The most interesting cpu in the list above in my mind is the 7980Xe. This quite obviously is the Xeon E7-8867 which has a price tag of $4672 + import tax +VAT. If any of you remember "Adored's" video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3l9vZD7h_8, posted a few months ago he went into great detail why this marketing shift by Intel is basic suicide. Selling most of the most profitable cpu's for far less than it costs to make them is a sign of complete desperation. So yes, grab it for £1800 while you can because when they eventually cant supply anymore.............................the next step is Chapter 13 in the US courts.
-
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!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,044
unlikely. Intel have deep pockets, even if they were to lose money each cpu it would be to keep competitive edge, market share, until their next cpus appear. Great that AMD have forced their hand tho
There are two reasons intel can afford to do this trick, they sit on mountains of cash and also they don't anticipate high demand for these CPU. How many people out there need 18,16 or 14 cores? They may loose some but not much money.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
240 extra. 7900x is 860
Last edited by a moderator:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,306
They will cost around $100 for high end desktop chips and maybe $200 for the higher end server ones (guessing here from old knowledge ramped up by inflation) I'm sure someone can help do the maths. The price you pay is for the insane amount of investment made to achieve the performance.
Once the development is done, the cost we pay of each chip does not reflect the cost of raw materials/manufacture.
They also have already sold well over half a million of the latest highend SkylakeX Xeons. Do the maths it's scary.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
Premium charged for Thunderbolt 3 and nVidia optimisations? And requires delidding service by Silicon Lottery for another premium...
AMD EPYC 7601 is not 4 dies stitched by glue!
Last edited by a moderator:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
What it can do single core, or a pair of cores iirc, is irrelevant, what matters is the actual clock speeds it holds up under load you buy these for.
The reality is the base clock is the minimum guaranteed speed when all cores are loaded. If you're buying a 18 core cpu for £1800 it's because you have something that can use lets say 12+ cores at full load otherwise you aren't buying it. If the cpu could hold dramatically higher than 3ghz under full load the base clock wouldn't be 2.6Ghz.
Notice that they've become available to buy, but reviews aren't up yet? Can you think why that is, it's not because they get beaten by a 16core Threadripper that is already available, much cheaper and holds it's clocks much better? Something tells me that they are going up for pre-order before reviews are up because Intel is playing the marketing game.
I think the only time the 7980xe is going to be beating a Threadripper that costs vastly less, is when only 4-6 cores are under heavy load, but if you'd be buying a CPU for that kind of load... why would you be buying a 7980xe?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,044
For home use, people want the most versatile CPU as possibly unless they plan on having more than one system. I doubt many people buying threadripper and these will fully utilise most of the cores all of the time. If it blows away threadripper when only 4-6 cores being used, that' actually quite important I would say. They're not gaming CPU's but people still need good gaming performance, a versatile CPU.
These chips really aren't required for "good gaming performance", particularly for people who are buying "not gaming CPUs".
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
It won't blow away threadripper, regardless of how many cores are in use. A 7900x when using 4-6 cores doesn't blow away threadripper and I don't the 7920x or above being any better in that regard. In all probability they'll likely be worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,044
Probably.Wonder what the best all rounder is? Ie, enough cores to be future proof for as long as possible (4-5 years or even more), great single to four core performance. We're getting to a stage where you can have "core overkill" although I don't believe in overkill myself. I doubt anyone running one of these high-core CPU's will be gaming at < 1440p so the CPU matter less anyway it seems. All depends on exactly what people want to do with them.
Money no object, is the best all-rounder the highest core CPU or somewhere between (4 and 18)?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Money no object? Well, we've seen there are plenty of apps that can take advantage of Threadripper 16 cores, so I don't see why the 7980x would be any different. However, how well can the 7980x maintain boost clocks in an all core usage scenario? Also, we might be discussing money no object, but what about power usage? I think thread ripper will hold a significant advantage there.
The reviews will tell all, but it's not looking good seeing as nearly all the Threadripper reviews called it in favour of Threadripper over the 7900x ("Better th n Intel in nearly every way" was one particular article header that comes to mind) and I don't see that changing.
The reviews will tell all, but it's not looking good seeing as nearly all the Threadripper reviews called it in favour of Threadripper over the 7900x ("Better th n Intel in nearly every way" was one particular article header that comes to mind) and I don't see that changing.
Bar gaming.
Price aside I am not so sure that is correct. Of course you would not buy one of these just for gaming but they will surely be capable.
My retired Sandy Bridge-E b0xxen does 4.6GHZ with 6 cores, that is with a mild-OC under-water. Can't really tell the difference in gaming between it and my 7700k @ 5.2GHZ.
Can't see these new chips being much slower than my 4.6GHZ SB-E out of the box, with decent liquid cooling of course. I can't imagine many people running these 18 core chips on air.
Sure the base-clocks are low but I really can't see a scenario where with a little tweaking, as long as you have sufficient rad space, that the 18 core chip will not give an experience as good as a 7700k.
The kicker will be the rad space, a triple-double rad for CPU and the same for a single 1080ti GPU?
