So you're saying there's not a 1 CCX die without GPU.More correctly: Summit Ridge die, and Raven Ridge die.
That is what we are looking at.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Discussion
- Thread starter koyoot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. What I am saying is that for AMD's business it is better to sell 8 cores for lower price, than 2 cores made from 8 core CPU for even lower price.
That is reasoning inside AMD. They have pushed themselves into a little corner, because they did not calculated the Yield from GloFo process, which is over 80%, and is VERY cheap. Each CPU die costs AMD to make around 30$, with total cost after packaging, soldering, testing, etc around 39-42$ per chip, regardless of core count. It is better for AMD to lower price on 8 core CPUs, than to cut down chips to 1 or 2 cores to increase market share, but earn pennies. That is why we might see price cut after Threadripper, and Intel lineup launches. Ryzen 7 1700 might cost then 250$.
About Ryzen 3. I do not want to spill the beans, because plans for AMD can still change. They can use both Raven Ridge, or Summit Ridge dies for Ryzen 3 SKUs. But for some resons it will be... problematic. Raven Ridge APU die is slightly bigger than Summit Ridge. Summit Ridge has around 190 mm2 die size, and Raven Ridge around 210 mm2. Costs of manufacturing are going up. Selling more expensive die at lower prices? Problematic. Selling high yielding die, but artificially crippled, to get it work in particular segment? Problematic.
For one thing is actually rumored right now is that we might not see Raven Ridge APUs for desktop market for quite some time.
However... the CPUs with GPUs with Ryzen branding are coming to market. Whatever this means.
And will they actually have the 128 GB/sec of memory bandwidth needed for 128 lanes, or will they be throttled by RAM - and effectively the 128 PCIe lanes will be behind a narrower switch?
And, as I've said many times, using a switch to expand the number of PCIe lanes can be a good thing.
[Mods - please move this thread to the "alternatives" forum. It has almost no relevance to the Mac Pro.]
Last edited:
I believe Aiden is saying that the CPU still has to deal with both the 8ch mem and the total of 128 lanes. Something will have to wait.
I could see the 1S EPYC on the mMP, even 3 tiers that would match perfectly in the mMP concept.
Power is a bit on the high side but with an improved PS no problem, additional heat would have to be dealt with though.
And it's a server CPU that could really be used for WS purposes.
High power draw could be the reason it didn't qualify for the iMac Pro, or maybe it was too early.
The mMP is still a long time away, so all is open.
I could see the 1S EPYC on the mMP, even 3 tiers that would match perfectly in the mMP concept.
Power is a bit on the high side but with an improved PS no problem, additional heat would have to be dealt with though.
And it's a server CPU that could really be used for WS purposes.
High power draw could be the reason it didn't qualify for the iMac Pro, or maybe it was too early.
The mMP is still a long time away, so all is open.
180W TDP is actually only 15W higher than Intel's 18/20 core CPUs.
P.S. If you think about what part of the computer TDP's have actually increased within last few years, with higher core counts? CPUs. We have went from 12 core 140W TDP, to 18 core 165W(AT least) and to 180W 32 core. Maybe that was main cause for the scrapping of 6.1 design? If Thermal Core was designed to handle only 150W, on each side...
...and Apple doesn't have a good track record regarding the number of DIMMs that Apple puts in a system.
If Apple sticks with 4 DIMM slots, that's far below the bandwidth of 128 PCIe lanes.
If I remember correctly all of Apple computers for past few years were max possible in particular form factor.
MP 5.1 had 6 dimm slots, or 9 for triple channel.
I actually cannot remember a Apple computer that did not maxed out RAM.
Edit: Anyone remember my post about Dell jumping ship from Intel to AMD?
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/inspiron-5675-gaming-desktop
Those computers are supposed to test the waters for Dell, and the reception they get. Funniest part. In those computers there is no chance of finding any Intel CPU, but the marketing branding on that site is still apparent
.
Last edited:
The MP6,1 has 4 DIMM slots, and its CPUs support 8 (E5-1xxxv2) or 12 (E5-2xxxv2).
And to refresh your memory:
So not only it didn't support the full 9 DIMMs (single CPU) or 18 DIMMs (dual CPU) - the 4th DIMM on each CPU could only run in single-channel mode.
Eh? The single processor MP 5,1 has 4 DIMM slots. The Dual processor model has 8 DIMM slots. 6 and 9 ... some alternative universe perhaps.
it is not "maxed out RAM". What Apple has not done is fail to match the number of memory controllers ( the native rank) The Xeon processor in the MP 5,1 has 3 memory controllers. Two of the DIMMs share a dual rank relationship with the 3rd controller. What Apple has generally done is avoid dual (or triple ) rank memory solutions. They did expanded a bit for the MP 4,1 and 5,1, but that is highly untypical of Apple system designs.
If ( and that is a somewhat of a leap) Apple selected EPYC then they probably would match the 8 memory controllers. The problem with EPYC is that it isn't going to scale down. EPYC may scale back 8-10 cores but I'd be surprised if it was more than that. I have doubts that Apple is going to want to start the Mac Pro price above that of the iMac Pro. The next iteration of Intel's or AMD's primarily workstation targeted CPU processor is going to be a better fit.
The iMac Pro and Mac Pro would be far more segmented on form factor and internal user modifiable differences. The iMac Pro doesn't even have sanctioned user modifiable memory. There are certain users who just want buy that. if the Mac Pro had user memory updates, a single x16 slot for the card some folks "have to have" (perhaps also a filled x4 slot that users could change) , and started at a price range of $2,500 - 3,300 they would probably do very well and not overlap with the iMac sales all that much. Similar with external factors. Some folks what to put the Mac Pro inside something else. Those folks aren't going to "bleed' into the iMac space.
While Threadripper has 64 PCI-e lanes, it only have 4 memory controllers. So does the Intel "Xeon E5 v5" ( Skylake-W and follow on). If Apple kept track record it would be 4 DIMMs. They might feel some heat from folks who pragmatically want "RAM SSD" to go to 8 DIMMs (and dual rank) with 'cheap' DIMMs. They may 'bend' on that (the mainstream iMac does) , but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
[doublepost=1497629365][/doublepost]
More of the usual nonsense on the "Apple can't' front. None of the major Windows PC workstation vendors implement triple ranked solutions for their workstation models either. The only narrow corner case systems that implement triple rank are the top end ( enterprise database, "mainframe killer' ) type servers. Dell 7000 series? Nope. HP Z80 series? Nope. Reverence to the core of the workstation market? None.
As for the MP 4,1 , 5.1 , Apple used a processor tray to implement the design. So there was no room for dual rank (let alone triple rank) in the two processor configuration. It doesn't make much sense to have one tray full dual rank and another primarily single rank. It just expands complexity. Tackling "two birds with one stone" makes lots of sense for a relatively low volume model. Too low a volume and the product would get axed by Apple's "minimum threshold" criteria. Think Apple's minimum volume threshold criteria is dumb? Do any of their competitors operate at Apple margins? Nope.
There is likely going to be logic board space limitations on the next Mac Pro also. The CPU packages are getting bigger which leads to even less space for triple rank on normal sized workstation logic boards. Part of the reason Apple went to using a processor tray was to support both single and dual socket with a single design. If Apple just goes single processor then they don't need the tray. They could take the space that a 2nd CPU package would soak up and throw that at a 2nd rank of DIMMs.
That's funny, since some midrange consumer systems from the earliest Core i7 days (Dell XPS 435MT) had 6 DIMM sockets and full tri-channel support. (Note that "rank" has a completely different meaning for DIMMs from "channel".)
My personal Dell Precision T3610 has full quad channel support and 8 DIMM slots. (Same E5-1650v2 and PCH as the MP6,1 hex.)
The HP-Z4 supports quad channel and 8 DIMMs.
The HP-Z6 supports dual quad channel and 8 DIMMs.
The HP-Z8 supports dual quad channel and 16 DIMMs.
The MP6,1 supports quad channel and 4 DIMMs.
None of the recent CPUs have triple-channel memory, so why even mention it?
[doublepost=1497643430][/doublepost]
Why, have they already compromised the design?
Last edited:
Im still wondering why not Ryzen EPYC or Threadripper series for Mac series? They already perform and doing great. It just a matter of time for intel to be 2nd from 1st.
Probably more of a political and economical decision rather than techinical lol.
But seriously, why not AMD instead of Intel in this period of time? Price? Technical issue? OS compatibility? TB3? or?
Once upon a time there was saying that "one won't get fired for buying IBM (mainframes)". Today, it may be that Apple Mac engineering ranks have been so decimated that there isn't anyone left to make radical decisions. The remaining Apple managers wouldn't get fired for choosing an Intel CPU.
Another possibility is that Apple has simply ended up with a really long lead time. Why weren't the iMacs released in January (of course with Polaris 10/11 GPUs)?