MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?

[Slash-2CPU]

I wish I had the cubic bucks required to build a decent Mac Pro rig and the equivalent Threadripper rig to actually test myself.

Maybe Snazzy Labs has the cash to get a 24-core Xeon and a 24-core Threadripper equally decked out and can put them through their paces...

Looking forward to the real world tests and where the rubber really meets the road.

if you want to compare price points, $1999 16-core Xeon-W 3245 lines up against $1999 32-core TR 3970X. Xeon would come out a bit ahead in lightly threaded tasks, which is embarrassingly what most of these CPUs will do for most of the time. Those tasks will be done so quickly in real use that it will not matter anyway.

If you compare 24-core TR to 24-core Xeon W, I think it’ll be very much a relative tie with Xeon-W being a bit faster in a few specific workloads with better power efficiency and new TR coming out ahead in price-performance while being really close and maybe a bit ahead in a few tasks.

With such disparate pricing, it’s hard to do a simple comparison. Either option is very solid, and it will come down to knowing your application/workload/use case. Intel is still overpriced as hell.

 

[koyoot]

There's a reason why Tim Cook is running a trillion dollar company and you are not.

If people left Apple because Apple used AMD CPUs it would show only one thing: That Apple was stupid and missed out on profits because they switched.

Would you leave a platform that gives you more performance than any competitor, and is more secure?

Remember - every Workstation out there is based on Intel's Xeons. Currently - inferior products compared to AMD's in both: HEDT and Server, in terms of performance, efficiency. Why would people leave Apple when they will switch to faster CPUs, and get more performance?



Speaking of switching to AMD. Lets get back to the single clue we have about it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1205224101972979723

Van Gogh, that was found in Apple kexts in Catalina Beta is based on Zen 2 and RDNA(Navi, GFX10).

None of AMD's upcoming, standard Zen 2 APUs(Renoir and Dali) are based on Navi GPU. All of them have Vega(GFX9).

Have, you all, fun denying that Apple is switching to AMD from Intel .

 

[koyoot]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/eczmzx
Charlie Demerjian was the one crazy guy who since 2015 was talking about Intel production woes and blatant lack of competency.

Anyone else believing still they can come back in time to still be relevant in computing?

 

[ssgbryan]

Yes, I believe that they can come back.....

By the end of 2021 (10nm).

Next year is going to be ugly, but they will be back.

Of course, AMD will be on 5nm by that point, but inertia is a powerful thing.

 

[macjunkie2013]

Top of the line Mac Pro ~10,000 in Cinebench vs build w Threadripper 3960x @ ~ 14,000 Cinebench

Watch this video of a new Threadripper (re)build:

Threadripper 3960X: VFX Render Monster

Cinebench comparison at 10:50 mark

So...40% faster for less $?

 

[danwells]

A Threadripper is equivalent to a many-core version of Intel's HEDT processors or 2xxx series Xeon-Ws, NOT the W-3xxx or Xeon Scalable series. Notably, it doesn't have the enormous RAM capacity of the W-3xxx chips, and many people who are after a machine as powerful as the Mac Pro actually want more than 256 GB of RAM.

What AMD has done (successfully) is nearly double Intel's core count (while maintaining comparable TDP and turbo speeds) at a given processor level. The Ryzen 3950X is a scary-fast standard desktop CPU (it still has dual-channel RAM and no ECC), not a true HEDT CPU that supports quad channels and ECC. It's a much faster competitor to the Core-i9 9900K and the new 10900, not to the Xeon-W 2xxx CPUs in the iMac Pro. The Threadripper 3970X is a scary-fast HEDT/entry workstation CPU with a 256 GB RAM capacity, not a high-end workstation CPU that can handle a terabyte of registered RAM.

At both the desktop and HEDT/ entry workstation levels, AMD is well ahead of Intel - it's not especially close except in weird workloads that really use the latest AVX extensions. Both the top Ryzens and top Threadrippers are so fast that it is tempting to compare them to Intel CPUs a level up (and they hold their own in raw speed) - but they don't have the features of CPUs a level up.

AMD does make EPYC CPUs that compete with the W-3xxx and Xeon Scalable CPUs, supporting tons of RAM, multi-processing and similar features. They are a tradeoff with their Intel competitors (AMD will certainly give you more cores, but, unlike Ryzen and Threadripper, they'll be slower cores, with lower base and turbo clocks). If your workload is well-threaded, EPYC will crush Xeon Scalable, but the Xeons have an advantage in poorly threaded workloads.

Intel lowered their pricing to compete - the i9-9900K is slower than the upper-end Ryzens, but it's also cheaper. The W-22xx line comes in between the pricing of upper-end Ryzens and Threadrippers. AMD is still the better value, but not by as much as it was at Intel's old pricing.

If Apple were going to go AMD on the desktop:

Mac mini, 21.5" iMac - Ryzen 3 and 5 with integrated graphics - CPUs comparable to or a little faster than what they're using now, GPUs a huge improvement.

27" iMac - Ryzen 5, 7, 9 with discrete graphics - lower end CPUs at least comparable to what they are using now, upper end a huge improvement (close to double!).

iMac Pro - Threadripper - not enough models (only 24 and 32 core options) - both a huge improvement over Intel equivalent.. Apple would need a custom 16-core 3rd Generation Threadripper (can't use a Ryzen 9, because it needs a completely different motherboard) for the low-end model. The 24-core Threadripper 3960X costs twice as much as the 8-core Xeon Apple's using, and the new version of the Xeon is cheaper...

Mac Pro - EPYC - many more cores, but slow single-core performance...

 

[linuxcooldude]

The biggest question if threadripper 3 can access 1.5TB of memory. Apple tipically uses Xeon workstation CPU's with more PCIe lanes then conventional CPU's.

 

[TheRealAlex]

IMHO they should be.

I hate topics like this, but the neglect by Apple on productivity is stunning.

The new AMD ThreadRipper 3 series (3960X, 3970X) vastly outclasses all the top Intel CPU's by a wide margin in productivity. There is literally no competition except the last gen ThreadRipper. Yes TR3 is pricey, yet combined w Nvidia might slam the door shut for the Mac Pro 7.1 being remotely competitive.

I have been using Macs for productivity since Mac OS 6. The addition of Nvidia was huge, and is now a huge loss. My heavy upgraded Mac Pro 4.1 will last me another year or two.

I really prefer Mac OS over Windows, but damn!

1000% right but Apple still needs Intel for Mobile Laptop CPUs and their much preffered pricing. Let’s be honest MAcBook Pro at $3,000 ish will out sell Mac Pros 5,000 to 1. So keeping Intel happy (For Now) by using last gen end of life Xeon W CPUs was a olive branch and buying time. Until Apple can fully Optimize MacOS for AMD Ryzen aNd ThreadRipper 5 probably and until AMD can get to 5nm 12 Core Mobile CPUs on Ryzen 5 maybe by 2025 ish.
But Intel CPUs are done. I want to fully transition to AMD by 2025 maybe and drop NVIDIA as well.

We’ll be looking at DDR5 RAM and PCI Express 5.0 standard across the board by then.

 

[AidenShaw]

But Intel CPUs are done. I want to fully transition to AMD by 2025 maybe and drop NVIDIA as well.

Hasn't Nvidia and its superior ecosystem already been dropped?

 

[danwells]

Laptop CPUs are part of the problem (Intel has thrown all their innovation there, and it shows). Intel has probably told Apple (and other laptop-centric manufacturers - you don't see Dell, HP, Lenovo doing much with AMD, either) that reasonable volume pricing on laptop CPUs requires Intel desktops.

The other part is that the Mac Pro CPU isn't Threadripper (RAM capacity) - it's EPYC. That means dealing with very slow base and turbo clocks that will make Photoshop and other poorly-threaded applications underperform. EPYC is VERY powerful if you can use all the cores, but if your application is resolutely under threaded, it performs poorly - in the worst (single-threaded) case, comparably to a 15W laptop CPU. Photoshop isn't THAT bad, but it's not well threaded.

 

[ssgbryan]

Danwells - All AMD CPUs support ECC memory, the key is finding a board that supports it (ASUS WS-570-Ace) is the only one that I know of for Ryzen ($320 from Walmart.com).

When you start talking clock speeds, Intel drops just as rapidly as AMD, albeit on fewer cores. Add in the fact that AMD has a higher IPC, the clock speed isn't as significant. At the end of the day, the 28 core (Max) for the 7,1 has a base frequency of 2.5Ghz. You don't get below that on EYPC until you are on 48 cores. If you need both lots o' cores & high clock speeds, you can go with a dual EYPC setup. A 7542 would give 64 cores @ 2.9Ghz.

Boost clock is pretty much irrelevant - if a CPU has 1 core hit boost speed for less than 1 second, it is considered good by both AMD and Intel alike. Neither company talks all core boost on their HEDT and Server level CPUs.

AMD should be announcing Zen2 laptop CPUs on Monday, along with the 1st official news on Zen 3.

 

[leman]

Add in the fact that AMD has a higher IPC

Huch? In all tests I’ve seen Intel’s Skylake still strictly outperforms modern AMD cores at the same clock speed.

 

[koyoot]

A Threadripper is equivalent to a many-core version of Intel's HEDT processors or 2xxx series Xeon-Ws, NOT the W-3xxx or Xeon Scalable series. Notably, it doesn't have the enormous RAM capacity of the W-3xxx chips, and many people who are after a machine as powerful as the Mac Pro actually want more than 256 GB of RAM.

What AMD has done (successfully) is nearly double Intel's core count (while maintaining comparable TDP and turbo speeds) at a given processor level. The Ryzen 3950X is a scary-fast standard desktop CPU (it still has dual-channel RAM and no ECC), not a true HEDT CPU that supports quad channels and ECC. It's a much faster competitor to the Core-i9 9900K and the new 10900, not to the Xeon-W 2xxx CPUs in the iMac Pro. The Threadripper 3970X is a scary-fast HEDT/entry workstation CPU with a 256 GB RAM capacity, not a high-end workstation CPU that can handle a terabyte of registered RAM.

At both the desktop and HEDT/ entry workstation levels, AMD is well ahead of Intel - it's not especially close except in weird workloads that really use the latest AVX extensions. Both the top Ryzens and top Threadrippers are so fast that it is tempting to compare them to Intel CPUs a level up (and they hold their own in raw speed) - but they don't have the features of CPUs a level up.

AMD does make EPYC CPUs that compete with the W-3xxx and Xeon Scalable CPUs, supporting tons of RAM, multi-processing and similar features. They are a tradeoff with their Intel competitors (AMD will certainly give you more cores, but, unlike Ryzen and Threadripper, they'll be slower cores, with lower base and turbo clocks). If your workload is well-threaded, EPYC will crush Xeon Scalable, but the Xeons have an advantage in poorly threaded workloads.

Intel lowered their pricing to compete - the i9-9900K is slower than the upper-end Ryzens, but it's also cheaper. The W-22xx line comes in between the pricing of upper-end Ryzens and Threadrippers. AMD is still the better value, but not by as much as it was at Intel's old pricing.

If Apple were going to go AMD on the desktop:

Mac mini, 21.5" iMac - Ryzen 3 and 5 with integrated graphics - CPUs comparable to or a little faster than what they're using now, GPUs a huge improvement.

27" iMac - Ryzen 5, 7, 9 with discrete graphics - lower end CPUs at least comparable to what they are using now, upper end a huge improvement (close to double!).

iMac Pro - Threadripper - not enough models (only 24 and 32 core options) - both a huge improvement over Intel equivalent.. Apple would need a custom 16-core 3rd Generation Threadripper (can't use a Ryzen 9, because it needs a completely different motherboard) for the low-end model. The 24-core Threadripper 3960X costs twice as much as the 8-core Xeon Apple's using, and the new version of the Xeon is cheaper...

Mac Pro - EPYC - many more cores, but slow single-core performance...

I always love when people compare HEDT CPUs with Servers CPUs, and forget that AMD also has Server CPUs.

Lets compare EPYC with Xeons for Servers.

I wonder how that comparison will look like.

And no, AMD EPYC CPUs do not have all core turbo speeds lower than Intel's. Because they are more efficient than Intel's you get more cores, boosting at the same speeds as Intel do.

Huch? In all tests I’ve seen Intel’s Skylake still strictly outperforms modern AMD cores at the same clock speed.

Considering that Zen+ have had 3% IPC deficit compared to AMD in compute workloads, then AMD would've had not gained any IPC with Zen 2. But they did.

The only place where you can see that AMD is slower in IPC is gaming. And that is not due the cores, but core latency.

Im sure this forum is full of gamers, considering that they judged AMD GPUs based on how they perform in games, but never how well they handle compute.

Danwells - All AMD CPUs support ECC memory, the key is finding a board that supports it (ASUS WS-570-Ace) is the only one that I know of for Ryzen ($320 from Walmart.com).

What stops Apple from simply enabling ECC support for all Apple Pro machines, with Ryzen CPUs? Nothing.

 

[Zdigital2015]

What stops Apple from simply enabling ECC support for all Apple Pro machines, with Ryzen CPUs? Nothing.

Other than the small detail of actually announcing and shipping Ryzen-based Macs, nothing...

 

[danwells]

I know that Threadrippers support ECC - but desktop Ryzens? Anyway, that's not really what matters - if desktop Ryzen supports 128 GB, and Threadripper supports 256 GB (both of which are true), that's fine for iMac (Ryzen) and iMac Pro (Threadripper) - everything except Mac Pro.

Mac Pro is stuck with EPYC due to RAM limitations, and the fastest turbo on any EPYC CPU I can find is 3.40 GHz. The list I found may not be complete, and if anyone has seen an EPYC with a higher turbo clock than that, I stand corrected. That's a full GHz slower than the Xeon-W 3275, and I have a Mac laptop that can sustain very close to that speed on all eight cores.

Yes, the EPYC that can turbo to that speed is a 32-core (7542) or even 64-core (7742) chip - but what if your workload is poorly threaded?! I have no doubt that EPYC with twice the cores at 3/4 the speed is a good performance tradeoff in well-threaded workloads, but in a poorly threaded workload, it not only falls behind Mac Pros, but desktop iMacs with the Core I9 as well, and possibly some variations of the 16" MacBook Pro!

 

[ssgbryan]

Yes, even the Athalons will use ECC, if the board supports it.

I really don't know how to dumb this down anymore. If your app is that poorly coded - there isn't a need for a Mac Pro. Get an i9 9000KS with it's 5Ghz all core boost, and Bob's your uncle.

 

[vel0city]

Yes, even the Athalons will use ECC, if the board supports it.

I really don't know how to dumb this down anymore. If your app is that poorly coded - there isn't a need for a Mac Pro. Get an i9 9000KS with it's 5Ghz all core boost, and Bob's your uncle.

What if your workflow requires a silent workstation, for example audio recording? The iMac's fans sound like a hairdryer at full tilt, making this computer far less than ideal for a professional workspace.

It's always about speed.

 

[koyoot]

I know that Threadrippers support ECC - but desktop Ryzens? Anyway, that's not really what matters - if desktop Ryzen supports 128 GB, and Threadripper supports 256 GB (both of which are true), that's fine for iMac (Ryzen) and iMac Pro (Threadripper) - everything except Mac Pro.

Mac Pro is stuck with EPYC due to RAM limitations, and the fastest turbo on any EPYC CPU I can find is 3.40 GHz. The list I found may not be complete, and if anyone has seen an EPYC with a higher turbo clock than that, I stand corrected. That's a full GHz slower than the Xeon-W 3275, and I have a Mac laptop that can sustain very close to that speed on all eight cores.

Yes, the EPYC that can turbo to that speed is a 32-core (7542) or even 64-core (7742) chip - but what if your workload is poorly threaded?! I have no doubt that EPYC with twice the cores at 3/4 the speed is a good performance tradeoff in well-threaded workloads, but in a poorly threaded workload, it not only falls behind Mac Pros, but desktop iMacs with the Core I9 as well, and possibly some variations of the 16" MacBook Pro!

Then buy the freaking Core based computers. Server, nor HEDT parts clearly are not for you if you have such rubbishly coded software.

What if your workflow requires a silent workstation, for example audio recording? The iMac's fans sound like a hairdryer at full tilt, making this computer far less than ideal for a professional workspace.

It's always about speed.

Build a hack, run it passively, or use actually silent fans in your computer. Mac fans are not silent.

Or switch to Linux. Audacity is great tool, and Linux is genuinely good OS right now.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

Then buy the freaking Core based computers. Server, nor HEDT parts clearly are not for you if you have such rubbishly coded software.

Not all workloads can be massively multithreaded. Or even multithreaded at all.

 

[vel0city]

Build a hack, run it passively, or use actually silent fans in your computer. Mac fans are not silent.

Or switch to Linux. Audacity is great tool, and Linux is genuinely good OS right now.

All of this is great advice if you're a hobbyist or retired. For me, as a solo freelancer using my Mac to make money, switching to Linux or buidling a Hackintosh would be career suicide.

 

[Zdigital2015]

All of this is great advice if you're a hobbyist or retired. For me, as a solo freelancer using my Mac to make money, switching to Linux or buidling a Hackintosh would be career suicide.

A lot of people live inside the hobbyist’s bubble without the slightest hint of understanding daily deadlines and the need for things to just work as opposed to troubleshooting. I used to find that sort of troubleshooting and getting things to work fun, but at this point in my life I have deadlines that have to be met and I simply don’t have time to deal with it. My clients don’t care about how I get there, just getting the end product.
[automerge]1578327869[/automerge]

Then buy the freaking Core based computers. Server, nor HEDT parts clearly are not for you if you have such rubbishly coded software.



Build a hack, run it passively, or use actually silent fans in your computer. Mac fans are not silent.

Or switch to Linux. Audacity is great tool, and Linux is genuinely good OS right now.

Rubbishy coded software such as After Effects and Photoshop? Seems realistic to stop using those.?

Audacity on Linux? Uh, no. I’m better off using GarageBand on an iPad...at least I know that will work.

 

[ssgbryan]

What if your workflow requires a silent workstation, for example audio recording? The iMac's fans sound like a hairdryer at full tilt, making this computer far less than ideal for a professional workspace.

It's always about speed.

i9 9900 KS with either:
Be Quiet! fans
Noctua fans
AIO waterblocks.

There are also enclosures you can purchase to keep a computer silent in.

When I was dealing with audio production (several lifetimes ago) - the musicians weren't in the same room as the recording equipment.

 

[fuchsdh]

Then buy the freaking Core based computers. Server, nor HEDT parts clearly are not for you if you have such rubbishly coded software.



Build a hack, run it passively, or use actually silent fans in your computer. Mac fans are not silent.

Or switch to Linux. Audacity is great tool, and Linux is genuinely good OS right now.

In this thread, someone is seriously suggesting switching to Audacity for professional audio work? Whaaaaa

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

In this thread, someone is seriously suggesting switching to Audacity for professional audio work? Whaaaaa

How audacious!

 

[Pressure]

I know that Threadrippers support ECC - but desktop Ryzens? Anyway, that's not really what matters - if desktop Ryzen supports 128 GB, and Threadripper supports 256 GB (both of which are true), that's fine for iMac (Ryzen) and iMac Pro (Threadripper) - everything except Mac Pro.

Mac Pro is stuck with EPYC due to RAM limitations, and the fastest turbo on any EPYC CPU I can find is 3.40 GHz. The list I found may not be complete, and if anyone has seen an EPYC with a higher turbo clock than that, I stand corrected. That's a full GHz slower than the Xeon-W 3275, and I have a Mac laptop that can sustain very close to that speed on all eight cores.

Yes, the EPYC that can turbo to that speed is a 32-core (7542) or even 64-core (7742) chip - but what if your workload is poorly threaded?! I have no doubt that EPYC with twice the cores at 3/4 the speed is a good performance tradeoff in well-threaded workloads, but in a poorly threaded workload, it not only falls behind Mac Pros, but desktop iMacs with the Core I9 as well, and possibly some variations of the 16" MacBook Pro!

AMD offers semi-custom solutions. Just look at the gaming consoles. If Apple wants a semi-custom EPYC equivalent processor that has a higher clock speed they could get it.