• 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

FredFlint said:
You don’t know if Intel’s x299 is better than the x399, none of us know. Going by history the x299+CPU’s should be good and AMD has a tenancy to shoot itself in foot, repeatedly. I’m hoping they don’t this time. If nothing else they have pushed Intel off their fat over paid butts.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say how it will pan out.

for the same price, you can get more cores from amd, or you can get slightly less but faster cores from intel.

or, if you need literially the very best money can buy, you can churn out 2k for the 18 core, which does seem like plenty of people will as the 6950x at £1700 still sold well
 
FredFlint said:
You don’t know if Intel’s x299 is better than the x399, none of us know. Going by history the x299+CPU’s should be good and AMD has a tenancy to shoot itself in foot, repeatedly. I’m hoping they don’t this time. If nothing else they have pushed Intel off their fat over paid butts.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing the two HEDT platforms. I merely said that with high frequency and core count you have the best of both worlds. We know next to nothing about the competition, and I, too, hope it's good.
 
[
zornyan said:
I think it's safe to say how it will pan out.

for the same price, you can get more cores from amd, or you can get slightly less but faster cores from intel.
Click to expand...

Your talking 60% more cores for possibly less money when you compare the 16 core threadripper to the 10 core 7900x, plus more pci lanes.
 
zornyan said:
or, if you need literially the very best money can buy, you can churn out 2k for the 18 core, which does seem like plenty of people will as the 6950x at £1700 still sold well
Click to expand...

False, people bought 6950x because there were no other options not because they were good value for the given performance.
 
TheF34RChannel said:
It is the best of both worlds by the looks of it. NDA lifts 19 June.

It's regretful that the majority on the Internet cannot seem to see past the price/performance argument (="buy AMD"), as if those who want the best and thus are willing to pay more don't exist in their minds. Fortunately both 'groups' exist. And for exactly this reason this post will be flamed and that's okay because what cannot be understood will always be held at a distance with disdain. It's getting old, really. Live and let live and all that.
Click to expand...
You realise most of the world works on price/performance and is not an internet concept made by the PC gaming masterrace? Heck even in F1 they have price/performance metrics which they use to invest there cash to build the absolute beast of a machine. In a world where money is finite price to performance is very important (Heck i would argue that it is king).
 
Doobedoo said:
[


Your talking 60% more cores for possibly less money when you compare the 16 core threadripper to the 10 core 7900x, plus more pci lanes.
Click to expand...

it entirely depends on your workflow no? maybe you need 60 pcie lanes for 4 titans in machine learning.

maybe only one gpu is enough, and you need both single and multi threaded performance for various jobs.

maybe you want a system that can gsme really well+do workflow?

the point is it's dependant on each users needs.

I mean, if your workflow can scale to any number of cores, maybe the 18 core offers enough of a performance leap to justify it's cost in the time saved?
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
You realise most of the world works on price/performance and is not an internet concept made by the PC gaming masterrace? Heck even in F1 they have price/performance metrics which they use to invest there cash to build the absolute beast of a machine. In a world where money is finite price to performance is very important (Heck i would argue that it is king).
Click to expand...

I know how many things in the world work. Many, and you amongst them I understand from your reply, cannot seem to grasp that some simply do not care and go purely for performance ;)

No offense. Just asking for a more objective approach.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
You realise most of the world works on price/performance and is not an internet concept made by the PC gaming masterrace? Heck even in F1 they have price/performance metrics which they use to invest there cash to build the absolute beast of a machine. In a world where money is finite price to performance is very important (Heck i would argue that it is king).
Click to expand...

depends on the client, I know several people that work for server companies that swap their machines over every 18 months or so, and they seem to think (at least for the companies they work for) that price is irrelevant as long as they get the performance.

one of them works at one of the most vital data storage units in the UK, which backs up information for most government databases, universities and other insititues in the UK.
 
zornyan said:
it entirely depends on your workflow no? maybe you need 60 pcie lanes for 4 titans in machine learning.

maybe only one gpu is enough, and you need both single and multi threaded performance for various jobs.

maybe you want a system that can gsme really well+do workflow?

the point is it's dependant on each users needs.

I mean, if your workflow can scale to any number of cores, maybe the 18 core offers enough of a performance leap to justify it's cost in the time saved?
Click to expand...

You said slightly less which isn't the case. Those looking to spend £1000 in this segment will likely be doing it for productivity purposes it's fair to say.

A 16c for slightly less money than a 10c plus more in the way of pci lanes will likely be more attractive. If they want to more than double the price for the extra 2 cores than that's up to them, but as has been pointed out price/performance ratio will likely be a factor.

For once Intel have some competition in this sector.
 
Doobedoo said:
You said slightly less which isn't the case. Those looking to spend £1000 in this segment will likely be doing it for productivity purposes it's fair to say.

A 16c for slightly less money than a 10c plus more in the way of pci lanes will likely be more attractive. If they want to more than double the price for the extra 2 cores than that's up to them, but as has been pointed out price/performance ratio will likely be a factor.

For once Intel have some competition in this sector.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they don't have competition? I'm merely saying it depends on your use case.

considering a lot of professionals and enthusiasts I know are happy to spend £4500+ on a MacBook for mobile work , £1000 for a cpu with nearly double the cores isn't even an expense worth considering as it pays for itself within months.
 
Of course as it always has exept rather than their only being one option on the table we now have 2.

Which is why the 16c at less than £1000 will be very attractive. Those with unlimited budgets are a very small niche.
 
TheF34RChannel said:
I know how many things in the world work. Many, and you amongst them I understand from your reply, cannot seem to grasp that some simply do not care and go purely for performance ;)

No offense. Just asking for a more objective approach.
Click to expand...
Your incorrect, I do understand it. The problem is that depending on the definition of performance the 7900x falls short in the two categories that exist.
If you want absolute single core, isn't that crown still with 7700k?
If your talking about multicore, then isn't the 18 core i9 going to handily beat this. Heck won't the 12 core be a better option. (Technically Epyc looks like it is going to rule this category)

The only way the 7900x looks good from a purely performance stand point is if your willing to compromise in which case; wasn't this entire conversation about wanting the absolute best, which means no compromise.

Do not be mistaken, I care very little about what your getting. Just I'm not convinced by the pure performance argument that people keep talking about.

zornyan said:
depends on the client, I know several people that work for server companies that swap their machines over every 18 months or so, and they seem to think (at least for the companies they work for) that price is irrelevant as long as they get the performance.

one of them works at one of the most vital data storage units in the UK, which backs up information for most government databases, universities and other insititues in the UK.
Click to expand...

I doubt they bought there hardware. Probably rented, there is no way that is commercially viable without huge discounts.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Your incorrect, I do understand it. The problem is that depending on the definition of performance the 7900x falls short in the two categories that exist.
If you want absolute single core, isn't that crown still with 7700k?
If your talking about multicore, then isn't the 18 core i9 going to handily beat this. Heck won't the 12 core be a better option. (Technically Epyc looks like it is going to rule this category)

The only way the 7900x looks good from a performance stand point is if your willing to compromise in which case; wasn't this entire conversation about wanting the absolute best, which means no compromise.

Do not be mistaken, I care very little about what your getting. Just I'm not convinced by the pure performance argument that people keep talking about.



I doubt they bought there hardware. Probably rented, there is no way that is commercially viable without huge discounts.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough intracite details except that their spend several million every year on their servers, and my friends wage alone (team of 7 i think? and he's not in charge) is £250k per year (yes I'm ******* jealous of that lol)

all I know is the place he works for are happy to throw any amount of money at any given need at pretty much anytime lol.
 
TheF34RChannel said:
It is the best of both worlds by the looks of it. NDA lifts 19 June.

It's regretful that the majority on the Internet cannot seem to see past the price/performance argument (="buy AMD"), as if those who want the best and thus are willing to pay more don't exist in their minds. Fortunately both 'groups' exist. And for exactly this reason this post will be flamed and that's okay because what cannot be understood will always be held at a distance with disdain. It's getting old, really. Live and let live and all that.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone ignores the fact that people with the "best at any cost" attitude exist, they are just rare (admittedly not so much on this forum). Good value is much more commonly in people's minds when buying tech.
 
Ryzen_vs_Skylake_core_detail_small.jpg


Another great comparison by Hans De Vries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom