Following the initial rumors stemming from an post about Vega price soon changing, multiple AIB partners reached out to GamersNexus – and vice versa – to discuss the truth of the content. The post by Gibbo of Overclockers suggested that launch rebates and MDF would be expiring from AMD for Vega, which would drive pricing upward as retailers scramble to make a profit on the new GPU. Launch pricing of Vega 64 was supposed to be $500, but quickly shot to $600 USD in the wake of immediate inventory selling out. This is also why the packs exist – it enables AMD to “lower” the pricing of Vega by making return on other components.

In speaking with different sources from different companies that work with AMD, GamersNexus learned that “Gibbo is right” regarding the AMD rebate expiry and subsequent price jump. AMD purportedly provided the top retailers and etailers with a $499 price on Vega 64, coupling sale of the card with a rebate to reduce spend by retailers, and therefore use leverage to force the lower price. The $100 rebate from AMD is already expiring, hence the price jump by retailers who need return. Rebates were included as a means to encourage retailers to try to sell at the lower $499 price. With those expiring, leverage is gone and retailers/etailers return to their own price structure, as margins are exceptionally low on this product.

Tearing open the RX Vega 56 card revealed more of what we expected: A Vega Frontier Edition card, which is the same as Vega 64, which is the same as Vega 56. It seems as if AMD took the same PCB & VRM run and increased volume to apply to all these cards, thereby ensuring MOQ is met and theoretically lowering cost for all devices combined. That said, the price also increases in unnecessary ways for the likes of Vega 56, which has one of the most overkill VRMs a card of its ilk possibly could -- especially given the native current and power constraints enforced by BIOS. That said, we're working on power tables mods to bypass these constraints, despite the alleged Secure Boot compliance by AMD.

We posted a tear-down of the card earlier today, though it is much the same as the Vega: Frontier Edition -- and by "much the same," we mean "exactly the same." Though, to be fair, V56 does lack the TR6 & TR5 screws of FE.

Here's the tear-down:

“Indecision” isn’t something we’ve ever titled a review, or felt in general about hardware. The thing is, though, that Vega is launching in the midst of a market which behaves completely unpredictably. We review products as a value proposition, looking at performance to dollars and coming to some sort of unwavering conclusion. Turns out, that’s sort of hard to do when the price is “who knows” and availability is uncertain. Mining does all this, of course; AMD’s launching a card in the middle of boosted demand, and so prices won’t stick for long. The question is whether the inevitable price hike will match or exceed the price of competing cards. NVidia's GTX 1070 should be selling below $400 (a few months ago, it did), the GTX 1080 should be ~$500, and the RX Vega 56 should be $400.

Conclusiveness would be easier with at least one unchanging value.

Visiting AMD during the Threadripper announcement event gave us access to a live LN2-overclocking demonstration, where one of the early Threadripper CPUs hit 5.2GHz on LN2 and scored north of 4000 points in Cinebench. Overclocking was performed on two systems, one using an internal engineering sample motherboard and the other using an early ASRock board. LN2 pots will be made available by Der8auer and KINGPIN, though the LN2 pots used by AMD were custom-made for the task, given that the socket is completely new.

The launch of Threadripper marks a move closer to AMD’s starting point for the Zen architecture. Contrary to popular belief, AMD did not start its plans with desktop Ryzen and then glue modules together until Epyc was created; no, instead, the company started with an MCM CPU more similar to Epyc, then worked its way down to Ryzen desktop CPUs. Threadripper is the fruition of this MCM design on the HEDT side, and benefits from months of maturation for both the platform and AMD’s support teams. Ryzen was rushed in its weeks leading to launch, which showed in both communication clarity and platform support in the early days. Finally, as things smoothed-over and AMD resolved many of its communication and platform issues, Threadripper became advantaged in its receipt of these improvements.

“Everything we learned with AM4 went into Threadripper,” one of AMD’s representatives told us, and that became clear as we continued to work on the platform. During the test process for Threadripper, work felt considerably more streamlined and remarkably free of the validation issues that had once plagued Ryzen. The fact that we were able to instantly boot to 3200MHz (and 3600MHz) memory gave hope that Threadripper would, in fact, be the benefactor of Ryzen’s learning pains.

Threadripper will ship in three immediate SKUs:

Respectively, these units are targeted at price-points of $1000, $800, and $550, making them direct competitors to Intel’s new Skylake-X family of CPUs. The i9-7900X would be the flagship – for now, anyway – that’s being more heavily challenged by AMD’s Threadripper HEDT CPUs. Today's review looks at the AMD Threadripper 1950X and 1920X CPUs in livestreaming benchmarks, Blender, Premiere, power consumption, temperatures, gaming, and more.

This episode of Ask GN (#56) revisits the topic of AMD's Temperature Control (TCTL) offset on Ryzen CPUs, aiming to help demystify why the company has elected to implement the feature on its consumer-grade CPUs. The topic was resurrected with thanks to Threadripper's imminent launch, just hours away, as the new TR CPUs also include a 27C TCTL offset. Alongside this, we talk Threadripper CPU die layout diagrams and our use of dry erase marker (yes, really), sensationalism and clickbait on YouTube, Peltier coolers, Ivy Bridge, and more.

For a separate update on what's going on behind the scenes, our Patreon backers may be happy to hear that we've just posted an update on the Patreon page. The update discusses major impending changes to our CPU testing procedure, as Threadripper's launch will be the last major CPU we cover for a little while. Well, a few weeks, at least. That'll give us some time to rework our testing for next year, as our methods tend to remain in place for about a year at a time.

Timestamps below.

Following an initial look at thermal compound spread on AMD’s Threadripper 1950X, we immediately revisited an old, retired discussion: Thermal paste application methods and which one is “best” for a larger IHS. With most of the relatively small CPUs, like the desktop-grade Intel and AMD CPUs, it’s more or less been determined that there’s no real, appreciable difference in application methods. Sure – you might get one degree Centigrade here or there, but the vast majority of users will be just fine with the “blob” method. As long as there’s enough compound, it’ll spread fairly evenly across Intel i3/i5/i7 non-HEDT CPUs and across Ryzen or FX CPUs.

Threadripper feels different: It’s huge, with the top of the IHS measuring at 68x51mm, and significantly wider on one axis. Threadripper also has a unique arrangement of silicon, with four “dies” spread across the substrate. AMD has told us that only two of the dies are active and that it should be the same two on every Threadripper CPU, with the other two being branded “silicon substrate interposers.” Speaking with Der8auer, we believe there may be more to this story than what we’re told. Der8auer is investigating further and will be posting coverage on his own channel as he learns more.

Anyway, we’re interested in how different thermal compound spreading methods may benefit Threadripper specifically. Testing will focus on the “blob” method, X-pattern, parallel lines pattern, Asetek’s stock pattern, and AMD’s recommended five-point pattern. Threadripper’s die layout looks like this, for a visual aid:

amd threadripper grid

Because of the spacing centrally, we are most concerned about covering the two clusters of dies, not the center of the IHS; that said, it’s still a good idea to cover the center as that is where the cooler’s copper density is located and most efficient.

Our video version of this content uses a sheet of Plexiglass to illustrate how compound spreads as it is applied. As we state later in the video, this is a nice, easy mode of visualization, but not really an accurate way to show how the compound spreads when under the real mounting force of a socketed cooler. For that, we later applied the same NZXT Kraken X62 cooler with each method, then took photos to show before/after cooler installation. Thermal testing was also performed. Seeing as AMD has permitted several other outlets to post their thermal results already, we figured we'd add ours to the growing pool of testing.

This week’s hardware news recap goes over some follow-up AMD coverage, closes the storyline on Corsair’s partial acquisition, and talks new products and industry news. We open with AMD RX Vega mining confirmations and talk about the “packs” – AMD’s discount bundling supposed to help get cards into the hands of gamers.

The RX Vega discussion is mostly to confirm an industry rumor: We’ve received reports from contacts at AIB partners that RX Vega will be capable of mining at 70MH/s, which is something around double current RX 580 numbers. This will lead to more limited supply of RX Vega cards, we’d suspect, but AMD’s been trying to plan for this with their “bundle packs” – purchasers can spend an extra $100 to get discounts. Unfortunately, nothing says those discounts must be spent, and an extra $100 isn’t going to stop miners who are used to paying 2x prices, anyway.

Show notes below.

We took time aside at AMD’s Threadripper & Vega event to speak with leading architects and engineers at the company, including Corporate Fellow Mike Mantor. The conversation eventually became one that we figured we’d film, as we delved deeper into discussion on small primitive discarding and methods to cull unnecessary triangles from the pipeline. Some of the discussion is generic – rules and concepts applied to rendering overall – while some gets more specific to Vega’s architecture.

The interview was sparked from talk about Vega’s primitive shader (or “prim shader”), draw-stream binning rasterization (DSBR), and small primitive discarding. We’ve transcribed large portions of the first half below, leaving the rest in video format. GN’s Andrew Coleman used Unreal Engine and Blender to demonstrate key concepts as Mantor explained them, so we’d encourage watching the video to better conceptualize the more abstract elements of the conversation.

Our recent R7 1700 vs. i7-7700K streaming benchmarks came out in favor of the 1700, as the greater core count made it far easier to handle the simultaneous demands of streaming and gameplay without any overclocking or fiddling with process priority. Streaming isn’t the whole story, of course, and there are many situations (i.e. plain old gaming) where speed is a more valuable resource than sheer number of threads, as seen in our original 1700 review.

Today, we’re testing the R7 1700 and i7-7700K at 1440p 144Hz. We know the i7-7700K is a leader in gaming performance from our earlier CPU-bottlenecked 1080p testing; that isn’t the point here. We’ve also pitted these chips against each other in VR testing, where our conclusion was that GPU choice mattered far more, since both CPUs can deliver 90FPS equally well (and were effectively identical). This newest test is less of a competition and more of a “can the 1700 do it too” scenario. The 1700 has features that make it attractive for casual streaming or rendering, but that doesn’t mean customers want to sacrifice smooth 144Hz in pure gaming scenarios. As we explain thoroughly in the below video, there are different uses for different CPUs; it’s not quite as simple as “that one’s better,” and more accurately boils down to “that one’s better for this specific task, provided said task is your biggest focus.” Maybe that’s the R7 1700 for streaming while gaming, maybe that’s the 7700K for gaming -- but what we haven’t tested is if the 1700 can keep up at 144Hz with higher quality settings. We put to test media statements (including our own) that the 1700 should be “better at streaming,” finding that it is. It is now time to put to test the statements that the 7700K is “better at 144Hz” gaming.

This series is an ongoing venture in our follow-up tests to illustrate that, yes, the two CPUs can both exist side-by-side and can be good at different things. There’s no shame in being a leader in one aspect but not the other, and it’s just generally impossible given current manufacturing and engineering limitations, anyway. The 7700K was the challenger in the streaming benchmarks, and today it will be challenged by the inbound R7 1700 for 144Hz gaming.

People like to make things a bloodbath, but just again to remind everyone: This is less of a “versus” scenario and more of a “can they both do it?” scenario.

Page 1 of 30


  VigLink badge