• 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.

INTEL BRING THE BIG GUNS!

Dear lord people, you're all massively overthinking it.

EPYC was done, it's a 4 die package, with a specific socket, drivers, support, design and mobo manufacturer support. It's monumentally cheaper for AMD and the mobo manufacturers to reuse the same socket than to create an entirely new socket, which needs a full validation/certification cycle which is costly and takes a lot of time, to create a new socket. It also means for what is a very small overall market for Threadripper you increase the 'getting in' cost from the mobo manufacturers.

So you have a socket that supports more than 1 die, you have a socket that can easily support quad channel and it's all ready to go, the manufacturing for sockets is in place, why would you create an entirely different socket for more money when you can reuse it?

That is literally all this is, to create a new socket and therefore have a third socket for no reason would cost 10s of millions in development when the socket you have already spent that money on, much much more actually, on a socket that will work just fine.

So they reuse the socket, save millions and reduce costs while also making partners happier to have one overall platform to work on. Silicon costs practically nothing, think about this, the cost of an actual wafer to be processed, which takes ~6-8 weeks these days on these processes, is around $5k, that is hundreds and hundreds of hours of processing and that is the overall cost, the actual cost of the silicon itself is tiny. Attaching things to organic packaging is absolutely trivial cost, using the spacers probably costs in the range of $1-2 total, silicon and attaching 2 more pads. Organic packaging is absolutely trivial, completely conquered, insanely high yield technology these days, a silicon interposer brings everything down in scale by a magnitude and is new tech with worse yields and higher cost, but the yields there are still good. AS in organic packaging is in effect 100% yield it's old and very easy technology with the way they are manufacturered. Interposers took till now to be used because yields aren't 100% and with every extra chip yield goes down meaning 4 chips may cause a drop in yields by 5%. Except even if this was a silicon interposer, the two dummy dies couldn't actually fail, they only need to be stuck together(trivial) not have thousands of physical connections made perfectly(not so trivial).

The cost of using the same organic packaging design and two extra silicon pads for spacers is absolutely trivial and insanely lower than the cost of producing an entirely new platform with a socket midway between AM4 and server. It's also hugely less work which at a time AMD is struggling for money and needs to get out a lot of products in a short space of time, would simply be a waste.
 
As much as I want to play with the 18 core, I just can't justify that sort of money currently so will be bowing out. Perhaps the 16 core at some point. In the meantime have invested in a new chiller to play with on the 7900X :).

The 7980XE is going to be pulling some serious current, though. I fully expect some to struggle to get these up to the clocks they're looking for given how people can't seem to submit to AVX.
 
Just had a look at the hexus review of the TR 1950 and 1920.

and what the hell is this:

(Memory Read)

image.png


image.png


image.png


image.png


So, they use 3200 RAM in the TR, and 2666 in the intels. No wonder the results look crap. Just goes to show how easily benchmarks can be manipulated.

ill just leave this here:
Capture.png


And going by the cinebench results for the overclocked 1920x, its still slower than a 7900x at 4.7/4.8ghz even in a highly threaded app and with two more cores. I think the higher core intels will be something to behold tbh..
 
Last edited:
Just had a look at the hexus review of the TR 1950 and 1920.

and what the hell is this:

(Memory Read)

image.png


image.png


image.png


image.png


So, they use 3200 RAM in the TR, and 2666 in the intels. No wonder the results look crap. Just goes to show how easily benchmarks can be manipulated.

ill just leave this here:
Capture.png


And going by the cinebench results for the overclocked 1920x, its still slower than a 7900x at 4.7/4.8ghz even in a highly threaded app and with two more cores. I think the higher core intels will be something to behold tbh..

The same could be said the other way round. How many reviewers have not retested ryzen since release with higher ram speeds?
 
depends what they ran the intels at i suppose. either way it sucks, not indicative of performance (and i mean it would be the same if the other way around). And why more people should take these reviews with a pinch of salt. either run all with ram at max 'official' speeds, or all overclocked. not either or.

Yep this is what happened with Ryzen too.


don't have time to watch it, but if they were running intel with OC memory and Ryzen at stock, then thats just as bad.
 
Yep this is what happened with Ryzen too.

ok, watched it, good video. And very true, anything can be proven. Like politicians and their statistics i suppose :)

In the pictures i posted though, it is very bizzarly slanted, not just against the intels, but the regular Ryzens too;

image.png


Awful
 
depends what they ran the intels at i suppose. either way it sucks, not indicative of performance (and i mean it would be the same if the other way around). And why more people should take these reviews with a pinch of salt. either run all with ram at max 'official' speeds, or all overclocked. not either or.



don't have time to watch it, but if they were running intel with OC memory and Ryzen at stock, then thats just as bad.
That wasn't the purpose of that video. Early benchmarks of the Ryzen's were at stock (partly due to early bios issues) while the 7700's running at an overclock. This led to the pereption that the 7700k was so far ahead of the Ryzen's.

Like I said part of this was due to early bios's being immature and part of it was to do with incompetent reviews/bias. Apples for apples is the only fair way.
 
ok, watched it, good video. And very true, anything can be proven. Like politicians and their statistics i suppose :)

In the pictures i posted though, it is very bizzarly slanted, not just against the intels, but the regular Ryzens too;

image.png


Awful

No I agree that's not right at all. I would love to hear their reasons for it. As Adored said, you need to take your results from multiple sources.
 
No I agree that's not right at all. I would love to hear their reasons for it. As Adored said, you need to take your results from multiple sources.
For sure man. And not just skipping to the pretty graphs, look at the test setup. I think most of us are guilty of doing it.
 
Looking at Hexus's review of the 7900x they state at the bottom of the test methodology page this.

Though we've been able to spend a few days with a Core i9-7900X, getting hold of supporting X299 motherboards hasn't been entirely easy. A variety of boards were on show at Computex 2017, but an accelerated launch schedule appears to have caught manufacturers off guard. Review samples are being held back while software wrinkles are ironed out, and our test motherboard received a major BIOS update just days ago. Please note that neither the CPU nor motherboard were sourced from Intel.

So perhaps rather than it being skullduggery it may be similar to the Ryzen launch and they may need to retest with the latest bios's.

That's the hope, but having witnessed AMD's Ryzen arrive with teething issues ranging from memory support to hesitant in-game performance, it is frustrating to find that Intel's Core X-Series isn't immune to certain missteps, either.

X299 motherboards don't appear to be quite ready, there are question marks surrounding the Skylake-X processors due later this year, and at the lower end of the Core X spectrum, Kaby Lake-X is nothing short of puzzling.
 
Yes, but the Ryzen and the Intel Cpus (even the older 6950x and 7700k which are very mature by now) had their memory at stock (not just x299, but all of them) So why not have the TR stock?

There are a ton of variables, some cpus overclock better than others, some can have the ram overclocked by a lot more than others etc. So at least cut out the random overclocks on the review samples to give a somewhat balanced field. I cant imagine anyone buys a 7900x, 6950x and Ryzen 1800-1700 and doesnt oc the memory but compare stock to stock if thats what they are going for.

Does make you realise how hard it is to narrow down what a cpu can do from reading these reviews, from my own experience, my chip is performing better than any of the official reviews have shown, either because they didn't clock it very high, didn't clock the cache or didn't clock the memory.

Also, without overclocking im sure the 7740x does look puzzling, but as 8pack has shown here, its an OC beast. again missed by many reviews.
 
Yes, but the Ryzen and the Intel Cpus (even the older 6950x and 7700k which are very mature by now) had their memory at stock (not just x299, but all of them) So why not have the TR stock?

There are a ton of variables, some cpus overclock better than others, some can have the ram overclocked by a lot more than others etc. So at least cut out the random overclocks on the review samples to give a somewhat balanced field. I cant imagine anyone buys a 7900x, 6950x and Ryzen 1800-1700 and doesnt oc the memory but compare stock to stock if thats what they are going for.

Does make you realise how hard it is to narrow down what a cpu can do from reading these reviews, from my own experience, my chip is performing better than any of the official reviews have shown, either because they didn't clock it very high, didn't clock the cache or didn't clock the memory.

Also, without overclocking im sure the 7740x does look puzzling, but as 8pack has shown here, its an OC beast. again missed by many reviews.

I think the lack of coverage on the 7740x is because of peoples opinion of it. It shouldn't exist on a HEDT platform.
 
But the reason it overclocks so well is because its on the x299. if it wasnt, it wouldnt. Depending on the games you play it is probably the best gaming cpu you can buy right now (as long as you overclock it) and you can stick in a higher core cpu later on. (for non gaming its kinda completely pointless unless you want a cheaper cpu to get into the platform ofc.) And its certainly not going to win any bang for buck competitions, but this is a hobby after all, we all have our niches
 
Back
Top Bottom