AMD THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X

[Deleted member 66701]

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.

Even Toms Hardware (historically very pro Intel) state the delta between the i9 and Thread ripper is only 5fps and that shrinks with higher resolutions (who's going to have a 1950x and game at 1080p?). Yeah, sure the is "better", but it's so close so as to not effectively matter.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Anandtech said two generations of compatibility.

Exactly - that's why I've bought into the AMD ecosystem this time over a decade of buying Intel - I've had enough.

 

[Yaayuh!]

Even Toms Hardware (historically very pro Intel) state the delta between the i( and Thread ripper is only 5fps and that shrinks with higher resolutions (who's going to have a 1950x and game at 1080p?). Yeah, sure the is "better", but it's so close so as to not effectively matter.

Which is where cost matters more.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Even Toms Hardware (historically very pro Intel) state the delta between the i( and Thread ripper is only 5fps and that shrinks with higher resolutions (who's going to have a 1950x and game at 1080p?). Yeah, sure the is "better", but it's so close so as to not effectively matter.

It’s clear that Intel's Core i9-7900X offers better average frame rates during purely gaming workloads, but our standard practice of focusing on 99th percentile metrics takes performance and smoothness into consideration. We’re looking at a five FPS delta between the stock -7900X and Threadripper’s best stock configuration in all games, and six FPS for new games. That gap becomes seven and four FPS, respectively, after overclocking both processors. You can imagine that gap will shrink at higher resolutions.

We didn’t add platform costs to our price efficiency charts because all high-end parts drop into obviously premium platforms, and X399 is no exception. But be mindful that you'll pay a lot more for a HEDT platform than the two mainstream configurations we tested. Cheaper alternatives like the Core i7-7700K and Ryzen 7 series are likely better for the folks who are interested in gaming, first and foremost. Much like our recommendations for Intel’s high-end desktop processors, we don’t recommend AMD’s flagship 1950X for strictly gaming, either.

Exactly - that's why I've bought into the AMD ecosystem this time over a decade of buying Intel - I've had enough.

It sucks at SuperPI,how can you have live with it though??

 

[humbug]

WTF is SuperPI doing any benchmark these days? it has no relevance to anyone or thing, other than to competition bencher's, that reviewer is clearly just looking for page fillers, can't remember who it was but i did see it with one reviewer.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

WTF is SuperPI doing any benchmark these days? it has no relevance to anyone or thing, other than to competition bencher's, that reviewer is clearly just looking for page fillers, can't remember who it was but i did see it with one reviewer.

Its a joke!! I mean if you are buying such a large core count CPU,you will be buying if for software which can use all the threads,or running multiple instances of more lightly threaded software where you can have a bigger throughput increase,over a CPU with less threads.

 

[humbug]

Its a joke!! I mean if you are buying such a large core count CPU,you will be buying if for software which can use all the threads,or running multiple instances of more lightly threaded software where you can have a bigger throughput increase,over a CPU with less threads.

Yes the real joke is one reviewer actually used it, well, FastPI, which is the same ludicrous thing.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/108628-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x/?page=5

 

[Blackbadger]

The Issue with HEDT is that it caters for Niche use cases. I guess it used to be called workstation.

Lets face it, if someone really did need awesome multi core performance, they would already have or should buy a mutli socket Xeon or the new Epyc systems. The performance can be significantly faster, 2-4x. than Threadripper/SkylakeX. The caveat is price. There has to be a balance between waiting 4 days for a render vs 1 day vs the 1000's invested in the system. Time is money.. to a extent. These new offerings from both intel and amd are helping close the gap.

I see SkylakeX/Threadripper aimed not at gamers or Pros. But more at enthusiasts who like to have a dabble at both. Regardless of what Intel or AMD officially say, they are marketing them at both categories. Unfortunately currently neither excel at both, however do a good job in one area or suffer in the other.


Where things currently stand, and how I see it.

If your using the system to have the best performance number crunching , rendering, compute etc and game on occasion. Get a dual Xeon or maybe a EPYC system for the best performance.
If you sometimes render, and game on occasion and budget is tighter, threadripper seems like a fair solution. And exceptional value for the very high multicore performance
If you predominantly game and render on occasion, SkylakeX seems like a better solution.
If you just game and want the best, or wondering what all this new stuff is about, latest is best right ?, SkylakeX or threadripper may not be for you, performance is worse than other offerings especially notable with thread ripper.

If you want a single cpu/system that excels at everything, our only hope is the upcoming 18 core intel 7980XE. It should bring us a lot closer to a solution that doesn't make such performance compromises, keeping it tame however will not be fun, nor is the price tag. From the spec's it looks to be very promising.


None of this comes cheap, and the CPU's are only part of the equation, and can make up a smaller percentage of the overall system cost. Both the HEDT system from AMD and INTEL require expensive cooling. Powerful PSU's. Ram can cost even more than the cpus. Motherboard prices are bordering on the unreasonable side. Around £3000+ for x299/x399 for a configured system and £4000+ for the upcoming 18 core system. It's a tough time to be upgrading. Thankfully there are options, and if upgrading from a a existing system you can salvage some parts to make it hurt less.

Personally for me thread rippers multi core performance is awesome especially for the price, however it appears to have issues with latency due to communicating between the 2 chips/memory, and lackluster IPC make it overall disappointing. We knew well in advance its strengths, the reviews today show the flaws, and they are significant. System performance is significantly less than my HEDT system from 2014, although to be fair it does cost less too. I could have lived with the slower multi core but not the latency IPC & ram issues. Maybe I was hoping for too much.

I believe 8 Pack has the intel 18core 7980XE chip - lets hope for some wink's coming soon.


The bottom line is currently you have to make compromises, either 1 system that is either good at multi-core and suffers at other tasks, or 1 system that is great at other tasks and performs less at multi core.

The solution is clear. Two Computers.
One dual/quad cpu setup for multi-core type stuff, which it excels at. And another system for play which it excels at.



Edit - The above is from my perspective coming from a 2014 dual xeon2697 z10pe-d8 workstation. A awesome motherboard with 80 pci lanes, and around 4300 in cinebench if pushed. It is not a normal system, and for others thinking of upgrading from a regular desktop to SkylakeX or Thread ripper especially if chasing multicore will not be disappointed with the increased performance in that area.

 

[humbug]

With the 7900X already using 200 watts at stock and over 300 watts overclocked don't expect anything revolutionary from higher core count Core-X chips, the power consumption and thermals that come with that just wouldn't allow them to run at the same frequencies.

Infact the next one up, the 12 core already has its base frequency below 3Ghz, thats a lot lower than AMD's cutdown threadripper let alone the 7900X.

The bigger the chips get the more difficult it is to keep the power down and clocks up.

I think Intel are going to struggle to beat AMD here, they might not manage it at all.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

IIRC,the SKL-X CPUs with above 10 cores are using a significantly larger chip,than the 6C to 10C ones,which are repurposed from their high end server CPUs.

 

[Deleted member 76686]

It is a great processor (TR) but like the Intel 7900X it is largely utterly pointless for most people.

 

[gavinh87]

IIRC,the SKL-X CPUs with above 10 cores are using a significantly larger chip,than the 6C to 10C ones,which are repurposed from their high end server CPUs.

Could this mean another socket??

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Could this mean another socket??

Its the same socket,but there was some noise a while back on whether the current X299 motherboards would be enough to handle them if people are going to start overclocking the CPUs. We will need to wait and see.

 

[8 Pack]

I have some of these higher core count Intels running fine in current boards.

 

[Blackbadger]

With the 7900X already using 200 watts at stock and over 300 watts overclocked don't expect anything revolutionary from higher core count Core-X chips, the power consumption and thermals that come with that just wouldn't allow them to run at the same frequencies.

Infact the next one up, the 12 core already has its base frequency below 3Ghz, thats a lot lower than AMD's cutdown threadripper let alone the 7900X.

The bigger the chips get the more difficult it is to keep the power down and clocks up.

I think Intel are going to struggle to beat AMD here, they might not manage it at all.

I do believe you have incorrect numbers for power consumption the 7900X does not consume as much. However you are correct that it should be of concern, heat and power consumption will hinder potential performance. Delidding could also be even more desirable to make the most of things due to a likely poor choice of thermal transfer, not a potentially nice idea on a $2000 chip.

Intels chips behave differently to amd's with boosting cores, etc. Just as nvida and amd differ. Base clocks are to be taken lightly.



You can see the regular boost 2.0 for the intel chips which they will run at during normal sustained loads.
Maybe artificial things like prime95 will cause issues. The 7980XE at 3.4ghz should run all 18 cores without any oc.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Personally for me thread rippers multi core performance is awesome especially for the price, however it appears to have issues with latency due to communicating between the 2 chips/memory, and lackluster IPC make it overall disappointing. We knew well in advance its strengths, the reviews today show the flaws, and they are significant. System performance is significantly less than my HEDT system from 2014, although to be fair it does cost less too. I could have lived with the slower multi core but not the latency IPC & ram issues. Maybe I was hoping for too much.

I'm interested to know what constitutes slower system performance than something from 2014, I've seen no evidence of such. It also really doesn't have 'ram issues', I think the idea that the memory doesn't overclock as high on a first gen memory controller for Zen as a what, 6th gen memory controller on Intel as a 'issue' is crazy. Does Intel have an issue because they can't get 8 cores on the mainstream platform? There has always been a difference in the speeds different platforms, both AMD vs AMD, Intel vs Intel and Intel vs AMD, yet somehow AMD having different ram speeds is now considered a issue rather than what it's always been, completely and utterly standard.

Gaming/enthusiast boards trying a new beta bios every other week to try and improve overclocking having some issues with ram stability is not the same as Zen having ram issues.

IIRC,the SKL-X CPUs with above 10 cores are using a significantly larger chip,than the 6C to 10C ones,which are repurposed from their high end server CPUs.

The 10 core chip is also a server chip, everything outside of 7700k and soon 8700k, is a chip used in server. Just previously with no competition Intel had no reason to use the two higher core count server chips on HEDT.

It seems fairly clear that Intel weren't ready for Threadripper(well or Zen in general) and have felt forced to add the middle server chip to HEDT to compete. The biggest question is if the delay is largely down to motherboards, there have been rumours that the existing x299 boards won't be compatible with the 18 core versions due to power designs/usage. If Intel turns up at launch of the 18 core chips and say hey, if you bought a x299 and 10 core chip and were hoping to upgrade to an 18 core well we've got a huge surprise for you. Even if that turns out not to be true, maybe it should be, the difference being the way to do that is tell people upfront, if you're waiting for the 18 core don't buy this motherboard designed for 10 core. Even with lower clock speeds I think the 18 core chips will end up using significantly more than the 10 core, 20% more, 50% more, I don't know, it's not crazy to think motherboards should be designed separately with different power targets in mind regardless of them being the same socket. I won't complain or have a pop at Intel if they do need different motherboards. I will laugh at them if they use the same mobo but it becomes extremely clear that they struggle badly with the 18 cores and are clearly not designed for that level of power usage OR if they do have diff mobos but hide it till the last second.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I do believe you have incorrect numbers for power consumption the 7900X does not consume as much. However you are correct that it should be of concern, heat and power consumption will hinder potential performance. Delidding could also be even more desirable to make the most of things due to a likely poor choice of thermal transfer, not a potentially nice idea on a $2000 chip.

Intels chips behave differently to amd's with boosting cores, etc. Just as nvida and amd differ. Base clocks are to be taken lightly.



You can see the regular boost 2.0 for the intel chips which they will run at during normal sustained loads.
Maybe artificial things like prime95 will cause issues. The 7980XE at 3.4ghz should run all 18 cores without any oc.

That is based on power usage. If 18 cores are running AND the power/temps are low enough it CAN run at that speed, it doesn't mean it will. In general that will mean the absolute lightest load possible can achieve that and the heaviest low will achieve the base frequency. That is literally the reason for the base frequency, it's the speed they are saying it will run for sure with all cores and that speed isn't, iirc, the AVX 512 instructions will cause the clock speeds to drop below even the base frequency(though if avx 512 can be used effectively it will still be faster despite the reduced clockspeed so that isn't a bad thing, just makes the base speed... variable.

Base clocks are NOT to be taken lightly, it's the only thing either company guarantee your chip will do under full load. For most people in most applications what also will matter is the boost speed for between 4-8 cores, it's very unlikely these days that any program anyone wants to run will use a single thread, a single heavy thread sure but load on other cores will reduce the overall boost speed.

 

[humbug]

I do believe you have incorrect numbers for power consumption the 7900X does not consume as much. However you are correct that it should be of concern, heat and power consumption will hinder potential performance. Delidding could also be even more desirable to make the most of things due to a likely poor choice of thermal transfer, not a potentially nice idea on a $2000 chip.

Intels chips behave differently to amd's with boosting cores, etc. Just as nvida and amd differ. Base clocks are to be taken lightly.



You can see the regular boost 2.0 for the intel chips which they will run at during normal sustained loads.
Maybe artificial things like prime95 will cause issues. The 7980XE at 3.4ghz should run all 18 cores without any oc.

I'm not talking about theoretical charts, i'm talking about reality.

Power:

vs Performance.

 

[Blackbadger]

I added a slight edit to my post above to explain the system. It's been used for VR development - Photogrammetry.

You are right AMD pushed Intel's hand in releasing the high end xeons to the consumer market as HEDT chips. Competition is a great thing ! I do not believe they had any intention of doing so prior, at least at this stage and have been caught off guard. Server parts do tend to trickle down to us consumers eventually. Needing more pro heavy duty Workstation type boards rather than gaming boards I also think is required for both platforms, which will come in time, and help both.

You are also correct about the boosting, though we can only go on what we know of the 7900x and that appears not struggle to maintain the boost clocks at stock across all cores in regular sustained loads, however certain calculations as you explained such as avx 512 will demand too much for it and it will downclock.

I mentioned memory issues, and for that I was referring to the Numa, Uma situation due to the way the chip is built. Amd have provided a option for a workaround - it isn't elegant, it is acknowledged and delt with to a extent which is good. Hopefully in time things will improve with specially designed software etc.

It's all a bit knee jerk from me, I have not used a Threadripper nor SkylakeX and can only evaluate the stats from around the web and take as much of a objective view as I can.

 

[humbug]

I want to try something out to see how it looks, so here it goes....

"AMD have the most powerful and most power efficient CPU on earth right now"

Yeah, feels good