Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399/TRX40; Xeon vs Epyc

if 6c is on 14nm+ not 14nm++ then it might be hard to pull the trigger unless i know for sure laptop cooling can compensate the lower quality node for a 5ghz oc. then theres also another part is when 8c comes out if on 14nm++, it needs to be compatible wot z370 which is another issue, will intel make that happen. otherwise stuck with buying 2 laptops.

 

This is why Intel is making it hard for me to recommend outright. I still recommend them, but for certain uses. Price/perf is AMD in every cpu segment. Performance Intel has if money is no object. But the potential 9 month bilking cycle, down from a year, kills my ability to recommend. Ice/tiger may be the next large jump, which is why I recommend waiting for it. Zen2 also holds a potential large jump on that side.

Also, Tesla is joining AMD for a custom AI chip for self-driving cars. Jim Keller left AMD for Tesla after getting the Zen series in place. This may mean he will be available to give advice on Zen tweaks (not work on development, but available). So good stuff....

 

Do we have reason to think that 12nm refresh will affect the rest of the timeline?
Possibly.

I read a article about something similar earlier today, indicating that AMD might be making 7nm hardware on TSMC process instead.
Trouble is, I can't find the article again for some reason.

 

So, how the refresh cycles sandwich in with 7nm has always been up in the air.

As to that article, it was talking about AMD switching assemblers for graphics cards and that the 7nm graphics cards may be done by TSMC. This means GloFo likely failed on a component of the contract or is no longer able to guarantee volume. From what is known, this is only GPU, not CPU side. This may mean they are only able to satisfy 7nm CPU and custom chips to start. This may also be effected by the semi-custom with Tesla. Who knows? But yes, AMD has done that before in the past with graphics many times. But if GloFo cannot get 7nm in time on CPU side, then that is allowed to use TSMC as well.

https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ep...pu-linux-benchmarks-and-review/?sf115843839=1

 

Hope I can hold out that long. I've been upgrading whenever a part fails rather than when there's something significantly better available. Would be nice to get in on a big performance jump and ride out the small ones. Then again, I'm going to be coming from a Haswell so anything is going to be a decent jump.

 

I completely understand. I was doing the same thing, riding until fail or so slow I couldn't do anything. Now, the so slow problem isn't as much of an issue, but I keep more current due to not wanting to wait on little things or expanding use cases. Zen 2 I am excited for, but now having TR, it is probably better to wait for Zen 3, which will incorporate EUV, lowering the triple and quad patterning to dual and more fine control, meaning the entire industry will give better products. But that is Tiger vs Zen 3, far too far out for me to recommend on anyone waiting if they have a need.

My P770ZM is still going strong for my laptop, so I'll just save the heavy lifting for my desktop now.

 

Actually if you read it, he's just reiterating the last statement by Intel made before the delayed production leak.

So we really still don't know for sure if it's coming soon or much later.

 

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-msi-z370-krait-benchmarks-overclocking-leaked/

not hedt nor x399 but, OOOOOOo 6 cores at 5.3ghz daYUMMMM. cpuz showing a 6% IPC increase but that could be because of more cache.

 

"Intel Core i7-8700K 5.3 GHz and Intel Core i3-8350K 5.0 GHz Overclock Possible On Good AIO Coolers..." This means 5.0GHz in laptops like P8xx series if any of this info is somehow right and not fake Yeah, 5.0GHz seems about correct anyhow

 

It's mostly about order at this point, for my desktop I am prioritizing failed parts > outdated parts > QoL upgrades > other > > > > > > cable management (given the desktops we sell here the level of untidiness inside my rig borders on unforgivable) but for example there are some things that I'm going to have to upgrade all at once (RAM+CPU+Mobo) that I'd like to time a little better than that.

 

Intel Z370 Chipset Could Support Kaby Lake - But Intel Will Not Allow It-Guru3d.com

"According to some board partners the extra pins used on Z370 are merely supported voltage pahs. Ergo, (but not confirmed) perhapsvice versa Coffee lake could have been supported on Z270 as well. But this last bit remains speculation of course. But the reality is, that other processors than Coffee Lake on LGA1151 could have been supported on Z370, yet Intel simply will not allow board partners to support them."

Other topic...
Project CARS 2 Benchmarked On NVIDIA, AMD & Intel Hardware – Scales Well With CPU Cores


"Moving on to the CPU side of the performance equation you can quickly tell that the game LOVES CPU cores, the more the better. We see very clear scaling from four threads, 8 threads 12 threads and all the way to 16 threads. The scaling is especially evident when looking at the Sandy Bridge i5 2500K, i7 2600K and i7 3970X as well as the AMD Ryzen lineup. This is a massive improvement over the game’s predecessor which was heavily reliant on single-threaded performance." But what with Ryzen? When will it come up on level with Intel 4 core i7-6700K? And soon will Intel 6 cores(i7-8700K) be released.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Thanks

 

answer is obvious, at least 5 years for multi core adoption.

 

I disagree, but only because Intel got on board with the multi-core race. Unless you are talking programs like those made by Adobe, which have done nothing for years and still work best on a quad core. With Intel going to 8-core mainstream and AMD already there, I give 2-3 years. This being tampered by the problem software engineers seem to not be looking for ways to making workloads parallel. But more cores has become the main way to add performance, so they will learn either way....

 

I will say within 3 Years will much happen. (+)5 years is too long.

 

i was being sarcastic lol
well the software that doesnt get optimized since forever will prob never get it
for new software it'll likely adopt it because intel going more cores just like ajc mentioned

 

Actually just multi-core optimizations is not what is needed. Compiles need to address IF optimizations to truly be optimized for Ryzen. This may take a bit longer if ever. Intel poured money into compiler optimization and as we can see this has paid off. AMD does not have those resources. Until they wake up and do something about this Intel will always have the lead.

The other side to that same coin is if there are options that can be placed within a compiler to enhance for the IF and multi CCX complex's?

 

theres more than just that, well what you said is essential but there are many more level of optimization i guess dependent on the workload. take CB15 for example are pretty much all cpu limited and barely touches ram, where as say reflect macrium needs to base off cpu and storage. heavy cpu for compression and a storage device running at high QD enough to take advantage of the CPU. this is why probably it hasnt get optimized at all cause storage are still slow at 4k until optane/znand comes along.

then ontop of all that theres extension which takes advantage of cpu and ram like avx, sse then avx2, those likely will never get touched unless its enterprise.

 

Agreed there are many things for both to get optimized for HEDT. I was just toughing the base for Ryzen, there I am sure many things we can not see.

 

The truth behind computing today is IPC is king for daily driving. This is where Intel has it right for now. To be honest IPC though has been more than high enough for quite some time going back to even the 3 generation of the Icore series. Along with SSDs our desktops have been just zipping along.

Now along comes AMD with Ryzen saying in a sense IPC is high enough we need more cores at that IPC for our various workflows etc.. To a point they are correct. This while Ryzen offers a lower IPC than current generation Intel chips it offers a lot more in economical added core capability. This ends up that for 98% of us AMD offers a great computing experience.

Now because IPC is king for the day my current Threadripper will be run at 100% stock speed as a daily driver. The XFR 4.2 GHz offers a better desktop experience than a full core overclock @ 4.0 GHz. This unlike Intel offerings that overclocking also tends to up the single thread handling. Again that it does not matter whether something is completed in a blink of an eye or 1/2 that time.

I will keep my overclock profiles for the rare occasions I need that extra grunt, but that is really rare. For those that need to have that extra though. Pay the piper and get Intel, 7980XE is the game of choice. Make sure though you really need it as by the end it will certainly cost some serious change.

 

I think in the end, for my new PC, I will end up with a I9 7980XE delidded as it have the best performance.

Had AMD introduced a 32 core Threadripper similar to their 1P EPYC at the 2k price point, I think it would turned out way different for my decision making process.

 

So 15% performance delta, double the price, seems reasonable.

 

Thats the way it always works with computers though. The last 15% performance needs doubling of the price. I could make the same argument that getting 1950x is unreasonable as 1700 non x is cheaper and can offer higher price vs performance.

Had AMD bring out a product thats better than Intel, around 24-32 cores, I would have defaulted to AMD.

If anything, depending on application your performance data varies from 15-25%

P.S: I hope your headache is getting better.

 

What's with the IPC glorification?
Intel is maybe ahead of AMD by 5% in IPC (and that's on latest i7 7x and i9 offerings - the only thing Intel can actually offer is higher single core clock speed)... and both Ryzen and TR are already comparable to Intel performance-wise for a much lower price, WITHOUT being optimized for by the industry at large.

Ryzen already saw between 15% and 30% increase in performance when gaming developers released patches for it.
If a similar thing is done by industry software devs, Ryzen and TR will EASILY offer comparable or better performance on stock speeds, nevermind overcloked ones.

That's not including what we might get with Ryzen refresh on 12nm LP node, or even Ryzen 2.

You have to keep in mind that Intel had a decade of dev support behind them, and their several last CPU's were brought on a more advanced 14nm++ process.
AMD has only been using standard 14nm...
Want a fairer comparison? Wait for 12nm LP refresh and see what it brings (hopefully some industry software will bring out patches and optimizations for Ryzen and TR).

And even where Ryzen is, it offers more than enough performance for a more attractive price... but... not my place to judge.

 

Comparable on price, Big Yees. Intel can’t compete. Performance and much better Oc possibilities? No, can’t compete!! Nice with choices for all.

 

You have the process wrong. They did two generations on one process. Skylake-X is 14nm+. If you add up the time for Haswell devil's canyon refresh to skylake, that is how long they played on getting 14nm right across two generations. They are even trying to white wash history with the **** stain BW as if it never happened. So, SkylakeX and Kaby are both 14nm+. Kaby refresh is a question, then coffee is 14nm++.

Also, regardless of @ole!!!'s choice, we should respect it. I put truthful information to poke at him, but meant it in a fun way this time. If he needs it and can use it, it is his money and his choice. We've discussed the price, performance, and price/performance ratios to death. Everyone participating or that has been watching our discussion already knows and understand the nuance.

I brought up the conversion and compared. As long as people understand what they are getting and why, it is cool. I'll respect and stand by that decision. It is an informed decision. So...

@ole!!! , if you get it, I expect numbers and benchmarks!

@tgipier thank you. Had to take my meds for nausea today (first time in a month or two). But thank you.

 

Performance is actually already there clock for clock to the point of being negligible even if a few % are going to Intel favor (and that's remedied with developer support)... the OC however does go into Intel favor, though pushing Ryzen and TR close to 4 GhZ does manage to close the gap pretty good.
I have to wonder how many people would opt for Intel to gain another 15% or maybe 20% for double the price?
I just don't see that being worth it.

 

There are those that will pay dearly for the 10%-15% difference. Those that need it I say go for it. My point it very few will need let alone notice it.

 

I realize that some would definitely go the lengths of paying for it, but my overall point was that it's not really noticeable or cost effective for most people.
Heck, even the industry at large (professional studios that make 3d animations for tv shows, etc.), I would imagine they would go for a more cost effective solution that can offer nearly twice the performance vs an Intel CPU that has less cores but costs the same.

AMD is close enough performance-wise (even without an OC) without developer optimizations.
Problem is... how many people still have a bad image of AMD in their heads?

 

Depends highly on the software. With licensing per core, it might be better to stick with Intel.

 

AS far as a bad taste for AMD, well. Now so long as OEM's do not try and rip customers off using old inadequate CPU tech and pass them off as good computers. People will know they need the new chip for decent performance but as always buyer beware.

 

32 cores thats overkill yo.

yep if i do get it. the CPU heatsink in that laptop better be damn sexy and i'll overclock it make it fly

theres also that, why majority big business/enterprise uses linux as their server OS rather than micro$oft.

 

Intel Core i9-7980XE & 7960X, 16-cores is Old News!

Intel 7980XE and 7960X vs AMD 1950X! 18-Core i9 Benchmarks & Review

Intel’s 18 CORE EXTREME EDITION!

Intel i9 7980XE 18 Core 36 Thread HEDT CPU Review

Intel Core i9 7980XE review - easy overclocking to 4.6ghz !

Intel 7980XE & 7960X Review - i9 Rips into Threadripper

Intel i9-7980XE BEYOND 6 GHz (en)

Intel Core i9-7980XE And Core i9-7960X Review: Intel Attacks AMD Threadripper
https://hothardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-review-and-benchmarks?page=6

 

http://m.hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/110072-intel-core-i9-7980xe-14nm-skylake-x/?page=13
On a Noctua, 4.5GHz OC all cores at the edge of thermal throttle pulling 480+W.

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/image.php...ntel-core-i9-7980xe-7960x-cpu-review_full.png

16 & 18 core overclocked to 4.4 in the 90s temp.

 

der8auer's 7980XE LN2 CPU runs pulled 800w-1000w - CPU only power!, insane

 

From the TT article summary: "The 7980XE and 7960X are super expensive, and Intel has made them that way for a reason; they are niche products that offer more all-around performance than what is out there on the market. The best analogy I can think of is one where a 7700K is like a BMW M5 or a Tesla Model-S, Threadripper 1950X would be the Mercedes McLaren SLR, and the Skylake-X 7980XE is like the Bugatti Chiron."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8348/intel-core-i9-7980xe-7960x-cpu-review/index8.html

 

I am not that impressed by the 7980XE. I guess I was expecting more. This and the fact for the system I have a good $2000 more just for the 7980XE and power draw is insane. It would be +$1,000 for the CPU, +300 for the bigger PSU, +200 for the good X299 board, and up to $500 for SL is my guess. So I am happy right where I am.

 

Yup, these new i9's will need a killer AIO - 360mm x 3 fans to get temps down enough for top OC. The little Corsair H115i AIO Water Cooler is overwhelmed even at that mild 4.4ghz OC.

The other reviews show 400w+ before OC, and 600w+ on water with high water temps.

A whole new class of coolers is going to be needed, just like the ThreadRipper ones just now coming out like the 360mm Enermax

@Papusan 's Phase Change favorite only does 300w cooling load, so they will need to up their game too to work on the new i9's and ThreadRipper 400w+ heat load:

"Phase Change:
Hetload which can hold:
300W at -30°c on Evaporator Head "

And, the USA qualified model is a tad more expensive, with the same 300w maximum heat load:

LD PC-V10 115V USA Phase Change - Black
http://www.ldcooling.com/shop/ld-pc-v10-115v-usa/87-ld-pc-v10-115v-usa-phase-change.html

 

Exactly. I read the hothardware review. Only one to use [email protected], and you wonder why the score was so low (bad review, too much volts). But we are in a new age of HEDT now, that's for sure! From here, I see maybe some more cores in future gens, but mainly going for lower energy from here...

 

It's long way from -30°c and up to thermal throttling

 

I maybe should note @ 4.0 GHz and R15 I only see 280w under HWMonitor. I see up to 320w with Prime95 so this may be doable?

 

The simple fact is that when you overclock TR to 3.9 or 4 GhZ (which normalizes for clock discrepancies), Intel's advantage mostly evaporates in Cinebench in multithreading... even the i9 18 core currently at stock offers 10% advantage over TR 1950x in CB R15 in multithreaded tasks.
That's hardly massive.

A fair(er) comparison would be to keep Intel at stock, then OC TR close to it to gain similar to equal turbo's, and then compare them.

AMD's 14nm cannot hold up against Intel's 14nm++ because its suited for lower clocks (and the two processes aren't comparable - you'd think the reviewers would bring this up... never-mind industry support Intel enjoys - which makes Intel look pretty bad because Ryzen/TR are unoptimized in comparison and are STILL giving Intel a run for their money - literally).
I don't know about others, but AMD is still the better deal for me and more than worth investing into.

 

Did you watch the der8auer video for the 7980XE OC to high 5ghz I posted earlier? He measured positive temperatures on the 7980XE cores while the pot-IHS measured -100c? A 100c++ differential!!

That -30C won't be enough for your kind of OC benchmarking.

 

It's on the edge, but worth a try

The Intel i9's add almost another 100w at stock, and total 500w-600w at top OC, 800w-1000w on LN2, so definitely not doable for Phase Change 300w limit under top OC.

The Phase Change boxes are a bit noisy, at least the last ones I saw, but it's been a few years, and they integrated them into full chassis, so maybe the noise has been reduced. @Papusan ?

 

There is many years since I owned Phase cooling(early 2000). Yes, they are not completely silent, but I have a big enough house to put it away if needed. And I expect the newer ones is quieter now. Mind you, Asetek also offered their Vapochill phase coolers in full chassis many years ago and not only the boxes. Old times, old design

 

How did I not even know this existed? I knew there were phase change coolers but not entire cases. Crazy.

 

i need 7980xe in a laptop

 

I would be happy if we could get 10 cores