Still seems like a typo, it doesn't make any sense that the 24 / 48 would be priced between the 8 / 16 and the 16 / 32. Either the prices of the 73 and 74 were swapped or the tag is just plain wrong. "2900" is also very suspiciously round compared to every other price on the press release.
It makes perfect sense if you're an enterprise customer and your software dependencies charge you extremely different priced tiers for different maximum numbers of cores. AMD is selling a license-optimized part at a higher price because there will be plenty of demand for it.
People who don't save a boatload by getting the license-optimized CPU will invariably choose to buy the 24-core one, which helps AMD by making it easier for them to keep up with the demand for the 16-core variant, and the 16-core variant gets an unusually nice profit margin. Win win.
This is not the first time AMD or Intel have offered a weird inverse-pricing jump like this... I highly doubt it is a typo.
Yep - in the past I've done "special orders" for not-publicly-advertised CPU configs from our hardware vendor to get low core count, high-clock servers for products like Oracle DB.
It doesn't seem to be a typo. AMD offers many variations of each core configurations, with different base frequencies. It's just that there are simply pricing overlaps between some low-core high-freq version and some higher-core lower-freq versions. For example the 7513 (32 cores) is also cheaper than the 73F3 (16 cores).
256MB L3 (or really, 8 x 32MBs L3) and 24-cores suggests the bottom-of-the-barrel 3 cores active per 8-core CCX.
8x CCX with 3-cores. The yields on those chips must be outstanding: its like 62.5% of the cores could have critical errors and they can still sell it at that price.
EDIT: My numbers were wrong at first. Fixed. Zen3 is double-sized CCX (32MBs / CCX instead of 16MBs/CCX)
---------
In contrast, the 28-core 7453 is $1,570. I personally would probably go with the 28-core (with only 2x32MB L3 cache, or 64MBs) rather than the 24-core with 256MBs L3 cache.
For my applications, I bet that having 7-cores share an L3 cache (and therefore able to communicate quickly) is better than having 1 or 2 cores having 32MBs of L3 to themselves.
There are also significant price savings, as well as significant power / wattage savings with the 28-core / 64MBs model.
Which is cheaper than the 24c 7443 and 7413 but not the 16c 7343 and 7313.
And it only has half the L3 compared to its siblings (1/4th compared to the 7543 top end), a lower turbo than every other processor in the range (whether lower or higher core counts), well as an unimpressive base frequency, and a fairly high TDP by comparison (as high as the 7543).
The 74F3 has no such discrepancy, it has the same L3 as every other F-series and slots neatly into the range frequency-wise: same turbo as its siblings (with the 72 being 100MHz higher), 300MHz base lower han the 73, and 250 higher than the 75.
> Which is cheaper than the 24c 7443 and 7413 but not the 16c 7343 and 7313.
28-cores for $1570 seems to be the "cheapest per core" in the entire lineup.
It all comes down to whether you want those cores actually communicating over L3 cache, or not. Do you want 7-cores per L3 cache, or do you prefer 4-cores per L3 cache?
4-cores per L3 cache benefits from having more overall cache per core. But more-cores per L3 cache means that more of your threads can tightly-communicate cheaply, and effectively.
---------
More L3 cache probably benefits from cloud-deployments, Virtual Desktops, and similar (since those cores aren't communicating as much).
More cores per L3 cache benefits from more tightly integrated multicore applications.
EDIT: Also note that "more cores" means more L1 and L2 cache, which is arguably more important in compute-heavy situations. L3 cache size is great of course, but many applications are L1 / L2 constrained and will prefer more cores instead. 24c 7443 with 2x32MB L3 is probably a better chess-engine than 16c 7343 4x32MB L3.
https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/993/amd...