X

    Subscribe to New Ads!

    Receive weekly ads in your inbox!



Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: [News] An EPYC Threadripper: Der8auer proves EPYC CPU Might Work on X399 Motherboard

  1. #1
    Join XS BOINC Team StyM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tropics
    Posts
    16,513

    [News] An EPYC Threadripper: Der8auer proves EPYC CPU Might Work on X399 Motherboard

    https://www.techpowerup.com/241072/a...99-motherboard

    So, maybe it isn't really working - but at least the system boots up all the way to the BIOS memory checks, where it then stops emitting life signs. Der8auer went through a sort of blind process to discover that there is a particular ID pin on EPYC that when covered, allows the CPU to be booted up by a X399 motherboard (in this case, an ASUS X399 Zenith Extreme). ID pins are nothing new, and basically tell sockets whether or not they should be powering up a particular CPU.

    So what exactly does this mean? Nothing much - only that the sockets and pinouts are the same. The approach towards detecting the ID pin was a crude, brute force one, appending a piece of electrical tape to different parts of the CPU, narrowing down the search for a single pin. When this particular pin was covered, standby power finally kept on, and the motherboard ran through some initial boot steps until stopping at the D0 memory boot code. Der8auer thinks that a "simple" BIOS switch on this TR4 motherboard to an EPYC motherboard's BIOS would suffice to get the EPYC CPU running on this Threadripper motherboard. Check out the full video after the break.

  2. #2
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,781
    Do we know the performance hit from not having direct memory access?
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,554
    It doesn't work, can't even fully boot like he says in the video.
    It will need a complete BIOS update to make it actually boot into an OS.
    As far as I know AMD has no plans for this. If you want EPYIC you will need a EPYIC board.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    579
    What a bulls#1t title! I expect nothing less than 3rd rate click bait shiite from techpowerup, they don't disappoint.

    At least by linking their drivel here I don't have to visit there and reward them with page hits.
    q9550 @ 444 x 8.5 1.3v - Venomous X
    p5q DLX
    Ocz RPR 1066 4 x 2g @ 1066
    eah5870 V2 @ 920/1250 - HR-03gt
    Antec Fusion Remote MAX
    Xonar HDAV1.3
    Ocz zx850w


  5. #5
    Xtreme Owner Charles Wirth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,373
    From the same guy who said X299 was a "disaster"
    Intel 9990XE @ 5.1Ghz
    ASUS Rampage VI Extreme Omega
    GTX 2080 ti Galax Hall of Fame
    64GB Galax Hall of Fame
    Intel Optane
    Platimax 1245W

    Intel 3175X
    Asus Dominus Extreme
    GRX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
    96GB Patriot Steel
    Intel Optane 900P RAID

  6. #6
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by zanzabar View Post
    Do we know the performance hit from not having direct memory access?
    Assuming that he would get booting to work, I'm not sure DMA would make a difference in most Windows applications. Typically DMA is only used for tasks that have an extremely tight deadline. It might just be ignorance, but offhand the only applications I can think of that truly require DMA are sensory data i/o on embedded platforms (such as radar in a control system).
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Wirth View Post
    From the same guy who said X299 was a "disaster"
    HAHA True

  8. #8
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    I thought he said that because of the vrm problems on mobos.

    If you refer to the complaints about unnecessary complexity of the x299 platform it is said by every youtube reviewer I watched not only Der8auer.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Owner Charles Wirth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,373
    X299 was not a disaster, the original VRM design was on point and proven to work as intended for everyone. Its when you overclock, disable protection, increase power limits to maximum, and then load all cores with brutal stress test it can get hot and cause the machine to "clip" when forced. Its like going out to your car and holding down the gas pedal to run at max RPM, The engine will fail at some point, its called common sense.

    Let me point out that when you overclock fizzle bits get hot and we put cooling on them. Remember? Overclock a VRM and fail to put cooling is more fail.

    He was also playing with pre release stuff, he should have consulted the manufacturers instead of a click bait article that reviewers took notice to thinking they found a flaw.

    I am yet to see a car reviewer hold 10K RPM until the engine blows to call the car manufacturer "a disaster".
    Intel 9990XE @ 5.1Ghz
    ASUS Rampage VI Extreme Omega
    GTX 2080 ti Galax Hall of Fame
    64GB Galax Hall of Fame
    Intel Optane
    Platimax 1245W

    Intel 3175X
    Asus Dominus Extreme
    GRX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
    96GB Patriot Steel
    Intel Optane 900P RAID

  10. #10
    Xtreme Owner Charles Wirth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,373
    The same thing goes for overclocking the CPU with a stock heat sink, it only goes so far and when it hits its limit did you find a flaw in the overall design that constitutes it being a disaster? Disable protection, max limits, max vcore and it will fail quicker...
    Intel 9990XE @ 5.1Ghz
    ASUS Rampage VI Extreme Omega
    GTX 2080 ti Galax Hall of Fame
    64GB Galax Hall of Fame
    Intel Optane
    Platimax 1245W

    Intel 3175X
    Asus Dominus Extreme
    GRX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
    96GB Patriot Steel
    Intel Optane 900P RAID

  11. #11
    Xtreme Owner Charles Wirth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,373
    Title fixed, hope it is more accurate and still gives him some credit to his testing. AMD has a track record of soft disabling features, cores and more through BIOS so this testing might be useful to some one.
    Last edited by Charles Wirth; 02-01-2018 at 08:04 AM.
    Intel 9990XE @ 5.1Ghz
    ASUS Rampage VI Extreme Omega
    GTX 2080 ti Galax Hall of Fame
    64GB Galax Hall of Fame
    Intel Optane
    Platimax 1245W

    Intel 3175X
    Asus Dominus Extreme
    GRX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
    96GB Patriot Steel
    Intel Optane 900P RAID

  12. #12
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Wirth View Post
    X299 was not a disaster, the original VRM design was on point and proven to work as intended for everyone. Its when you overclock, disable protection, increase power limits to maximum, and then load all cores with brutal stress test it can get hot and cause the machine to "clip" when forced.
    With multi core enhancement by default and the boards being marketed to overclocking it was a reasonable claim. He also ran into that problem with the 10 core; with a many core it would have been worse. Ether way newer boards are having real PWM heatpipes again, so we all won.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  13. #13
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    Actually I have no intention to watch that video again but if I am not wrong it was about bad mobo manufacturing not about x299 on VRM side. I remember that what he did was making a better contact with heatspreader and VRMs and show it becomes cooler. And this is about mobo manufacturers I guess.

    And my opinions on x299 is it is not a disaster but not good either. While I agree with them about the unnecessary complexity part of the x299 I don't care about it because complexity effects the designer, manufacturer of the chip and motherboard manufacturer not me as a consumer. But raid key, forcing optane etc. are disgusting. So I was planing to upgrade to a ryzen 1800x but it was not good for me so I wanted to buy a 7900x but at that price tag with these nonsense with x299 no way sorry. I know as an individual customer I can not effect the market but I always fell that I need to show my complaint. Because of my VM usage actually I was planing to get an at least 8 core cpu but these circumstances forced me to buy a 8700k with z370.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  14. #14
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,781
    that was the exact problem. There were fake VRM coolers on almost every board, and there were a couple boards that could only push about 250W but had whatever the company called turbo enhancement on by default. There was nothign wrong with the chipset or platform other than OEMs basically using the consumer grade PWM/cooling for the high end platform that can suck down 4-6x the power.

    To a lesser extent some boards also had only one cpu 8 pin, but were trying to pull over 300W through it.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  15. #15
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    3,064
    I really don't understand what X299 has to do with this at all?

    He didn't prove that it won't work. He didn't prove that it worked either. He showed that the pinouts are the same, and that the CPU at least begins to start.
    Fold for XS!
    You know you want to

  16. #16
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    889
    I think what he did is prove that the epic and threadripper cpus are the a same silicon?
    Intel 8700k
    16GB
    Asus z370 Prime
    1080 Ti
    x2 Samsung 850Evo 500GB
    x 1 500 Samsung 860Evo NVME


    Swiftech Apogee XL2
    Swiftech MCP35X x2
    Full Cover GPU blocks
    360 x1, 280 x1, 240 x1, 120 x1 Radiators

  17. #17
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by StAndrew View Post
    I think what he did is prove that the epic and threadripper cpus are the a same silicon?
    Yes I think he did and prolly is correct.

  18. #18
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Yes I think he did and prolly is correct.
    You'd think he'd done it already when he sanded down the silicon on a threadripper cpu. But I guess he's just trying to stick it to the man (amd). Not sure why amd is so insistent that epyc and threadripper are different...

    With the extra mem channels and pci channels, I don't see a bios update fixing anything... Maybe threadripper on the epyc platform would be more realistic. But why?
    Last edited by StAndrew; 02-04-2018 at 06:15 PM.
    Intel 8700k
    16GB
    Asus z370 Prime
    1080 Ti
    x2 Samsung 850Evo 500GB
    x 1 500 Samsung 860Evo NVME


    Swiftech Apogee XL2
    Swiftech MCP35X x2
    Full Cover GPU blocks
    360 x1, 280 x1, 240 x1, 120 x1 Radiators

  19. #19
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,554
    TR prolly wont work on a EPYC system, for the same reasons.

    I bet they are micro code locked out.

  20. #20
    Xtreme X.I.P. Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by StAndrew View Post
    I think what he did is prove that the epic and threadripper cpus are the a same silicon?
    Not exactly. We already know that Epyc, Threadripper, and Ryzen are built from the same die. AMD has talked about that across various avenues. The die is called Zeppelin and then each of those three products have their own codenames as well--Naples, Whitehaven, and Summit Ridge respectively.

    The big reveal here is that the socket pinout appears to be the same or at least close enough to be potentially compatible. This would at first glance appear to contradict a direct statement from AMD claiming that TR4 and SP3 are physically the same but electrically incompatible. A person could probably weasel-argue that "electrically incompatible" might still apply, but a direct lie wouldn't be a first for this topic. AMD had also stated that the other two dies onboard a Threadripper weren't even etched, and we later discovered that that isn't true. What is much more likely is that Threadripper was created from the Epyc platform and was never really its own design.
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Not exactly. We already know that Epyc, Threadripper, and Ryzen are built from the same die. AMD has talked about that across various avenues. The die is called Zeppelin and then each of those three products have their own codenames as well--Naples, Whitehaven, and Summit Ridge respectively.

    The big reveal here is that the socket pinout appears to be the same or at least close enough to be potentially compatible. This would at first glance appear to contradict a direct statement from AMD claiming that TR4 and SP3 are physically the same but electrically incompatible. A person could probably weasel-argue that "electrically incompatible" might still apply, but a direct lie wouldn't be a first for this topic. AMD had also stated that the other two dies onboard a Threadripper weren't even etched, and we later discovered that that isn't true. What is much more likely is that Threadripper was created from the Epyc platform and was never really its own design.
    I thought AMD denied they were the same and claimed the other two dies were completely blank silicon. The way I followed it, this prompted Der8auer to sand down the TR but AMD still insisted they were different at the PCB level; not electrically connected? I don't know if this proves of disproves that but Gamers Nexus had an interesting theory that AMD is trying to hide the fact that Threadripper may have a new, 16+ core CPU on the way?
    Intel 8700k
    16GB
    Asus z370 Prime
    1080 Ti
    x2 Samsung 850Evo 500GB
    x 1 500 Samsung 860Evo NVME


    Swiftech Apogee XL2
    Swiftech MCP35X x2
    Full Cover GPU blocks
    360 x1, 280 x1, 240 x1, 120 x1 Radiators

  22. #22
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,048
    I figured they weren't blank but rather just failed/non-functional dies (and if so, possibly not electrically connected).
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  23. #23
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,781
    Quote Originally Posted by StAndrew View Post
    I thought AMD denied they were the same and claimed the other two dies were completely blank silicon. The way I followed it, this prompted Der8auer to sand down the TR but AMD still insisted they were different at the PCB level; not electrically connected? I don't know if this proves of disproves that but Gamers Nexus had an interesting theory that AMD is trying to hide the fact that Threadripper may have a new, 16+ core CPU on the way?
    AMD said they were blank, but with some sanding we found out that they were "failed" cores, then they came clean that the cores are inactive but some of the die was needed for interconnects. It would also be fair to assume that they will have a higher core count with all of the cores enabled at some point on the TR platform.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •