• 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

Rroff said:
For all the hate those Atom chips are often underestimated - clock for clock they can match desktop Core 2 (as long as the cooling is upto scratch) while using a fraction of the power and producing a fraction of the heat which is actually quite impressive - sure they aren't going to compete (with all the extra baggage) against stripped out ARM cores in specialised application but you can run a full Windows experience in pretty tiny devices now.
Click to expand...

But that itself isn't any kind of achievement in reality. Take out I/O and you can half the power of a lot of chips. The first bobcat core(again done on a tiny tiny fraction of the budget Intel put into Atom) was 10W and aimed at low end laptops, just turning off all but one sata and one usb port and they got the chip down to 5W. How many generations ago was that and bobcat while more efficient than Bulldozer, wasn't a brilliant core, just not bad. If that had gone through two die shrinks where would that be? The fact is most people don't want windows on a small device, it's too bloated and most windows type software is simply too big and not efficient enough for a phone so the ability to run it belies the actual demand to run them which is why windows phones aren't at all popular. Consider how many people actually have windows on a laptop or desktop, so theoretically a windows phone would be perfect, easy to sync everything and everything familiar, yet despite utter domination of home computing Windows isn't liked on phones.

The fact is Intel spend more on Atom than most mobile companies do on their chips, what it can or can't do is basically irrelevant, how successful the chip is in the market they are targetting does, everyone is doing FAR more for FAR less than Intel. Also what success Intel has had in tablets/mobile, is seemingly mostly down to buying design wins and subsidising chips to the point companies basically would be mad to not at least offer the devices for sales because the few they would sell would be at better profit due to effectively free chips.

Intel could make an ARM device, they could make an x86 chip with zero support for windows and fund the development of their own android like ecosystem for phones with ease on their R&D budget yet what they've achieved is chips no one wants, devices no one wants and they've spent billions to subsidise what sales they have achieved.

Clock for clock matching Core 2 on a fraction of the power multiple process nodes and many technology steps down the line isn't impressive, it's pretty much the bog standard chip they should have. How good would bobcat be with 2x the clock speed and on 14nm without any architecture improvements over the past what, 7 years or so? It could easily be 1-2W with the ability to run windows and have pretty decent performance.
 
As much as anything that is because MS have a truly truly horrible approach to OSes on portable devices never mind mobile phone OSes especially more recently - alternative OSes aren't necessarily a good path though don't underestimate how many people want a full desktop this for instance had no problem getting funded and actually ended up with Windows 10 winning out the vote for the first release with other OS flavours coming later: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-pocket-7-0-umpc-laptop-ubuntu-or-win-10-os-laptop--2#/ think I'm gonna get one of those for a play - though the lack of detachable screen in the style of 2 in 1 tablets is a bit of a down side.
 
Threadripper has been out for a week and already 'on Amazon at least' they are outselling the core i9's.

Best sellers: The 1950X is ranked #12 on Amazon US
The first core i9 is the 7820X, its ranked #36, to put that into perspective the FX-8370 is ranked #26, a couple of old APU's are also ranked higher.

For some reason Threadripper is not yet listed to Amazon UK charts, it only just got added to the US charts.

AMD did very well to get a $1000 CPU up that high in the best sellers rankings, its completely surrounded by $100 to $200 CPU's, you have to go back a couple pages before you find the next HEDT priced chip, that is in the form of the 7820X.

This is good, i like AMD to get some proper monies for R&D to keep the pressure on Intel and provide reasonably priced high performance CPU's.

Edit, for those interested the Ryzen 5 1600 is ranked #2 on both UK and US, behind the 7700K
 
i see by some of the results posted that the i9 7900x when oc is beating the 1920x yes its more expensive but surely from an enthusiast point of view if money is no object this would be better for some people very fast faster than a 1920x in most cases not bad for a 10 core vs 12 core chip, plus its more overclockable which would appeal to the enthusiast market as surely thats what is part the attraction. to be honest was hoping for great things from threadripper but seems especially from some overclockers and enthusiast reviews they seem a little underwhelmed.its hard to make a decision as i find a lot of youtubers very biased towards threadripper and there numbers all seem to be at loggerheads with each other..its hard to make a decision on a platform when people hate on one because of heat and price and love on the other because of money and anger at the otherside.personally yes threadripper is a great chip for bang for buck and the 1950x is a great hedt platform but for enthusiasts thee 7900x is still faster when overclocked than the 1920 which surely is what an enthusiast chip is all about
 
Its depends on which reviews because some think its a gaming chip or productivity involves unpacking WinRar.....

In everything multi-threaded (actual productivity work) the 1950X is faster than the 7900X at any speed and the 1950X is far more power efficient.

If your looking at game benchmarks and the few single threaded applications you're not looking for a Threadripper or a Skylake-X CPU.

1950X is faster across the board than the 7900X at any clock where it matters to those who buy these types of CPU's.

And no matter what 8 Pack thinks 300 watts + is not the sort of thing the people who buy these things want in their offices, especially if even at that its still slower than the sub 200 Watt AMD chip.

Its been said before, SkyLake-X has no place to fit into. other than for Intel loyalists and those who are buying into Intel marketing. even those are far and few, loud, but few.
 
Last edited:
They do want the Intel Skylake X chip in HPC though. Especially where the job is time critical.

Many of my customers want this in several fields. So what your saying about the 300w etc does not apply in all cases.
 
humbug said:
And no matter what 8 Pack thinks 300 watts + is not the sort of thing the people who buy these things want in their offices
Click to expand...

Depends on the office. CAD work where the gpu is louder than the cpu anyway would love it. Anywhere running a server room + thin client setup similarly won't care.
 
JonJ678 said:
Depends on the office. CAD work where the gpu is louder than the cpu anyway would love it. Anywhere running a server room + thin client setup similarly won't care.
Click to expand...

That same office would also have no use for a core i9, this argument is as pointless as it is insane, arguing some offices not needing multi-threaded performance and there in need the core i9 is bonkers, the core i9 is also not the best single threaded performer, neither CPU is aimed at such people, such people have no use for them no matter what colour they are.

These CPU's are aimed at people who need Multi-threaded performance and in that AMD's CPU is the fastest one.

Also: If you think Anyone running server rooms don't care about heat and power consumption you are deluded, those things are of primary concern.

Straw man arguments. ridiculous.
 
humbug said:
That same office would also have no use for a core i9, this argument is as pointless as it is insane, arguing some offices not needing multi-threaded performance and there in need the core i9 is bonkers, the core i9 is also not the best single threaded performer, neither CPU is aimed at such people, such people have no use for them no matter what colour they are.

These CPU's are aimed at people who need Multi-threaded performance and in that AMD's CPU is the fastest one.

Also: If you think Anyone running server rooms don't care about heat and power consumption you are deluded, those things are of primary concern.

Straw man arguments. ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Heat and power are major issues for server rooms.....
 
Not when time is the key. When that's the situation the company simply don't care about power. We supply more binned cpu workstation and servers to these customers than we do binned cpu's to gamers or website customers. We have sone unique oc solutions that tome critical business really likes. Non are AMD and no customer is interested in it because they want fast cores.

This is not to say AMD is not a great option for many it is. They have great products in both ryzen and TR and I will add both to my system range now the memory issues are in the main fixed.
 
With the 7900x or above will it be able to handle:

3x3.5 inch sata drvies - My media raid storage
3xSSD - my games and work documents
3xM.2 drives - for VM and encoding work

Maybe put a media encoder card into system, depends how i get on with CPU encoding. I will be gaming, encoding and running vms all at the same time. I do not want to spend 2K on one processor, budget for CPU and motherboard is £1500-£2000.

I will also be creating a lot of how to videos for kubernetes to post to youtube.....

Or will I need to look at ThreadRipper.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom