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

Don't forget a simple lack of information. It's so difficult to get enough information to make a truly educated purchase on all the items we buy that realistically we can only be expected to do so with a few select ones that matter most to us and then rely on reviews, ratings, and other types of perceived value, not all of which are necessarily informative enough.

 

this reminds me of BGA junk. intel and OEM forces all mobile consumer bga path.

to elaborate, if I want to build a laptop myself from scratch, in order to house a HEDT CPU, large enough display 21-23" etc the cost to build from ground up will be tremendous, easily in millions.

 

That heads me into marketing, media collusion with industry, data mining, and purposeful information asymmetry to take advantage of consumers. I'll stop here as that goes into so many other issues. But I do agree that we play information arbitrage. Just that companies now purposefully, to varying degrees, conduct themselves to make that information harder to obtain, thereby forcing more arbitrage than necessary.

 

I'm pretty optimistic in that area. 8700K based Sagers are already up for pre-order, and if there was ever a good time to resurrect their dedicated workstations, the i9 family is just begging to be put in some monster.

 

I disagree, but only due to heat. I do think, if the temps go down, ice lake may be the time. But that is a year to a year and a half...

 

its rather pitiful man, 6 core in a laptop was good a few yrs ago when desktop maxed at 10 cores. now a 6 core laptop while desktop advances to 18 cores. although there are obviously major temp concern, OEM should make big efforts on that front as they already adopted desktop class GPU in laptop, no reason for them to hold back on CPU side of things as well, give us giant CPU heatsink.

8 core in laptop will be acceptable but 6 core is sad, my standard is a bit high there.

 

Or they could use it as a test to see exactly how much people demanding socketed HEDT CPUs are willing to ignore form factor with a 4" thick 25lb behemoth.

 

Smartphones has already increased in size. Time for laptops? And phones can soon replace thin and flimsy

 

I had several people in mind when I made that post and you were one.

So if it happens we'll see you sporting the new Hummer H1 of laptops then?

 

Would be a pleasure Thanks. +rep

 

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-cpu,5222-9.html

Intel isn't the only one scrambling and losing it's way it seems. Not to mention confusing their respective customer base with options that make no/little sense in the real world.

(Of course; anyone that can read and is interested can quickly come up to speed on either platform, quickly enough to make a solid purchase decision for themselves).

For anything but gaming though?

Keep pushing AMD... and don't stop...

 

@tilleroftheearth and anyone whos interested..

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-pm971-m.2-nvme-ssd,35755.html

this is entry level but i can smell znand SSD coming. can't wait to see znand vs optane.

 

Intel Optane SSD 900p Makes a Secret Appearance - has PCI Express 4.0 interface What's the point with upgrade only the cpu around 2019 although AMD can offer this for current platform?

 

what i want is this
- 8 cores 5ghz, 4.8 is okay too..
- in a laptop with good cooling
- optane SSD 240gb boot drive
- DMI 4.0 prob comes with 10nm++ though
- 2x or 4x sata 6gbps SSD slot in laptop
- volta gpu x2
- 64gb ram
- 20 inch laptop..

 

BGA SSD? Ew...

 

Yeah, finally can Dellienware offer OEM version of NVMe SSDs who can fit the 3rd crippled M.2 slot

A Very Tiny Samsung PM971 M.2 NVMe SSD Spotted


The PM971 series NVMe SSDs are OEM targeted and would sit slightly below the PM981 in price and performance, lets call it an entry level NVMe SSD. You can also look at the unit as Samsung 970 series SSD. Have a look at the photo first (and be amazed by the size of it).

 

Are you not amazed?

 

those prob gona be used for embeded system.
i want znand full fledged 2280 or even 22110 form factor SSDs, super fast. or super fast optane that just destroy everything.

 

HeHe, No. More as expected. Some have whispered a few words in the ear to Samsung. Want, want and want 128 GB, 256 GB, and 512 GB models. I wonder what they will charge for the HUGE 512 GB variant.

 

See:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11961/amd-announces-q3-earnings-71m-in-the-black

I asked AMD to keep pushing...

Now, it seems they have the means do so. Hope they follow through and keep hitting just as hard for a few more cycles...

They didn't really think they were just going to try to walk all over Intel without them Intel shoving back, did they?

 

AMD did well but the market looks at this as a flash in the pan, they have to show some staying power.

 

I just updated my Taichai x399 Bios to 1.7. While it is primarily for the Raid updated it seems the memory is more compatible and under SuperPI single thread about 2% faster. You can feel the slightly better snappiness as well. Where it felt slightly more sluggish than my laptop before it doesn't now.

 

I'm pretty confident in them continuing to bring this heat at least for another couple of generations.

 

the one down fall of it is infinity fabric too tied up with either IMC or something else thats affected by ram. this is a fault in design and perhaps overlooked at the beginning and was never noticed. if this flaw can be fixed, and they can drastically increase fabric speed i have no doubt it'll dominate intel cpu or bring it ever closer to intels current IPC.

all we can hope to do is ryzen 2 will have a change in architecture. also waiting for intel HEDT to allow higher oc on mesh, default 2.4ghz on mesh is a joke compare to traditional loop which is only 400-500mhz slower than core speed (4.5ghz loop vs 5ghz core overclock). if mesh can be OC'ed to say 4.5ghz then problem solved on HEDT issue.

 

AMD Threadripper vs. Intel Core i9 CPUs Clock for Clock
https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8379/amd-threadripper-vs-intel-core-i9-cpus-clock/index3.html

 

So... if those graphs are accurate... then Intel has an IPC advantage of just 7.16% (approximately) in single threaded tasks as far as Cinebech R15 goes.
Which is pretty insignificant if you ask me.
But the key point is that it performs better than Intel in Handbrake at same frequencies, consumes LESS power when clocks are pushed the same, and it costs what... $700 / £700 less?
It does seem a bit slower in wPrime, but that seems to be within a margin of error.

I just wish that reviewers stop behaving as if Intel still has 'massive IPC advantage'. This 7% differential in IPC can easily be mitigated through software optimizations, as Ryzen had almost 0 optimizations that industry software would take advantage of in terms of potential features.
I think that even Cinebench R15 is still coded with an Intel compiler simply because its efficient, but this version of the compiler does not appear to cripple AMD cpu's like previous ones did in the past... but it's still an Intel compiler, and that means it will probably favor Intel to 'some' degree which could account for single threaded result differences.

 

in this case, u'd pick intel's cpu not only because of the IPC of 7% but also the extra frequency of capable of going higher past 4ghz, a 4.5ghz overclock or 4.7ghz overclock is easily another 7-10% over what TR could do in terms of frequency. for some its not worth the premium, for some it is, which is around almost double in price for 15% more performance.

 

Ergo, not worth the premium.
If AMD makes TR on 12nm LP process, it will effectively reach (and possibly surpass) current Intel lineup in overclocked performance easily enough while keeping the same or lower power consumption.

$700/£700 extra for 15% increase in performance from overclocking is NOT worth it (and CPU is not the ONLY component that can contribute to the overall cost).
You'd also need to viably cool the entire setup.

 

TBH, I will never use all the power of the TR I have now. It is tons of extra CPU just sitting there. I could have a 7980XE but then it would be just that much more CPU that will never be really needed and a lot of extra money sitting there.

 

False. On "u" chips, you don't get to overclock on Intel (don't know about Ryzen). It is fixed frequency. On desktop chips, k, x or c skus, you are right. But if you are comparing a Ryzen apu "u" processor to Intel's desktop line in a laptop, you are comparing apples and watermelons.

 

he is talking about comparison on 7960x and TR which hmscott screenshoted, so donno why you mention other chips but 7960x can be overclocked.

for you probably not, prob not worth it for majority of others. it wont be for me either unless i know for sure mesh can be overclocked to at least 4500mhz.

intel needs to target mesh issue first and allow faster clocked mesh frequency before i look at HEDT again.

 

I have a hard time swallowing the idea that even productivity studios that use 3d software professionally would go for Intel in this instance because they are on a budget as well, and it's rather doubtful they would be spending money to overclock because they are also aiming for stability among other things.

In some of Adobe software for example, the TR was able to greatly surpass Intel - but, in all honestly, the industry devs need to stop being lazy and develop software that properly takes advantage of all hardware... not just 1 hardware in particular (aka Intel) or multi-core in general... but the features that come with BOTH architectures (they've taken advantage of Intel uArch, but none of Ryzen's in comparison).
I have a hypothetical suspicion that we could see more performance gains from Ryzen and TR in general with proper uArch optimizations from devs.

Overall, AMD is not only a cost effective solution... it's a competitive solution on both price and performance.

 

Probably nobody bothered with the last generations. I'm sure they will develop for AMD this cycle.

 

if its own personal rig, you are probably correct. however in business once a decision is made, responsibility also follows. not saying TR will have issue but in the case it does and upper management asked why havent they choose intel for something known to be more reliable, then thats definitely an issue. @tilleroftheearth can probably elaborate more on this than me.

 

Sorry, posted wrong area. Definitely was wrong (phone, etc.). Thank you for the correction.

 

Actually, they leave the determination to the IT professional, which justifies his answer. Both CPUs are reliable, the question is whether the software to be used is reliable on the platform. This is why they are doing test beds and why AMD, in the investor call, said they are mainly shipping on test beds, but that actual shipments have begun rolling in slowly. If upper management ever said something like that to me, I'd probably call them an idiot, but in kinder words. But, then again, I'm used to telling executives their plans won't work or that you cannot do something the way they want to do it. But I divide what is asked of me into two categories: 1) asking me how something should be down, and 2) telling me to make something work. The first is asking for my judgment and I'll call them an idiot all day if needed. The second, rather, is a command and is to tell me figure out how to structure the deal within the legal framework with which we must work. If they don't want my opinion, so be it (although I usually perform an executive summary of a potential alternative that could reap better benefits if I feel strongly on the topic).

 

Overall, AMD is only a cost effective solution for most current real world workstation workflows/workloads today. It can only compete on bang for the buck - not bang! period.

When time=$$$$, spending double or more (aka on a processor and/or platform) once every two/three years is not a show stopper.

Paying (pain?) each time to use a slower platform over the course of ownership is where the foolishness lies.

 

Actually it can be. When you look at the energy consumption, performance for a specified use, etc., there are times that the Intel platform DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. There are areas where its performance is lackluster, even if, overall, it has the best performance and has the best in most categories. So it isn't as simple as just saying Intel has the best performance, and if I knew for a fact the specific use case AMD outperformed, then I would speak up and have them fired, or force a presentation on justification through having an ear. Granted, that is not my place and few and far between, but you need to stop with the over-generalizations or add the proper caveats. I agree generally with the principal you state, but not the blanket statement.

 

Some Many value the performance over cost. Is up to 30% overall higher lower performance, a competitive solution?

 

It is when the only use of the product, ONLY USE, is 5-10% higher performance on AMD. Doesn't matter the overall if the sole purpose for the machine shows a deficit compared to the competitor. In those cases, it is competitive. As I said, there are not many, but there are some. Ignoring that is ignorance.

 

I would think the 5-10% higher performance you talk about (in a very very few task) will be fast eaten up with a overclock. Mind you... +-4.1GHz is what you can expect for Ryzen 1950X and the Tweaktown review already mentioned 4.0GHz in the comparison. This is only a weak start for 7960X. And I always prefer overall performance.

 

I'm not saying for us, I'm saying in a workstation in an office situation.

With that said, I'm still happy with my purchase, although I have to tear down to reseat the water block on the CPU (the 980 Ti, when overclocked, only hits 33C in firestrike while boosting to mid too high 1500s on core clock (I think 1580, if memory serves, but I was screwing around just to see what I could get considering it is a low 60s asic)). But, growing pains on my first water cooled build. Also need custom psu cables to clean things up a bit. Pics in the amd thread.

 

Everything I stated and you quoted in your post is true. Nothing you said or can say changes anything today.

There are a few areas where certain AMD platforms do outperform Intel - few being the key word. But; my post stated as much.

I am not over generalizing - you're just not reading for comprehension.

 

Wtf is your problem man? Seriously, you admit it outperforms in some areas, then say still don't buy it, even if the sole purpose is for that reason, then you accuse me of not having reading comprehension when I call out a blanket statement that needs a caveat. You go straight from content to attacking me personally. Seriously, what is your problem?

 

In most commercial environments the chip will not be overclocked be it AMD or intel. so for these systems AMD usually makes the best choice.

 

Threadripper 1900x vs Ryzen 7 1700 - 8 Core AMD Showdown!

 

Excuse me?
16c/32th TR is actually comparable, if not better at stock than Intel's 16c/32th at stock.

The 18c/36th from Intel has at best... what 10% to 20% advantage on stock?

The professional environments will probably NOT be overclocking anything for stability and cooling, and AMD being comparable in performance to the same 16c/32th Intel CPU and only 10% behind 18c/36th and by 70% or 100% CHEAPER... yeah, it IS a competitive solution (by a HUGE margin).

Professional environments are probably where these systems will be used mostly.
The average consumer likely won't be jumping on TR or Intel's high core solutions anytime soon as they are more likely to stick to 6c/12th and 8c/16th options.

Also, there's the upgrade path to consider with AMD platform which will allow use of Ryzen +, Ryzen 2 and Ryzen 3.

 

No problem on my part. You're still not reading for comprehension. I never said what you're stating below.

IF your workflow happens to fall in line with what AMD is offering; of course you buy it. I'm assuming here due diligence is done to ensure that it gives you what you need 'today' and a hope of what it may improve to 'tomorrow'. If the buying decision is based on what will happen 'tomorrow' - well; foolishness strikes again.

But read my original post again that you had a problem with. I'm not talking about the above workloads and I never said to 'still don't buy it' (it=AMD). That's your failing.

I'm not attacking you, btw. Your logic (or lack thereof) though is fair game when we're discussing on an open forum.

 

Your own words Less (performance) has never been better in my books. I expect you don’t talk about the price difference.

 

"Overall, AMD is only a cost effective solution for most current real world workstation workflows/workloads today. It can only compete on bang for the buck - not bang! period."

You later acknowledged that there is a couple areas where AMD DOES OUTPERFORM INTEL, while we both agree it is very little that it does. But, this original quote from you says directly that it cannot compete on ANY AREA OF PERFORMANCE, which is empirically false.

I was correcting as to that statement, adding the caveat that is needed to make the statement correct. This agrees with the recently quoted last statement.

You then went on to attack my reading comprehension skills, which is a personal attack at one's ability to read and understand what was written, hence a personal attack. Now, we all have misstated and restated, etc. at different points, but this isn't the case here.

Now, I was polite, or more polite than I have been in the past, dealing with this correction, and I even got you to turn around the statement by saying "IF your workflow happens to fall in line with what AMD is offering; of course you buy it," but that is NOT what was originally said. That is all.