INTEL BRING THE BIG GUNS!

That was my point, seems rather low across the board.
Be good to see comparisons.
Is the v short notice as a result of intel worried in the processor sector, swift launch?
 
Threadripper is a winner here i think. Not a lot of comparative benchmarks for the 2 chipsets. but in the multitasking/server markets MAD has always done well. If we compare the following offerings

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £3,690.02
(includes shipping: £11.10)



​

Intel = £2159.98 Vs AMD = £1518.94


Thats a MASSIVE 42% Saving.

So unless the intel preforms 25%+ better in the programs you need then it should be an easy choice
 
idk why anyone is even comparing the 16 core intel to anything. if you need and use 16 cores, then you also need and use 18 cores and you are clearly rich so why not get the 18 core? the 16 core shouldn't even be bought by anyone. i can see the 14c and 18c selling well. the 14c has highest speeds and the 18 is obvious no budget epeen choice :P
 
Jumper118 said:
idk why anyone is even comparing the 16 core intel to anything. if you need and use 16 cores, then you also need and use 18 cores and you are clearly rich so why not get the 18 core? the 16 core shouldn't even be bought by anyone. i can see the 14c and 18c selling well. the 14c has highest speeds and the 18 is obvious no budget epeen choice :p
Click to expand...

Erm, amount of cores is always (extremely) handy, but...., if one (18 core) CPU is 2.9(?)ghz/18core & another is 4.0ghz/16core (example) then who wins the race.

From what I saw of Terragen3 (older) benchmark, Ryzen wins (competition is always needed, my rant :p) But time'll tell when the newer stuff is out & about for real world testing :D

http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/...html?PHPSESSID=4kh4csnn60cjhngrdvjiuiaka1#new
 
Jumper118 said:
idk why anyone is even comparing the 16 core intel to anything. if you need and use 16 cores, then you also need and use 18 cores and you are clearly rich so why not get the 18 core? the 16 core shouldn't even be bought by anyone. i can see the 14c and 18c selling well. the 14c has highest speeds and the 18 is obvious no budget epeen choice :p
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing isn't it.

If price is no object for performance then it only applies to the most expensive part. As long as it does deliver the presumed performance.

But everything BELOW that has to be scrutinised in terms of value for money and that's where the comparisons with the much less expensive TR chips are the most damaging for intel.

The one thing the intel chips should have over TR is a more substantial overclock range. No good to stock users but enthusiasts wanting performance at the cost of power, heat and more cost will be looking at the possibilities there.
 
Cosimo said:
I think that the prices are yet to be confirmed. Are you tempted for a change?
Click to expand...
Possibly fancy a change, but my 5960X 8Pack cpu is still a monster so......
Then there is Threadrippper to consider as well. Just dont know - dont need to change so....

Mark
 
I personally feel that with the years of ripping off consumers that Intel has been doing and their poor 2-5% gains per generation, that people should vote with their wallets here and support AMD for helping break the trend and forcing Intel to improve.
 
somewhatdamaged said:
I personally feel that with the years of ripping off consumers that Intel has been doing and their poor 2-5% gains per generation, that people should vote with their wallets here and support AMD for helping break the trend and forcing Intel to improve.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people have never known a CPU market that's anything but predictable, incremental gains and occasional stagnation. Back in the days when Intel, AMD and Cyrix fought tooth and nail for supremacy there was no question of deliberately putting out 'least effort' products unless you wanted them to fail. Quite the opposite, on several occasions Intel was under so much competitive pressure they shipped chips that were running so close to the edge they were just plain unstable and had to be recalled.
 
somewhatdamaged said:
I personally feel that with the years of ripping off consumers that Intel has been doing and their poor 2-5% gains per generation, that people should vote with their wallets here and support AMD for helping break the trend and forcing Intel to improve.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I am doing and voting with my feet. It will be good to have a premium AMD back since the FX64 days.
 
Hi guys..

I just want to show my way in comparing cpu's
Most reviewers will use tools like Cinebench to show how fast these cpu's are..
Well i use for more then 20years Chess-engines as i'm test them for all best chess programmers in the world!
And because this year is it a great cpu year with all these new AMD Ryzen,Threadripper,EPYC and Intel new i9's ,Xeon that i find it time to make a new list.
Also not so much daily programs can use all these cores/threads @100% all the time..for chess never enough cores ;)
Now you will see..

Here my website: http://www.ipmanchess.yolasite.com/amd---intel-chess-bench.php

A little explenation.
I take my system as a reference point..i'm using a i7 5960x @4.5Ghz 8cores (Ipmanchess)
use chess engine asmFish and let him calculate from startposition till 26 moves deeper into the game!
So he has to calculate all possible moves..on my i7 5960x i get around 23760013 nodes/sec.
That's 23,76Million positions/sec.
Now you can compair what these new cpu's do..my planning was to upgrade my system to a Threadripper
1950X ..i would get +/-20Million nodes/sec. more..my i7 5960x is overclocked ,so at default settings it
would be double!!
But then i get these from Intel i9 7960X ,+15Million nodes/sec. higher then Threadripper both @4.0Ghz!!
So that would be around 35Million nodes/sec. more each second!
It's amazing how powerfull these cpu's are when you look up from my i7 5960x ,that we knew as a not so slow system..now it looks like 20years old ;)
Okay..i think you will get now a idea..when your daily software can use all cores/threads it's just fantastic..most gamers always tell the same ,why you need more cores..well this is a nice example ;)

Kind regards,
Ipman.
 
pigeonguyuk said:
Threadripper is a winner here i think. Not a lot of comparative benchmarks for the 2 chipsets. but in the multitasking/server markets MAD has always done well. If we compare the following offerings

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £3,690.02
(includes shipping: £11.10)



​

Intel = £2159.98 Vs AMD = £1518.94


Thats a MASSIVE 42% Saving.

So unless the intel preforms 25%+ better in the programs you need then it should be an easy choice
Click to expand...

Actually you can cut £200 and get the Taichi, which seems is the better X399 board
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom