- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,607
pretty ridiculous Intel have removed PCI-E lanes from their new 10 core
-
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
Caporegime
Soldato
I think Intel's very best 16C32T Xeon CPU currently has a base clock of 2.6GHz, so yeah, it's not too shabby
Soldato
Especially since we know it could overclock to 4Ghz since is just 2 Ryzen 7s strapped together. While Asus had a shot of their X399 board, with the clock showing 5Ghz+.......
@HeX the 18c Xeon part has 2.4Ghz with single core boost the 3.4. That would be interesting how Intel going to pull off a faster chip cheaply, while salvaging their expensive xeons.....
Caporegime
I think Intel will limit the supply of those 18c parts, its just so they can say "oh we have the biggest core count" but in reality they will actually put very few of them up for sale because if they did they would cannibalise their own $9000 Xeon line up.
@ 2.4Ghz they would be slower than AMD's 3.4Ghz 16 core parts anyway, a good chunk slower. i doubt you will even find one of those 18c parts in reviews.
@ 2.4Ghz they would be slower than AMD's 3.4Ghz 16 core parts anyway, a good chunk slower. i doubt you will even find one of those 18c parts in reviews.
my break down:
16 Cores at 3700 Boost - Check
12 Cores at 3592 Boost - Huh?
12 Cores at ? Boost - Check
16 Cores at 3600 Boost - check
so looks like a high Frequency model & non high frequency Model Eg (X vs non X) edition.
the real questions are:
Will this be boost across all cores or just 1 core like XFR.
Will the !2 Core Highest boost be 3592 Or less?...
Caporegime
I'm going to assume its just one core XFR... because it doesn't really matter.
People are expecting Intel to knock out high core count high frequency X299 and Coffeelake chips because, well 7700K.
There is a very big difference between a 4 core CPU and already a 6 core CPU, its a much bigger die to ramp up and thats a lot more difficult, the 7700K already pulls 30% more power than AMD's 1800X and thats because while its a CPU with half the cores it is running at very high frequencies and volts to hold those frequencies. its not actually any diffrent to what AMD did with Piledriver in the 4.7Ghz FX-9590.
Scale that up beyond 6 cores to 8 and 10 and 12..... these are massive dies, they don't clock much beyond 3Ghz out of the factory because they are just too big.
AMD high core count CPU's are made up of multiple efficient CPU'lets, unlike Intel its not one massive die, its lots of little ones that individually can clock much higher more efficiently.
People are expecting Intel to knock out high core count high frequency X299 and Coffeelake chips because, well 7700K.
There is a very big difference between a 4 core CPU and already a 6 core CPU, its a much bigger die to ramp up and thats a lot more difficult, the 7700K already pulls 30% more power than AMD's 1800X and thats because while its a CPU with half the cores it is running at very high frequencies and volts to hold those frequencies. its not actually any diffrent to what AMD did with Piledriver in the 4.7Ghz FX-9590.
Scale that up beyond 6 cores to 8 and 10 and 12..... these are massive dies, they don't clock much beyond 3Ghz out of the factory because they are just too big.
AMD high core count CPU's are made up of multiple efficient CPU'lets, unlike Intel its not one massive die, its lots of little ones that individually can clock much higher more efficiently.
Soldato
AMDs Infinity fabric, and stitching Ryzens together really is a stroke of genius when making high core count CPUs.
It means they can bin the cores separately, and then combine the best ones into their high end parts.
Unlike Intel who have to make monolithic cores and then just hope and pray none of the cores are defective/weak.
this is an older leak
Matches up fairly well..
Cores Threads TDP Mem Base clock Boost Clock XFR
R9 1998X 16 32 155W 4x 3200MHz 3.5GHz 3.8GHz +100MHz
R9 1998 16 32 3.2GHz 3.6GHz -
R9 1977X 14 28 3.5GHz 3.9GHz +100MHz
R9 1977 14 28 140W 3.2GHz 3.7GHz -
R9 1976X 12 24 3.6GHz 4.0GHz +100MHz
R9 1956X 12 24 125W 3.2Ghz 3.7GHz +100MHz
R9 1956 12 24 3.0GHz 3.7GHz -
R9 1955X 10 20 3.6GHz 3.9GHz +100MHz
R9 1955 10 20 4x 3200MHz 3.1GHz 3.7GHz -
R7 1800X (AM4) 8 16 95W 2x 2666MHz 3.6GHz 4.0GHz +100M
Caporegime
Right, according to Bitsnchips or whatever they are called AMD are getting 80% yields for Naples 'full fat 32 core CPU Threadripper is based on' and at a cost of $120, that's assembled and tested.
Thats inedible, and possible because AMD are not asking for large dies from the wafer, which is low yield and expensive, AMD only need small high yield CPU's from the wafer which they then stitch together.
As a result AMD can knock out reasonable high clocking efficient very high core count CPU's at a fraction of the cost that Intel can, so they can sell their CPU's at half the cost of Intel and still get huge margins.
Serves you right Intel for sitting on your laurels pushing high cost crappy incrementalism with no inclination to innovate.
Sometimes being the underdog forces you to innovate a direction that's something of a revolution. you wouldn't know anything about that, Intel.
damn if they can get it to hit 3.5ghz stock thats some monster chip right there intel will have to at least match it even with the ipc and extra cores i doubt the premium you;d have to pay for x299 will be worth it.
OcUK Staff
X299 Skylake X is clocking like a monster on ambient. Well at least the 10-12 cores are. QS ES 14-18 not ready yet. So believe me Intel can easily reach and way outperform what Thread ripper is offering in terms of clocks and performance. Obviously the cost will be higher even for a lower core count if you go with Intel but performance higher per core and OC headroom much better.
Last edited:
yeah we'd expect the 10-12's to do ok, thats not the issue its the 16 and 18 core ones. if xeons anything to go by then 3ghz maybe hard to hit let alone anything higher. also we talking all cores or just a couple as some of us like to have a full oc on all cores not just one for ln cooling overclocking records
OcUK Staff
Man they will clock good dont you worry about that. Intel are not playing here. I am talking all Cores 24-7 prime non-avx stable. I dont run any benches on X299 Skylake X CPUs that don't benefit high cores and HT. 12 Core 5.9ghz LN2 NO PROBLEM and thats with quad channel mems 4000mhz C12-12-12-26 1T....... Remember 8 Core Ryzen is struggling to hit more than 5.2ghz+ with much lower RAM under the same cooling and benches............
god damn it this means coffee lakes probably going to be more than the normal jump. arrggghhhhh ile nd up flipping a coin at this rate to which way i go i bet.
LN2 and high overclocking means nothing. if they cannot do it on decent air/Water. but if you want just a few hundreds Mhz go for it
if your an Overclocker then Intel will be more fun..... , more costly & less cores/Threads
if not go Threadripper High cores/Threads less Frequency
simple really.
well thats what my original plan was tbh, wait for august and see what coffee lake can do. but with possible upgrade paths being more probably on ryzen as in not buying another mobo and just a new chip in 18 months i was also mulling that over. no matter what wont be buying until august.
and yeah iv said it elsewhere that i think intel dropped a clanger with kaby lake x as coffee lake should come out and beat it hands down for less money, and like wise for lower core count skylake x cpu's.
heard it first the new K SKU now only on x299 as Coffelake X
wouldnt suprise me if they reduced the K SKU and named them X editions on X299
So you would have just the 2 top High end I5/I7 as X parts no other K parts avaliable