already have Servers , Mobile AND desktops with ARM SOCs with chipset inside. ALL three areas .

as for why? simple ... smaller motherboard area , no need for that ugly fan on chipsets on threadrippers and Ryzen 3 X570 (which comes from the usage of Gen 4 Lanes in the chipset) ...

 

[cryoburner]

as for why? simple ... smaller motherboard area , no need for that ugly fan on chipsets on threadrippers and Ryzen 3 X570 (which comes from the usage of Gen 4 Lanes in the chipset) ...

It's worth pointing out that the chipset used in X570 boards is actually the same IO chip found inside the Zen 2 and Zen 3 AM4 processors, just manufactured on a 14nm process instead of 12nm. So the CPUs do in fact have the chipset inside the processor itself. The one on the motherboard is just there to provide additional connectivity, like more PCIe lanes. One advantage this has, is that it opens up the possibility of having other chipsets for less expensive boards, such as B550 or A520, which don't provide additional PCIe 4.0 lanes. Not everyone needs PCIe 4.0 for all slots, after all, and this allows people to mix and match the CPU they want with the motherboard connectivity they need.

Having all that connectivity handled within the processor would require every CPU to include a much larger IO chip, whether the motherboard utilizes those additional lanes or not. The CPU and socket would also need to be larger, with significantly more pins than AM4, and the processor's heat output would be increased a bit. There are also limits to the length of traces on motherboards for PCIe 4.0 slots without boosting the signal along the way, and I suspect having the chipset closer to those slots may help alleviate that on larger boards. So, moving all connectivity to the IO chip on the CPU might not be ideal, at least for mainstream platforms like AM4.

As for why they went with an external chipset for Threadripper and not for Epyc, perhaps they felt it gave motherboard manufacturers a bit more flexibility with their designs, or the potential for better compatibility with future generations of hardware.

 

[nofanneeded]

As for why they went with an external chipset for Threadripper and not for Epyc, perhaps they felt it gave motherboard manufacturers a bit more flexibility with their designs, or the potential for better compatibility with future generations of hardware.

What flexibility? the Gen 4 lanes from the chipset can be taken from the CPU it self , and the SATA and usb is nothing ..

and what Compatibility ? chipsets in or outside CPU is the same .