• 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

8 Pack said:
Asrock X399 Taichi?? I don't know. I am testing it but don't know price.

X370 Taichi is on the website around £180
Click to expand...
Ian, do you plan to have a quick run down for some motherboards of your results and experiences testing all those boards?
Board performance and overclocks of CPU an RAM is the only thing I want to to have a look at before I commit to the 1950X. Thank you :)
 
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i9 killer yet literally all gaming benchmarks and reviews say its behind a i9 show its behind lol.in gaming even lower i7s are beating it by quite a bit.humbug come on.
Click to expand...

But not by much and it kills the i9 in all productivity work, which is what HEDT chips are for.

If you want a gaming CPU get the Ryzen 1600 or the 7700K, if you want a workstation CPU the 1950X has the highest performance, the lowest power consumption and cost. its better in every way than Intel's equivalents.
 
mmj_uk said:
Better quality die I assume, 12 core is the base model so it'll probably be the worst quality ones.
Click to expand...


The 12 core is 140W the 14 core is 165W. Think about 140/12, even on a very basic(and wrong) level you could say each core itself is using 11.6W, so 2 more cores doesn't even make it up to 165W. The reality is a lot of the power is in the i/o, memory controller, pci-e lanes, etc, which are all the same. It's probably at least 40W of power for that, so per core is probably closer to 8W, 25W more allows 2 more cores and slightly improved clocks.

The 12 core is there as the biggest yield improving catch all design, the tdp doesn't even matter, Intel breaks it massively, so the 12 core is just where all the worst dies end up so a lower base clock catches even more chips and makes them viable.


On Threadripper vs Intel, it's strange, the 18 core is going to be, well obviously more cores but not more bandwidth and due to power vastly reduced clocks. It will be interesting to see what overclockers with great watercooling can get out of it but at stock, it will gain 80% cores over the 7900x but no more bandwidth and what, ~30-40% clock speed drop.

The power difference, considering it's 140W vs 180W TDP, is crazy. AMD is providing 30-40% higher performance in so many cases while actually using less power(unless the couple reviews I've read had it completely wrong). What AMD has achieved on a tiny fraction of the budget while also going hard on GPU out of that R&D is nothing short of phenomenal. I honestly don't think there is close to another tech company that achieves so much with so little R&D spending. AMD are spending what 10% of what Intel do and splitting that heavily with GPU. AMD shouldn't be within 50% of Intel performance, absolutely trashing it on performance on HEDT is nothing short of embarrassing for Intel.
 
i told you the i9s would be quicker you said they wouldnt.i said wait till review day save it for then.

what is true what you said ? its slower than i9 platform apart from things which many of us will never use or just look at a cb score.almost pointless.
 
No i didn't... you made that up ^^^^ but besides that: quicker in what?

drunkenmaster said:
The 12 core is 140W the 14 core is 165W. Think about 140/12, even on a very basic(and wrong) level you could say each core itself is using 11.6W, so 2 more cores doesn't even make it up to 165W. The reality is a lot of the power is in the i/o, memory controller, pci-e lanes, etc, which are all the same. It's probably at least 40W of power for that, so per core is probably closer to 8W, 25W more allows 2 more cores and slightly improved clocks.

The 12 core is there as the biggest yield improving catch all design, the tdp doesn't even matter, Intel breaks it massively, so the 12 core is just where all the worst dies end up so a lower base clock catches even more chips and makes them viable.


On Threadripper vs Intel, it's strange, the 18 core is going to be, well obviously more cores but not more bandwidth and due to power vastly reduced clocks. It will be interesting to see what overclockers with great watercooling can get out of it but at stock, it will gain 80% cores over the 7900x but no more bandwidth and what, ~30-40% clock speed drop.

The power difference, considering it's 140W vs 180W TDP, is crazy. AMD is providing 30-40% higher performance in so many cases while actually using less power(unless the couple reviews I've read had it completely wrong). What AMD has achieved on a tiny fraction of the budget while also going hard on GPU out of that R&D is nothing short of phenomenal. I honestly don't think there is close to another tech company that achieves so much with so little R&D spending. AMD are spending what 10% of what Intel do and splitting that heavily with GPU. AMD shouldn't be within 50% of Intel performance, absolutely trashing it on performance on HEDT is nothing short of embarrassing for Intel.
Click to expand...

One wonders at what point is it false advertising? the TDP rating Intel gave their Core-X CPU's is underrated by about 30% of its actual power consumption, while AMD's actual power consumption is a little less than the 180 watts they advertise.

Its obvious Intel wrote 140 Watts in their technical data because AMD had 180 Watts in theirs, to look like they are more power efficient, its a lie, a latent lie.
 
Why would you buy a 16 core CPU just for gaming?? Why because Alienware peddled one to you??

BAHAHHAHAHAHHA!

A lot of my mates work in computing and research, and all the workstations and clusters with large core counts are used for work,not playing games.

What type of E-PEEN bubble are modern day enthusiasts in nowadays - anybody could have predicted where gaming performance would lie,ie,not any better than a Ryzen 7.

Why do you think the Core i7 7700K is still beating many of the Intel HEDT CPUs.

Anything more than 4 to 6 cores for a gaming rig is a luxury.

The only reason some here bought a Ryzen 7 1700 since it was cheap. If it were £600 I doubt anyone would really care.
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
nah it mainly to do with humbug all week hes baited about it thats the image he used to post to me yet what i said is true.
Click to expand...


Does the i9 get trashed by the 7700k frequently in gaming tests due to lower clock speeds also? What do you think the, honestly don't know what the names are, how do you think the 18/16/14/12 core i9's are going to do against a 7700k in gaming, or a 1800x, or even a 1700?

I'm all for more cores, but 16 cores isn't something you need for gaming. I'm not against people buying it for gaming, but don't expect more cores to add to the gaming experience beyond 8 anytime soon. More cores = lower clock speed, get over it, everyone with half an ounce of sense knows that. If you think the 18 core i9 will be 80% faster than the 10 core because it has 80% more cores.... you're in for a bit of a surprise.

This is a 16 core chip design for use by people who NEED 16 cores. The thing is AMD is beating Intel now on HEDT on a process that is behind and clock limited. Zen 2 in late 2018/early 2019 on 7nm which will be a slightly better process than Intel's 10nm for which we'll only get HEDT stuff early to mid 2019, it won't be clock speed limited, AMD can fit even more in, their multi die strategy will improve in effectiveness significantly on a more competitive process. Zen 2 and 2019 is going to be AMD absolutely destroying Intel in value, actual price and ultimate performance.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i told you the i9s would be quicker you said they wouldnt.i said wait till review day save it for then.

what is true what you said ? its slower than i9 platform apart from things which many of us will never use or just look at a cb score.almost pointless.
Click to expand...

Airtight i'm going to say it again, you made that up, now either link to the offend post to prove it or stop trolling me.

I'm going to stick with this./

If you want a gaming CPU get the Ryzen 1600 or the 7700K, if you want a workstation CPU the 1950X has the highest performance, the lowest power consumption and cost. its better in every way than Intel's equivalents.
Click to expand...
 
drunkenmaster said:
This is a 16 core chip design for use by people who NEED 16 cores. The thing is AMD is beating Intel now on HEDT on a process that is behind and clock limited. Zen 2 in late 2018/early 2019 on 7nm which will be a slightly better process than Intel's 10nm for which we'll only get HEDT stuff early to mid 2019, it won't be clock speed limited, AMD can fit even more in, their multi die strategy will improve in effectiveness significantly on a more competitive process. Zen 2 and 2019 is going to be AMD absolutely destroying Intel in value, actual price and ultimate performance.
Click to expand...

And you wont need a new mobo :) I'm looking forward to 18 months on x399 and 1950x then swapping it out for Zen 2 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom