i was going off what someone on a youtube video let slip about a couple of weeks, but id imagine something at E3 about x299, like iv said in other threads and probably this one i can see intel pushing it as some twitch streaming wonder machine, which it no doubt will be. just rather over priced.
-
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,501
Totally agree. X299 is going to be stupid expensive. Don't know if it's worth getting x299 or waiting for mainstream coffeelake. Too bad I can't use my dual channel ram
(not going KabylakeX) Quad channel ram is way over priced. The cheapest 32gb 4x is £300
Caporegime
Totally agree. X299 is going to be stupid expensive. Don't know if it's worth getting x299 or waiting for mainstream coffeelake. Too bad I can't use my dual channel ram
Actually there not...
There was a rumour that AMD's X399 16 core CPU was going to be $850, looking at that ^^^ its far more believable, so the 10 Core Threadripper might only be about $500 which means all the mainstream CPU's will have to come down in price.
Well under £200 6 core here it comes....
I don't think Intel lowered the price in response to Ryzen, I doubt they will in response to Threadripper. If they do, it will probably be on the high core count stuff.
Caporegime
What? well of course they are, what in the name of ????? would prompt you to say something like that?
#1 They didn't cut the price of 10 core CPU's in half out of the goodness of their hearts, Intel are not Santa Claus.
10 core CPU's at 3 time the cost of AMD's 16 core CPU's would have been the biggest joke on the Internet, they had no choice or lose massive market share to AMD, Intel are not so stupid as to carry on with the existing pricing structure as if AMD with 60% more cores at 35% the cost was just a bad dream, no, Intel can smell the coffee.
#2 The 14 core + CPU's are a last minute addition, added After Threadripper announcement, of course they are a reaction to Threadripper, even Motherboard Vendors said they had no idea those were coming.
Last edited:
Wait are you telling me that Intel didn't cut the price so I could build myself a 10 gaming beast for an "affordable" price. \s
When I talked about the price cut. I was speaking more about kaby lake (7700k?).
I don't think they changed their price in response to ryzen.
Don't underestimate greed. I honestly don't see the price of the lower core count changing much.
They did in the US.
True, fair point.
I stand corrected. Then yes we could see the low core stuff getting a price cut depending on threadripper price
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,607
what core count will everyone be going for?, given that AND won't be gimping pci lanes. I'm looking at cheapest 16 core/ 14 core
My buying decision is very simple here, is X299 better value for money than X399, if not I'll go with X399 because after a decade of Intel shafting me as they had no competition they need to offer me better value for money to keep my business. Of course there almost no chance X299 will be better VFM than X399 but then Intel are still assuming everyone will pay a premium for their logo and reduced PCI-E bus lol.
highest core count/Frequency model
if 16 cores is 3.5Ghz but 14 is at 4.0GHz. 14
I want best mix of productivity & Gaming Perf
Option for what though, games don't even use 4 cores to the max right now
Maybe good for video creators and the like but how many of them would need a CPU with this many cores? I just get the feeling AMD have found they can make the Threadripper and thought "well why not!?", but who's going to actually buy them?
Soldato
https://videocardz.com/69760/engineering-sample-update
AMD ZD1840A8UGAF4 16/32 3400 (Base) 3700 (Turbo)
AMD Eng Sample: 1D3101A8UGAF3_36/31_N 16/32 3100 (Base) 3600 (Turbo)
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 12-Core Processor 12/24 3200 (Base) ? (Turbo)
Update on the most recent engineering samples. Yes, we have the first, actual name of Ryzen Threadripper CPU. Obviously, it is different from the rumor, which we never posted. Just remember you saw it first on VCMeet Ryzen Threadripper 1920
AMD ZD1840A8UGAF4 16/32 3400 (Base) 3700 (Turbo)
AMD Eng Sample: 1D3101A8UGAF3_36/31_N 16/32 3100 (Base) 3600 (Turbo)
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 12-Core Processor 12/24 3200 (Base) ? (Turbo)
Soldato
Option for what though, games don't even use 4 cores to the max right now
Maybe good for video creators and the like but how many of them would need a CPU with this many cores? I just get the feeling AMD have found they can make the Threadripper and thought "well why not!?", but who's going to actually buy them?
Urghhh, yeah they do. I honestly get frustrated from these sorts of comments because they are so far off the mark it is silly. Games now especially online games utilise cores very nicely generally. There are a lot of videos showing a 7700K maxing out all cores on current games with all cores/threads utilised.
This opinion seems to be based on info from like 10 years ago.
Yes IPC is generally still king at the moment and so the 7700K because it is at 4.5GHz + generally works better than Ryzen, however that isn't always the case and also means for anyone who games and has YouTube or streams or similar at the same time would also benefit from more cores.
There is plenty of info showing this.
Option for what though, games don't even use 4 cores to the max right now
Maybe good for video creators and the like but how many of them would need a CPU with this many cores? I just get the feeling AMD have found they can make the Threadripper and thought "well why not!?", but who's going to actually buy them?
Anyone who needs or wants > 8 cores and wants loads of pcie lanes. In this market segment looking at the two offerings detailed so far AMD would seem to be the obvious choice. However both platforms are certainly niche I agree there, but this is an enthusiast hardware forum so loving the new choices.
Soldato
Option for what though, games don't even use 4 cores to the max right now
Maybe good for video creators and the like but how many of them would need a CPU with this many cores? I just get the feeling AMD have found they can make the Threadripper and thought "well why not!?", but who's going to actually buy them?
By making CPU's with more cores more affordable it will encourage developers to write software that can use those extra resources. Given consoles are core CPU's it's only a matter of time before we start seeing games take advantage of the hardware on offer on the PC platform.
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,607
most likely, ie - if you have crossifre/sli you'll be using atleast 32 lanes, with the arrival of m.2 and other PCI-E cards/ return of tri sli, most likely. I can only see the rise of 4k/8k making pci-e lanes more important