Threadripper is a 2-chip module rather than 4, so will have half the L3 cache.
Threadripper has half the memory channels and half the PCIe lanes.
EPYC is available with up to twice the cores.
The main advantage I see for Threadripper is that at 16 cores EPYC will have half the cores disabled, so for problems that fit in L2 you lose some performance from the reduced L2 sharing. That and it should be priced better than server chips, with I suspect the 12 - 14 core being the sweet spot.
Based on leaks I think Threadripper might boost a few 100 MHz higher, with base clock up to 3.6GHz.
I would not be surprised if there will be no 14 core part. None of the Zen based CPU's so far have a uneven CCX configuration but 14 cores would require that.
The Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600x have two CCX modules with 3 cores each (one core disabled on each CCX). So it wouldn't be impossible for AMD to make a 14 core part.
Yes, but what I meant is uneven CCX. The 4 core parts have 2+2, the 6 core parts have 3+3, the 8 core parts have 4+4. There is no uneven CCX combination like 2+4 for example.
If this applies to multi die solutions like Threadripper, there will be no 10 and 14 core parts as they would require uneven CCX combinations.
If the Epyc lineup is an indication this might be true. Especially since there is no 12 core part for Epyc. Since it has 4 dies you could produce 12 cores by using only 3 cores of each die, but this would require uneven CCX (1+2 or 0+3).
I suspect that uneven configurations aren't allowed. IIRC, in the die each core has a direct link to the same core on the other CCX, a direct link to the same core on the other dies in the MCM, and a direct link to the same core on the other chip if in a 2P motherboard.
IOW core #13 is the 5th core in the second die, aka the 1st core in the second CCX on the second die. So it would have a direct link to the 1st core in the first CCX on the second die, as well as a link to the 5th core in the other 3 dies as well as a link to the 13th core on the second chip if in 2P.
So it seems quite likely that all 16 CCX's in a 2P server must have the same number of cores.
Hm? L2 is per core. Always has been in a three+ layer architecture.
Zen has 512K L2 per core and 8M L3 per CCX (two CCX per dice). L3 is a victim cache iirc, unlike previous generations where the L3 was inclusive.
Intel usually went with a similar scheme in the last few years, where the L3 is partitioned into slices assigned to cores; accessing the local slice is faster than a non-local slice. Skylake-SP deviates from this (significantly), for better ... or worse.
L3 is a victim cache? Intels L4 is the victim cache for their inclusive L3. How does that work? And their L2 is basically a buffer between their L1 and L3.
That doesnt make sense to me. I can't find any good info on this.
I think Threadripper will have 2 chips per unit instead of 4 like Epyc. That should make them smaller and cheaper. If so it would mean that making motherboards would be simpler so those would be cheaper too.
I think AMD also stated there will be no dual CPU Threadripper setups. so the CPU interconnect stuff also won't need to exist on threadripper motherboards.
They're marketed as different sockets, so I wouldn't be surprised if that does not work. E.g. because a SP3r2 motherboard doesn't route power to unpopulated dice on the module.
Past experience suggests it's very likely they will be compatible, at least at a basic level.
See eg. or Socket 'L' vs. 'F' in AMD's history (hint -- they're the same thing), or the various Socket 2011 Intel iterations across server/enthusiast markets.
You may lose out on some features (eg. RDIMM support with server CPU, overclocking support in either direction, etc.)
Untimately, I hope, the cross-compatibility of EPYC CPUs on enthusiast chipsets will be a decision for motherboard manufacturers to make, as it has been in the past. 64 PCIe lanes should be enough for... at least some of us ;)
ETA:
As parent mentioned, the situation this time is more complicated.
Threadripper in an EPYC board is likely to be problematic -- the CPU doesn't have enough PCIe/Infinty Fabric connectivity to allow CPU links and PCIe to be active simultaneously. Even in a 1P system, only half of the board's potential PCIe lanes would be available. Due to these issues, it's likely such a setup may not be supported. It would be a strange thing to try in the first place, however, especially if equivalent EPYC parts end up similarly-priced to Threadripper.
EPYC in a Threadripper board is the news I'm hoping (and expecting) to be better -- the parent talked about powering the extra dies... an interesting consideration, though I expect (and hope) the only pins which won't be broken out on a Threadripper board will be the extra PCIe lanes.
