Is 64 cores too many cores? w/ Steve from Gamers Nexus
video description
Date: 2022-03-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
David
To answer the original question. No 64 cores is NOT too many. IMHO, This is future planning on the part of AMD. They are playing long game, and slaying it! The next Generation of computing is at hand. Frankly, many engineers have been struggling with the available hardware today. When you think about Machine learning, AI, IOT, Blockchain with smart contracts, Augmented Reality, cloud services, ECT. These technologies are all in their infancy. They are now, where AOL was in the dial up days of Internet. Over the next 5-10 years these are going to develop into massive industries all requiring even more advanced processors than this 64 core monster. Intel could very well suffer the same fate as AOL, Blockbuster video and the like because they just failed to innovate and see this coming future. It is not just the CPU market either. Look at GPU's like the Tesla v100 used in deep learning servers. They are being pushed to the limit now, and this is one area where Nvidia/Tesla ( at the moment) is killing it, but expect AMD to also start targeting this area for market share. So many changes happening right now I feel like it is Y2K all over again, I for one am very excited for what the future holds. Fully disclosure, I already bought the 64 core, use it in my workstation (CentOS, and love it!
reply
To answer the original question. No 64 cores is NOT too many. IMHO, This is future planning on the part of AMD. They are playing long game, and slaying it! The next Generation of computing is at hand. Frankly, many engineers have been struggling with the available hardware today. When you think about Machine learning, AI, IOT, Blockchain with smart contracts, Augmented Reality, cloud services, ECT. These technologies are all in their infancy. They are now, where AOL was in the dial up days of Internet. Over the next 5-10 years these are going to develop into massive industries all requiring even more advanced processors than this 64 core monster. Intel could very well suffer the same fate as AOL, Blockbuster video and the like because they just failed to innovate and see this coming future. It is not just the CPU market either. Look at GPU's like the Tesla v100 used in deep learning servers. They are being pushed to the limit now, and this is one area where Nvidia/Tesla ( at the moment) is killing it, but expect AMD to also start targeting this area for market share. So many changes happening right now I feel like it is Y2K all over again, I for one am very excited for what the future holds. Fully disclosure, I already bought the 64 core, use it in my workstation (CentOS, and love it!
reply
Hercules
For digital content creators especially for 3D artist doing VFX simulations and in regards to 3D rendering more cores is always good news. We frequently have renders that take multiple hours to complete a single frame. This will allow for quicker turnarounds as well as allowing for more complexity and quality. The new Threadrippers is a game-changer for small studios.
I find this discussion quite strange in terms of bragging rights. Many people purchase cars that are totally overpowered for practical day to day use. Do you need a high-end vehicle for day to day commutes probably not?
Each to their own. If you can afford it and it makes you happy. go for it.
reply
For digital content creators especially for 3D artist doing VFX simulations and in regards to 3D rendering more cores is always good news. We frequently have renders that take multiple hours to complete a single frame. This will allow for quicker turnarounds as well as allowing for more complexity and quality. The new Threadrippers is a game-changer for small studios.
I find this discussion quite strange in terms of bragging rights. Many people purchase cars that are totally overpowered for practical day to day use. Do you need a high-end vehicle for day to day commutes probably not?
Each to their own. If you can afford it and it makes you happy. go for it.
reply
JanneAirDotCom
The big question really is: Who is it for. Obviously vfx studios? I would loooooooooooove to see how vfx studio could take advantage of this chip and see some real time work on the chip when it's really being utilized. When we go to that 'real world' realm the price/performance ratio could be amazing. I wish one tech tuber would make a video going to an actual studio and let them show what that chip is capable of. Also to see the math on how it is or isn't a great product (time saved rendering those frames and working with them etc.
reply
The big question really is: Who is it for. Obviously vfx studios? I would loooooooooooove to see how vfx studio could take advantage of this chip and see some real time work on the chip when it's really being utilized. When we go to that 'real world' realm the price/performance ratio could be amazing. I wish one tech tuber would make a video going to an actual studio and let them show what that chip is capable of. Also to see the math on how it is or isn't a great product (time saved rendering those frames and working with them etc.
reply
TuxKey
there is one thing my current machines struggle with. and that is virtualization inside a virtual machine.
to test fail-over scenarios one would build a virtual machine and then build 2 machines inside that machine to test fail-over. But as soon as i start doing this my current machine slows down to a crawl. also Threadripper has more i/o. if i could afford it i would not think twice about the 32-core. keep in mind all those core's need to be fed with memory and lots of it. between 2 to 4 gig per core would be ideal.
reply
there is one thing my current machines struggle with. and that is virtualization inside a virtual machine.
to test fail-over scenarios one would build a virtual machine and then build 2 machines inside that machine to test fail-over. But as soon as i start doing this my current machine slows down to a crawl. also Threadripper has more i/o. if i could afford it i would not think twice about the 32-core. keep in mind all those core's need to be fed with memory and lots of it. between 2 to 4 gig per core would be ideal.
reply
Jefrey
I am on a video restoration project and even with 720p material my 3900x is the limiting factor in the workflow now. the preview time is kinda important if you doing big projects. you can certainly load a 64c/128t cpu with Adobe Premiere. Try preview/edit a video with the filters active: upscale+image stabilization+BCC Magic Sharp+BCC Flicker Fixer+BCC noise reduction+Beauty Box+dust and scratches+lumetri, (and if you feel lucky, add optical flow to that. Doing all that live in one go would be awesome.
reply
I am on a video restoration project and even with 720p material my 3900x is the limiting factor in the workflow now. the preview time is kinda important if you doing big projects. you can certainly load a 64c/128t cpu with Adobe Premiere. Try preview/edit a video with the filters active: upscale+image stabilization+BCC Magic Sharp+BCC Flicker Fixer+BCC noise reduction+Beauty Box+dust and scratches+lumetri, (and if you feel lucky, add optical flow to that. Doing all that live in one go would be awesome.
reply
Eric
Plex. I rip my movies and keep the original 20+GB mkv files but always use Handbrake to create a 2 or 4GB file just so that Plex isn't as taxed when it's transcoding. If I had a 64 core machine I wouldn't bother and just keep every movie as the 20 or 30GB rip. If I want to do a one off transcode to put it on an SD card for the kid's Kindle Fire how long would that take. probably less than 5 minutes with 128 threads? I'd just transcode it, put it on the sd card, then delete the file.
reply
Plex. I rip my movies and keep the original 20+GB mkv files but always use Handbrake to create a 2 or 4GB file just so that Plex isn't as taxed when it's transcoding. If I had a 64 core machine I wouldn't bother and just keep every movie as the 20 or 30GB rip. If I want to do a one off transcode to put it on an SD card for the kid's Kindle Fire how long would that take. probably less than 5 minutes with 128 threads? I'd just transcode it, put it on the sd card, then delete the file.
reply
NicoD's
Ain't no thing like too many cores. I do use Blender a lot, but I use it on ARM cores. A lot better performance/watt. There should be something like virtual cores where multiple cores are combined to act as 1 big core. In software it is doable, you could use a separate core for controlling the virtual core to decrease overhead. Only then single core performance can improve a lot. If you've got the cores in spare, why not use them well. I don't get why this isn't done yet.
reply
Ain't no thing like too many cores. I do use Blender a lot, but I use it on ARM cores. A lot better performance/watt. There should be something like virtual cores where multiple cores are combined to act as 1 big core. In software it is doable, you could use a separate core for controlling the virtual core to decrease overhead. Only then single core performance can improve a lot. If you've got the cores in spare, why not use them well. I don't get why this isn't done yet.
reply
jtveclipse12
I would highly suggest using The V-Ray Next Benchmark. Since V-ray is one of the most popular rendering engines and it runs the benchmark differently from Cinebench and Blender. The bench runs for 1 min regardless of cpu speed/core count. The score at the end is added up with how many rays were cast in the time. Cinebench R20 was updated cause current gen cpu during the 1st half of 2019 were rendering r15 too fast. but then AMD was like hold my beer with R20.
reply
I would highly suggest using The V-Ray Next Benchmark. Since V-ray is one of the most popular rendering engines and it runs the benchmark differently from Cinebench and Blender. The bench runs for 1 min regardless of cpu speed/core count. The score at the end is added up with how many rays were cast in the time. Cinebench R20 was updated cause current gen cpu during the 1st half of 2019 were rendering r15 too fast. but then AMD was like hold my beer with R20.
reply
Rob
Supercomputers, engineering, financial modelling and business with budgets for R&D. if the CPUs are built then they will find applications somewhere, perhaps opening up new opportunities. Could say that a similar evolution happened with GPUs where we've now got far more -cores- there than we might have expected. Yes, this might create bottlenecks elsewhere, but then the focus will likely move to those and they get fixed.
reply
Supercomputers, engineering, financial modelling and business with budgets for R&D. if the CPUs are built then they will find applications somewhere, perhaps opening up new opportunities. Could say that a similar evolution happened with GPUs where we've now got far more -cores- there than we might have expected. Yes, this might create bottlenecks elsewhere, but then the focus will likely move to those and they get fixed.
reply
ShepperdOneill
Regarding Cinebench, it can easily be adjusted to extend the render time. The default Cinebench render resolution is 1280x702. I have increased it to 1920x1080, and also changed a few render settings. The default render time on my 88-thread dual Xeon machine was around 15 seconds. After I made the adjustments, the render time was around 20 minutes.
If you're interested in testing this, let me know.
reply
Regarding Cinebench, it can easily be adjusted to extend the render time. The default Cinebench render resolution is 1280x702. I have increased it to 1920x1080, and also changed a few render settings. The default render time on my 88-thread dual Xeon machine was around 15 seconds. After I made the adjustments, the render time was around 20 minutes.
If you're interested in testing this, let me know.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
