and it seems a lot of them still dont as some of the x299 cpu scores seem to have ryzens on old bios's or at least slower memory speeds than you can hit now. so guessing they dont have access to ryzens anymore or just cant be bothered to update their tests as why both eh.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X
- Thread starter faceman123
- Start date
and it seems a lot of them still dont as some of the x299 cpu scores seem to have ryzens on old bios's or at least slower memory speeds than you can hit now. so guessing they dont have access to ryzens anymore or just cant be bothered to update their tests as why both eh.
Spot on.
Now a person actually looks to specifically look for their use cases at multiple different reviewers to draw any conclusions as to how the new tech with perform for them.
They can't simply use the same test methodology anymore at all, and being thorough under Inte's time constraints doesn't help either.
I look forward to the next few months though, and one can see which reviewers actually put in the most effort for once; and try to be thorough.
No IS £282
if you shop around you will find many brand new at this price.....OCUK was selling them sub £300 up to last week also. Same applies to the 1800X it was going for less then £400. Now miraculously is £440.
Imho is "Intel inflation" pushing the prices up for AMD products by retailers hand....
the 7800x is £340 by looks of things (may vary slightly between vendors)
There is no IPC increase from Skylake to Skylake-X and the 4 core X299 is already well over £300 so don't expect the 6 core to be under £300.
As do I!
I also want to know how well those new Noctua coolers will perform on it. I'm eyeing up Threadripper now for my next workstation. I want to see how it competes with Skylake X and Broadwell-E.
Heck, if neither are a big jump up, I might just snag a second hand 5960X/6900K or 6950X and plop that into my motherboard; then wait another year or two.
As it stands though, the 7900X is not doing too well in Tom's ( I Love Intel )Hardware review for my friend's and my needs.
I actually expected the 7900X to do far batter in these types of tests, especially the handbrake ones.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092.html
Doesn't this actually show poor performance in effect?
That's 10 4.3 GHz cores from Intel vs 8 3.7 GHz cores from AMD.
With 2 more cores, 16% more clock, and (supposedly) more IPC, shouldn't it be doing better than that?
Also with cooling being an issue even at 10 cores, surely the 16 and 18 cores from Intel are going to HAVE to run significantly lower clockspeeds?
Methinks Threadripper is going to end up the king of multi-thread performance. Not including price even, just absolute performance.
The problem is the scaling as you add those extra cores necessitating longer pipelines/queue depth, etc. 2 more cores and extra clock speed will likely lead to a significant amount of extra heat, higher inter-chip latency, etc. and less performance scaling than on paper.
Supposedly, these chips are hitting the wattage limit of the socket. Some review had an overclocked 7900x hitting over 300W. If the 16 and 18 core stuff can some how clock really well, I would expect them to consume around if not greater than 400W.
Quite possibly yes.
Although it's basically performing how you'd expect the 8-core to at those clockspeeds vs Zen.
So it's as if the extra 2-cores are dead weight.
Isn't there speculation the motherboard socket needs a revision to cope with that much power?
And also if 10-cores are causing 90-100 degrees C with a 240mm AIO, how are 16-18 cores going to be cooled if they can run the same clockspeed?!
300w is really in Phase type territory, and not somewhere that most peeps should be going under anything other than a very custom water system. 400w is absolute phase territory.....................in fact mine is only tuned for 350w. I say "only", because it was all i ever needed up until now. As i mentioned in another thread...........................a thermal wall is very very close for Intel.
OK. Because enough of the IPC and "high speed rules ugh" malarkey, tonight I am running the 6800K @ stock (ram running 2133C15 instead 3600C16). Not even Intel Boost activated.
The difference even on single core games is almost close to 0. Yes some of the cores are having bigger load. While playing WOT/WOWS from the usual 60% went to 72% (the thread WOT was running), at the same time using TS, streaming internet radio, having Steam downloading on the background, and 4 tabs on firefox open the workload was spread over the other 5 cores and 11 threads.
Even run BF1 64man to compare. pffff I lost 5fps..... (while all the above were ON also). The Division played DZ, saw 0 difference on FPS.
Yes I am gaming at 2560x1440 and I am not running circles of 1080p benchmarks to prove something. I don't have time top waste for unrealistic performance.
(and I borrowed a GTX1080Ti from a colleague and playing with the curve so no Furyx 1190/600 bottlenecks)
The difference even on single core games is almost close to 0. Yes some of the cores are having bigger load. While playing WOT/WOWS from the usual 60% went to 72% (the thread WOT was running), at the same time using TS, streaming internet radio, having Steam downloading on the background, and 4 tabs on firefox open the workload was spread over the other 5 cores and 11 threads.
Even run BF1 64man to compare. pffff I lost 5fps..... (while all the above were ON also). The Division played DZ, saw 0 difference on FPS.
Yes I am gaming at 2560x1440 and I am not running circles of 1080p benchmarks to prove something. I don't have time top waste for unrealistic performance.
(and I borrowed a GTX1080Ti from a colleague and playing with the curve
so no Furyx 1190/600 bottlenecks)I never bothered overclocking my 5930k or my 1800X or any GPU and performance has always been good. Reviews make it sound like overclocking is needed to play Tetris at 640*480.OK. Because enough of the IPC and "high speed rules ugh" malarkey, tonight I am running the 6800K @ stock (ram running 2133C15 instead 3600C16). Not even Intel Boost activated.
The difference even on single core games is almost close to 0. Yes some of the cores are having bigger load. While playing WOT/WOWS from the usual 60% went to 72% (the thread WOT was running), at the same time using TS, streaming internet radio, having Steam downloading on the background, and 4 tabs on firefox open the workload was spread over the other 5 cores and 11 threads.
Even run BF1 64man to compare. pffff I lost 5fps..... (while all the above were ON also). The Division played DZ, saw 0 difference on FPS.
Yes I am gaming at 2560x1440 and I am not running circles of 1080p benchmarks to prove something. I don't have time top waste for unrealistic performance.
(and I borrowed a GTX1080Ti from a colleague and playing with the curve
Exactly this! I posted over in the 7700k binned thread a while back. Even when overclocked to 5.2 ghz the increase over stock was minimal. Like within margin of error stuff. Money would be better spent on the GPU. I'm not saying there isn't a place for it, but once you get over a certain limit you hit very diminishing returns. And it seems that's what intel have done here. That extra speed has equates to almost nothing over the previous gen but has brought a load of heat and power consumption with it.
Back on topic, thread ripper has got this in the bag.
If the 16 core Threadripper comes in under £1000 AMD are in a fantastic spot.
Single socket 16 core is $750 dollars to be precise.
My goodness! Alienware also mentioned their Threadrippers will be overclocked, and on all cores. I wonder what max all core frequency they can get.
If it can hit 3.9-4.0Ghz like a Ryzen R7......
It's plausible.
They don't consume that much power with 8 cores at 3.9 on most chips. So double that power I think is manageable with watercooling.
Although even then it may not be needed because the dies are far away from each other (in chip terms) and the heatspreader has huge surface area.
I'm going to make a bold prediction (based on hope): the 16-core will do 3.9 GHz on the majority of chips (not a golden sample) and able to be cooled fine, at reasonably quiet fanspeed, by the largest Noctua cooler for X399.