• 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

voidshatter said:
Fully agreed. I'd probably get 7700K for gaming, and 1950X for dev (including compiling, video editing etc).

Wow! I didn't know that AMD graphics cards are better for virtualisation! Which virtual machine software are you talking about? (I'm severely out-dated in this field and still with VMWare Workstation 12.) If your host OS is Linux, which guest OS do you use to run the games? Why would you need to run games in virtual machines? Is it because these are R18 games with patches downloaded from untrusted places? :D
Click to expand...

Here is a brilliant video explaining everything without any changes on your current Windows drives :)
Just need another one to add linux :D
 
spoffle said:
I've reread you post quite a few times, being objective I couldn't see that. I'm not saying that wasn't your intention but it certainly wasn't clear. I do agree that people often read what they think someone is saying, but I don't think that was the case this time.
Click to expand...

Even if my wording wasn't clear I'm obviously not making a supporting argument for a position that would make zero sense at all from a technical perspective (and twice said I wasn't disagreeing) so why would that be what I was claiming? it is other people injecting twisted logic based on an assumption that I everything I post has the opposite bias to their own that is clouding it.
 
Rroff said:
Even if my wording wasn't clear I'm obviously not making a supporting argument for a position that would make zero sense at all from a technical perspective (and twice said I wasn't disagreeing) so why would that be what I was claiming? it is other people injecting twisted logic based on an assumption that I everything I post has the opposite bias to their own that is clouding it.
Click to expand...

Wasn't claiming anything. Your statement read completely backwards to what you meant, although you clarified later it still didn't make sense because the sentence unfortunately was very poorly constructed. As much as you have a view and you wanted to make a point, when it is not clear and 3 or 4 people try to suggest that isn't how it reads it's generally not them but you.

To make more a point I talk to two friends who are not on here themselves but have seen the post and also got very confused and one of them is Pro Intel that I can never get them to understand why AMD are hitting back hard. The other is neutral on anything like that because they just get me to build what I can for them with the monies they give me and neither of them also understood what you initially meant. It is okay now, you have cleared up what you meant after a few pages of discussion.

I would like to say though that blaming the others reading it doesn't help and honestly we certainly (me and my friends) didn't interject any twisted logic to what was said.
 
I still really don't get how people think I'd be claiming something that was that extreme of backwards and unintuitive when I both on the very next post said I wasn't disagreeing with N19h7m4r3 and made no attempt to fight or provide evidence of that backwards and unintuitive position that humbug injected twisted logic to suggest I was taking. Its pretty simple in an example 2 socket setup you get something like 56 cores for Intel and 64 cores for the AMD solution without significant enough performance per core or performance per watt difference to swing it for Intel and there is no logic where the core count itself makes any kind of difference in terms of the server footprint in a space, power or thermal, etc. limited scenario.

Admittedly I was in a hurry and used many where I meant much and with when I meant will but it really isn't that hard to figure out what the line was supposed to mean - you'd really have to assume an amazingly twisted pro-Intel bias to make anything else out of my words even if the wording itself lacked clarity.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
I dunno man. Can everyone please drop that and instead focus on the only new bit of news we have?

i9 7920X 12 core, 24 Threads will have a baseclock of 2.9Ghz. Anyone want to take a guess at what the 7980XE will be?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing a baseclock of 2.6Ghz for the 7980XE.
 
That isn't hard to get the wrong idea though. What I suggested is that the sentence written how you had unfortunately came across complete wrong to what you have stated. That is fine, we all have those moments and I merely suggested I don't understand your logic but that was because the logic there was completely different to what it read.

In terms of how it came across when we all read it (the 3 of us my end) it sounded like you was suggesting AMD was bad in that people are core limited with their current racks and would have to retool and thus be too expensive to do compared to sticking with Intel. That of course is silly and we just thought you was miss understanding the premise of something as we don't know your background with your technical knowledge.

That is all fine. Moving on now since it's clarified :)

N19h7m4r3,

All good. your post came up whilst I was typing. To move on. A base clock of 2.9Ghz is not brilliant anyways for the 7920X but based on no info at all other than the core count I will go with 2.5Ghz for the 18 core. I saw some claims for Turbo Boost Max 3.0 suggesting it will boost to 4.5GHz. I am out of touch with Intel boost tech but I assume that is variable core so the 4.5Ghz is max single core and it would be less with more cores boosting?

Intels 16 core i9-7960X is the one I guess we should directly compare to the 1950X. That I think will sit at 2.7Ghz base with 4.0Ghz Turbo 2.0 and 4.5Ghz Turbo 3.0. It makes itself $700 more which is a lot. No idea on cooler but the Threadripper comes with an AIO. Now the Intel chip states 15watt less power use so that will be interesting to see how close they are to each other in real world cases.

What is interesting is that Intel drop the price between the 16 and 12 core CPU's by $510 and AMD are more linear with their pricing at $799 for their 12 core meaning for the price difference between the chips you could almost buy a 16 core and 12 core CPU from AMD for the price of the 16 core from Intel or you could go dual socket (if mobo's released as such) for 32 core/64 thread AMD for the same price as the Intel 18 core CPU which is silly.
 
kitfit1 said:
I'm guessing a baseclock of 2.6Ghz for the 7980XE.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more in line with 2.4-2.5, we still have a 14, and 16 core before the 18 launching as well.

Rroff said:
A disappointment?
Click to expand...

Haha.

Curlyriff said:
What is interesting is that Intel drop the price between the 16 and 12 core CPU's by $510 and AMD are more linear with their pricing at $799 for their 12 core meaning for the price difference between the chips you could almost buy a 16 core and 12 core CPU from AMD for the price of the 16 core from Intel or you could go dual socket (if mobo's released as such) for 32 core/64 thread AMD for the same price as the Intel 18 core CPU which is silly.
Click to expand...

Looking at current prices you can get the 16 core Threadripper, 32GB of RAM, and motherboard for the less than the €2000 7980XE.
I even used X299 motherboard prices for that.

It'll be really interesting to see how Threadripper performs, and what thermals are like. Although given Intel state the 7900X has a TDP of 140W, I think an overclocked 18 core will be horrifically hot, and chug power.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Haha.
Click to expand...

Thing is though last few years I've ended up putting aside the money I'd normally spend on upgrades as neither Intel or nVidia have really done anything particularly significant just tiny iterative steps so I've a reasonable bit of money burning a hole in my pocket for when I do upgrade but nothing Intel is releasing any time soon makes me feel like reaching into my pocket (and I have reasons with my usage and hence why I went the 4820K over the 4770K, etc. for sticking with Intel).
 
Rroff said:
Thing is though last few years I've ended up putting aside the money I'd normally spend on upgrades as neither Intel or nVidia have really done anything particularly significant just tiny iterative steps so I've a reasonable bit of money burning a hole in my pocket for when I do upgrade but nothing Intel is releasing any time soon makes me feel like reaching into my pocket (and I have reasons with my usage and hence why I went the 4820K over the 4770K, etc. for sticking with Intel).
Click to expand...

So you looking at Threadripper now then with the funds since your previous usage meant the 4820K was what suited your requirements previous? Which one would you be looking at if you are?

Rroff said:
Looking at current prices you can get the 16 core Threadripper, 32GB of RAM, and motherboard for the less than the €2000 7980XE.
I even used X299 motherboard prices for that.

It'll be really interesting to see how Threadripper performs, and what thermals are like. Although given Intel state the 7900X has a TDP of 140W, I think an overclocked 18 core will be horrifically hot, and chug power.
Click to expand...

Yep, even if the 18 core is 10% faster (which I don't believe will be case in 95% of situations due to base clock) I just can't see anyone justifying the 100% cost increase for Intel this time around for those looking at both systems as options. It is such a shame RAM has gone up so as a year ago you could have squeezed in 64GB of RAM for that too. Or also add an M.2 512GB drive.
 
Curlyriff said:
So you looking at Threadripper now then with the funds since your previous usage meant the 4820K was what suited your requirements previous? Which one would you be looking at if you are?

Yep, even if the 18 core is 10% faster (which I don't believe will be case in 95% of situations due to base clock) I just can't see anyone justifying the 100% cost increase for Intel this time around for those looking at both systems as options. It is such a shame RAM has gone up so as a year ago you could have squeezed in 64GB of RAM for that too. Or also add an M.2 512GB drive.
Click to expand...

The place I looked up pricing can actually squeeze in a NVMe Samsung 950 Pro 512GB and still be under €2000 as well.

Only thing Intel has going right now is their stronger Single Core performance, and ability to clock higher. It seem anything beyond the 7900X and that becomes a moot point. Prices increase significantly, clocks drops, and thermals increase.

VRM issues already for overclocking on x299; what'll happen trying to overclock a 14-18 core i9 to 4+ Ghz? :/
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
The place I looked up pricing can actually squeeze in a NVMe Samsung 950 Pro 512GB and still be under €2000 as well.

Only thing Intel has going right now is their stronger Single Core performance, and ability to clock higher. It seem anything beyond the 7900X and that becomes a moot point. Prices increase significantly, clocks drops, and thermals increase.

VRM issues already for overclocking on x299; what'll happen trying to overclock a 14-18 core i9 to 4+ Ghz? :/
Click to expand...

Ah interesting. I took it you had maxed out budget with 32GB but in that case you could either squeeze the M.2 or find a deal for 64GB too as there are a few about.

And yeah as you say single core is very mute with these chips when we are seeing that 3.5Ghz is base compared to that of Intels 2.9Ghz on the currently noted chip. We would have to be looking at some heavy cooling to get a 1Ghz overclock. I actually expect Threadripper to clock similar/same as Ryzen so we should be looking at 3.9-4.0Ghz.

To get that out of the Intel chips I would be very surprised. I think it will also top out close to 4.0Ghz and likely need WC/ultra high end air.

Edit: Just to add you can get CPU, Mobo. 32GB RAM, 500GB M.2 can be had for £1390 from AMD. The CPU alone from Intel is £1534 (converted price direct from USD rather thank expecting the actual £999 for AMD and £1999 for Intel once in UK). That is silly.

That's £144 left is £10 of a second M.2 for the same price as the Intel CPU. And assumes the difference once in UK is £760 not £999 depending on how exchange rate goes. Now add in you get an AIO from AMD, I don't know exactly what we are getting from Intel but they are pushing AIO and are selling it separate also adding to the cost. Check out the TS13X cooler which retails at £88 cheapest.
 
Last edited:
Curlyriff said:
Ah interesting. I took it you had maxed out budget with 32GB but in that case you could either squeeze the M.2 or find a deal for 64GB too as there are a few about.

And yeah as you say single core is very mute with these chips when we are seeing that 3.5Ghz is base compared to that of Intels 2.9Ghz on the currently noted chip. We would have to be looking at some heavy cooling to get a 1Ghz overclock. I actually expect Threadripper to clock similar/same as Ryzen so we should be looking at 3.9-4.0Ghz.

To get that out of the Intel chips I would be very surprised. I think it will also top out close to 4.0Ghz and likely need WC/ultra high end air.
Click to expand...

Looking at Threadripper with XFR it might not even need to be overclocked much at all. Especially if you're at 1440p or 4k.

XFR boosts 2 cores on Ryzen. If that stays the same for Threadripper, it could mean 4 cores at 4.0Ghz, since that's 2 cores being boosted per Zeppelin die.

If that's the case why would you even bother overclocking; except for benchmarks, and some small use cases.

You'll have 3.5-3.7Ghz all core boost, and possibly 4 cores at 4.0Ghz. That'll cover most use cases really well without dealing with extra heat, or overclocking issues.
Another advantage of keeping that at stock is you can simply deal with getting the RAM to 3000+Mhz which gives the most performance increase as well.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Looking at Threadripper with XFR it might not even need to be overclocked much at all. Especially if you're at 1440p or 4k.

XFR boosts 2 cores on Ryzen. If that stays the same for Threadripper, it could mean 4 cores at 4.0Ghz, since that's 2 cores being boosted per Zeppelin die.

If that's the case why would you even bother overclocking; except for benchmarks, and some small use cases.

You'll have 3.5-3.7Ghz all core boost, and possibly 4 cores at 4.0Ghz. That'll cover most use cases really well without dealing with extra heat, or overclocking issues.
Another advantage of keeping that at stock is you can simply deal with getting the RAM to 3000+Mhz which gives the most performance increase as well.
Click to expand...

This is very true and certainly something to look at. I think the only time people will push OC though is where they know core and speed go hand in hand well with their software. I know the rendering software works best with most cores but it does see speeds increase when pushing the Ghz up too so it would be good to aim for 3.9GHz all core then and I honestly don't think with the right mobo that will be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom