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

This is why I put the caveat of certain areas. For example, TR trounces Intel's solutions at encoding, but fails at transcoding. So, if you needed the CPU for encoding and the majority of your workflow was encoding, not transcoding, video, then AMD is the clear choice. If, however, you do more transcoding or you use the system only 20% for those tasks, but do prime heavy tasks, then Intel is clearly going to pull ahead and you would be stupid not to get it. At stock, the power draw is roughly equal, so that is a push on a professional, not overclocked, system.

Personal use is another matter. But I still love the power of my TR 1950X and it does what I need when I do need the extra cores. But, personal versus business use and factors are weighed differently. In any case, not trying to get in the middle of that back and forth, just wanted to put that out there as it also discusses part of my last post, although graphics card encoding, which is on the rise, does favor faster single core performance, so I'd be remiss without mentioning that and no longer have the graph of comparing the two CPUs using graphics encoding, although the variance between the two in graphics accelerated encoding is less than CPU encoding differences. But it does need mentioned.

 

That is your failing to understand. Not mine.

Okay; I'll spell it out for you:

For most current real world workstation workflows/workloads today, it can only compete on bang for the buck - not bang!

I don't need correcting. I know what I wrote. If you have problems understanding what I wrote, ask for clarification, instead of assuming the worst possible. I didn't 'turn around' on any point either; as I already stated; that was already in my original post.

You or the reading skills weren't 'attacked', btw. Those are your words. They just happen to be the obvious failure in our communication and pointing them out is called constructive criticism where I'm from.

I don't see anyone else react to my posts like you. Take constructive criticism as it is intended; to help you get better at communicating with the world.

 

So, I bolded this to show no equivocation in this statement. I'm sure any competent reader can see that.

This is known as a qualification, assuming the happening of specific events which then would determine whether and which platform is suited for your needs. This is not embedded in the original statement that has ZERO equivocation or caveats discussing needs or performance in specific areas.

This new statement now adds a modifier to the original statement, which was absolute and unequivocal in its statement.

For someone trying to be critical of another's reading comprehension skills, maybe you should not throw stones, as it is obvious here that the statement has changed. Now, my original point in my original post was to incorporate what is found in these later posts, qualifications to the original statement. Do you understand what I was getting at yet? Or do I need to break this down further, such as what the meaning of "only" and "most" are in the English language and in this context?

 

Still remains your issue. I tried to help you see my point of view but you're not willing to do this.

I don't speak English natively, but I've never had such problems being understood before. Especially after I've explained myself multiple times.

Good luck.

 

Now, I did not know the native speaker part, which you are well worded and usually can convey what you mean, even if we disagree on content. This will come in handy for future misunderstandings. But, the issue is you said that you didn't change the meaning of the original statement, yet going from an unequivocal to a qualified statement changes the meaning of the statement. This is why I just mentioned needing the qualifier there. Other than that, we agree.

So take this as constructive criticism on qualifications and being able to take a critique on your precision in your writing. I will take you at your word, which is why I added the qualifier that set off this string of discussion. I will read things a bit looser in the future moving forward (we actually have never discussed native fluency before, other than me being accused of not being fluent when I'm definitely fluent in English, although that was not an accusation from you, nor is this meant as a jab at you).

Content-wise, we are agreeing, now, after the qualification, so we are all good from there. Just be careful with the absolute versus qualified modifiers, and if in doubt, use most if you know it is over 50%, but may be less than 100%. Another good one is "practically", which helps to say even if it is not all or only, for most intents and purposes, it is all or only. Sorry, kind of a nut on specific language to convey meaning, although in person, with inflection present by the speaker, it is easier to tell hyperbole or stretches in a statement.

 

I didn't change my statements, as I have stated many times. Although I did try to make them easier for you to understand.

The whole post, 'in whole', is critical to what I'm usually trying to convey. Not just bits and pieces of it.

 

The second and third paragraphs, here, do not modify the absolute nature of the first two sentences. In fact, the first speaks to CPU performance, the second speaks to the cost of the platform over the period of ownership. The third speaks to the wisdom of purchasing a slower platform for your purpose. So the second and third paragraphs I did not attack the content, other than mentioning more on the full array of considerations, which even I fell short on enumerating all considerations and will admit I was not as clear on my point as in later posts. But, that definitely means, since later statements qualify the first paragraph, you changed your statement. That is critical reading!

Now, the qualifier here of "usually" is perfect, as that makes the statement true, although it doesn't apply in this specific case.

 

Considering we live in Capitalism and not Resource Based Economy, price/cost of something that does matter (of course in RBE, technology would be far more advanced and we wouldn't have 'competing' companies in the first place, but people who collaborate and share ideas between each other to create the best possible solutions with minimum resource expenditure and preservation of the environment - imagine what AMD and Intel engineers could cook up together if they were to collaborate to create the BEST possible in terms of technology with all the patents available to them along with far superior methods of production while implementing Buckminster Fuller policy of 'doing more with less').

But I digress...
Unless you have cash to burn, most people will usually look towards a more cost effective solution that brings same/similar performance for lower amount of money.
In case of professional studios/environments, they won't be overclocking these systems to begin with as they want stability and adequate cooling, so comparing stock to stock, AMD is the better option from not just monetary expenditure but also power draw and overall performance.
Studios are also on a budget... I doubt they would want to pay 100% more for Intel when they can get maybe 10% to 20% lower performance than Intel's highest core solution - whereas a comparable 16c/32th Intel CPU would result in 70% increase in price (sorry, but I wouldn't see it as worthwhile, especially with the overall lack of upgrade path on Intel's side - which should also be taken into account).

 

@ole!!! - for the pricing on the Optane drives mentioned:
https://hexus.net/tech/news/storage/111560-intel-optane-ssd-900p-series-desktops-launched/

No mention of Intel exclusive.

 

From what I've seen, there are a couple compounding factors:

First, while that applies fine to smaller businesses, the difference in performance to difference in price in a long run scenario can equalize and then go the other direction. Larger businesses have proven themselves to reliably buy this way, an extra 70% initial cost is a drop in the bucket to them compared to whatever they're making in the long run with that part if it even performs a few percentage points better. What might be an efficiency and initial cost consideration for a small business is irrelevant for a larger one. It's why NVidia can get away with charging so much for Quadro cards too.

Second, a lot of entities have "use it or lose it" budgets and everyone involved in making purchasing decisions are ok with filling out that budget so they don't have less next time.

Both of these things combine in some companies (and before you say it, nobody ever gets fired over it, the people who would be firing them have either already approved or don't care) to mean that they will go for the highest performance they can afford even if it's not the highest performance per dollar.

 

A TR system overall is about $4,000 with a 1950x, and for a 7980XE about $5,000. So overall increase is 25% for about 10% increase in stock performance in some area's. For some companies and workflows this will be justifiable but not for all. Personally for me it was not worth all that extra.

In the end I have absolutely nothing that can fully max out my 1950x. Not even slightly close. Why spend an extra $1000 for in the end nothing?

 

Yup, it's easy to scale up the PC build and arrive at a number you wouldn't have entertained when starting out

I always try to reconfigure for cheaper after I get the ultimate build laid out, then trade off something for another to get the price down while increasing performance, or at least the same performance.

I hate paying retail full boat, so I often wait till long after the rush from initial release thins out, it can take a while, like a year or more, but I've usually got enough compute power to keep my busy anyway, so no rush.

$4k is still a lot for a computer, so waiting for sales for each component and getting it all for at least 25% discount knocks off $1000 more than that $1k differential, and over time all those $1000's saved add up to real money

 

Does not seem to matter how well I try to explain myself to you. It makes not one iota of difference.

You can twist and mangle the meaning of my words for your own benefit, but that doesn't make your point of view correct. Even when I keep telling you that you're misunderstanding me and/or making conclusions/assumptions I did not mean.

At this point of the conversation, I don't think you're even trying to understand. No prob. You don't have to. Have a good morning.

 

I still dont get it why you still preaches/say AMD is a better options for overall performance. Maybe you have seen other reviews than what I have. But I doubt it. Here are a few reviews I have collected earlier for the forum. Take a look if you still haven't seen them.

 

It doesn't matter if Intel is a little faster if AMD is cheaper overall, that's why he said "AMD is a better options for overall performance"

I understood it, I think you did too

Besides, Intel needs to know we know what they have done over the years to us and their competitors, and we don't approve, and we don't want to fund them and their actions. So it's time to stop buying Intel, now that AMD is a viable alternative.

It's little consequence if Intel is a little faster, or even a lot faster, if AMD CPU and GPU alternatives work for what we need done.

Intel / Nvidia provide no performance improvement worth not getting AMD solutions.

The performance game means nothing when it's time to stop supporting ruthless would-be monopolies.

"When firms have such power, they charge prices that are higher than can be justified based upon the costs of production, prices that are higher than they would be if the market was more competitive. ... The bottom line is that when companies have a monopoly, prices are too high and production is too low." - Sep 18, 2014
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-so-bad-about-monopoly-power/

We have a chance to stop funding Intel and Nvidia's monopoly over the CPU and GPU markets, it's time we wise up and use our consumer power to make it happen.

 

a more reliable system, TR still new product, the fast ST performance that you'll use everyday regardless of type of software (consumer/prosumer etc), less ram penalized related system.

all of these probably doesn't justify the $1000 except for reliability.

 

While the Ryzen has no real time out there for proven reliability I tend to trust that they have some staying power. Then again you never know, maybe they will all die the day after the warranties run out.

 

yea no choice but to trust all tech are like that and it'll be of the past eventually. for business side of thing is a legitimate concern though, consumer side we do what we want really.

also you'd get optane SSDs now pair it up with AMD system, because storage performance is lower on AMD's system, optane's high performance will render AMD system penalties to neglect-able. money you saved can be used on things like these, higher end storage or faster ram or better GPU in general.

 

I understand what you say, but I can’t defend buying less performance if I shell out +$4000 on a brand new system. I don’t buy new computers each or every second year. But that’s me. I of many here understand exactly why we need AMD. But they can’t offer what I want. The reality can’t be changed.

This is exactly the same as saying I should buy the new Asusbook with Ryzen and Amd graphics. Will never ever happen!!

 

Your life wouldn't be reduced by getting AMD instead of Intel / Nvidia, it would be more enlightened.

You are limiting your life, a slave to numbers that mean nothing.

It's very short sighted. And, more expensive, heavy, and noisy.

 

AMD and the foundries they use do have a long history of success and reliability.

The new generation Intel are as new and unknown for their reliability as AMD's new releases.

That's how it works with every new generation of process / architecture.

 

The way I figure it is it will be quite some time before this hardware is over the hill. Applications have not scaled to CPU cycles like they used to. I had owned the same hardware since 2012 and it hasn't slowed down at all. Other that some larger video files and encodes it I all about the same.

Now I just upped by at least a total of 4 times the compute power with the TR. Unless there are some major changes on the software fronts to require CPU power I am not sure when this system will be strained. For that matter the same falls true of almost any Ryzen to varying degree's. On this note why would a casual or business consumer pay the premium in most cases for Intel when it is not required. About the only holdback may be if IT departments look at AMD as a high cost of ownership in troubleshooting/downtime. Since there does not seem to be a rush of complaints around this may not be an issue.

 

They haven't for a few generations TBH, I'm only now considering replacing a Haswell i5, and that's an unlocked one running at stock clocks, so I have some room to wait if I OC.

 

If you wanna buy a taptop that actually works, avoid ASUS like the plague. I will be interested in buying a Ryzen taptop if you can find me one . Preferable a 5GHz one out of the box

 

Ryzen and 5GHz ? LOOL. Forget more than 4.1-4.3GHz even in a decent homebuild desktops.

 

I thought the whole point of Mr. Ryzen was to give us higher clocks

 

I fix it for j00

 

Say what you want about other aspects of ASUS computers, in my experience they keep working the longest (and my two longest running systems are one that's been running since 2007 and one that's been running since 2010)

 

Very old post of mine, but let me copy/paste.........

Basically, not one ASUS laptop that I bought worked.....


click on the spoiler:

Spoiler: My ASUS Laptops Experience

1) Returned my ASUS G751JY



2) ASUS = 0 quality, it's a matter of luck if you get a 100% working ASUS laptop, or any piece of hardware made by ASUS.



3) All the latest and previous last 3 Gen ASUS ROG laptops have USB port issues, it's all over their ROG forums



4) And old post I made 1 year back.......



All ASUS laptops has a problem with the left USB 3.0 Ports. You plug in a USB 3.0 HDD to the left top or left bottom ports and it will randomly keep disconnecting. That is for all G750 series, JX,JW,JH,JZ,JS, you name it. don't believe me, just hang around on the ROG forums and see the jokes of problems they have. pathetic for the amount of money you pay. problems with screens, auto dimming problem, contrast problem.


I wouldn't use an ASUS laptop anymore even if they gave it to me for free! cheap Taiwanese crap!


Did I forget to mention...


their implementation of Optimus is messed up...it is very tricky to force games to use your nVIDIA GPU unless you do a lot of settings and even then users on their forums complain that the freakin' games are using the Intel HD Graphics! LOL! horrible!


you want Testimony ? Please take the time to read this:


why ASUS? because people who buy ASUS cannot afford Clevo, no other reason on earth...that's a fact...I was one of them...


First laptop, 2 years ago..


G73Sw:


bought it and ran home like a little child wanting to see my lights in the chiclet keyboards....ooops...no lights...tried all driver updates..BIOS update...nope..


Called ASUS, they told me to bring it to the service center it's an easy fix!! whaaaat?? I buy a 2000 USD laptop and go to the service center next day? oh well..I did and they activated it with their BIOS tweak utility that they don't give to customers! great quality control Taiwanese Engineers! send out laptops for sale that don't work properly as advertised...


after 1 week...the screen started giving me fuzzy images...closing/opening the screen lid fixed the problem....wow!! what did I buy? a 1990 Toyota Corolla or a brand new gaming laptop??


They said they need to replace my screen! wow!! the laptop can't last a week without being repaired! i fought for a refund and got it after a long hassle...


next laptop...


ASUS G75VW,


ASUS decided to remove their awesome creative sound blaster audio chipset and put some cheap VIA audio chipset which made the subwoofer act like a center speaker rather than a subwoofer..


also..I only had the option to get the matte screen...oh well...people say matte is good...right? NOPE! not on ASUS! the ASUS matte screens look as if someone spilled grease all over them. very grainy image especially if you look at a white screen such as these forums or Google..if you look close..you can see the pixels of colorful rainbows! again shocked in awe for this cheap crap!


So I called ASUS complaining about the quality of the screen, they offered to change it to the 3D screen not coz I want 3D, but only because that is the only screen they have that is Glossy..


took the laptop...2 days..I get a call...sorry sir, we changed your screen, but fried your motherboard....we have no spare motherboards...so if you pay $500 USD we can give you a G750JX instead or you can wait till god knows when till we get a motherboard from Taiwan...


so I got the G750JX...


very bad driver support....ASUS released the win 8.1 drivers after 6 months of win 8.1 was released...anyone who upgraded while having the old drivers either got a non booting laptop after the upgrade due to outdated bluetooth/wifi drivers or had horrible problems....


next comes the 2D performance of their GTX770M....there is something not right about it! 3D was fine and performed as it should...but 2D was glitchy and choppy...imagine even a simple game of solitaire..the motion of the cards wasn't fluid...I used to get jealouse when I see my friends' Intel HD Graphics perform so smoothly in the Windows environment while my brand new gaming laptop cries in 2D...opening tabs in firefox...wow..another plethora of jerkiness / slow motion


next...they put cheap Atheros WLAN chipsets which cannot connect above 72 MBPS!! wow! had to pay 50 USD and get a Bigfoot Wireless N-Killer from the US and pay customs just to have a laptop perform like a normal computer


next.... USB 3.0 problems..


basically, I had to connect my USB drives to the right ports and the left ones were kept for my mouse and printer? why? because ASUS cannot produce a piece of hardware that functions right! they claim all ports are USB 3.0 and they are all in blue color...BIG LIE! it wasn't only me, I posted this on the ROG forums and every single one of the members verified the same!


I can't find my thread that I started, but here are 2 examples I quickly grabbed:


Asus G750 USB 3.0 Ports not working with some things


and


Is it normal that the top left USB port is very slow?


ASUS? HELLL NO!!


Worst case scenario, save some money and wait, then get a real gaming laptop from Alienware and be happy for life! rather than bite your fingers after you buy your ASUS


A quick Google search on the G750JX presents exactly what I experienced! I've probably formatted that laptop over 200 times twice daily just trying to make it work but every time some quirk happens...


USB 3.0 sooooo Slow on ASUS g750 jx [Solved] - Asus - Laptop Tech Support


USB problems G750 JX


Just got a G750JX, and with it, a whole suite of problems..


Asus ROG: G750JX-RB71 Screen Ghosting..


http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus-gaming-notebook-forum/727019-big-green-float-g750jx-screen.html


G750JX Cheap display, horizontal lines - www.hardwarezone.com.sg


Brand New Asus G750JX-RB71 has been crashing repeatedly


G750JX - 1day old - Black Screen and not Booting

 

asus and their custom form factor mobile GPU or all bga style.

their desktop side of things are super high end they dont waste any effort on it but when comes to mobile, they are in line with intel and nvidia full on m!lk scheme.

 

If I average your and my experiences with the laptops we purchased I get about 50% reliability, but while I was working RMA I saw the back end of it, and the number of repairs/returns requested was minuscule compared to the numbers we sold. I don't know what they're like now, but I doubt much has changed. Either almost no one who had a problem with their computer was contacting us after sale or the bad experiences are concentrated online while the good ones are silent. I cannot prove the former isn't the case but I suspect the latter is more probable. There were some particular models that had some issues but I couldn't extend that problem to the whole brand.

 

I get that having a bad experience is something we don't get over too quickly. But Asus notebooks, like almost all their products, are the first choice to recommend to clients for 'normal' workloads.

Even my circa 2010 U30Jc is still going strong (I used it personally for a long time as my digital 'notebook' - I have donated it since last year to a deserving student).

The experiences Phoenix describes are painful. But those are also not the type of Asus products I would ever recommend too.

 

I won't claim they're a perfect company, and occasionally disagree with their design decisions, but at the end of the day, they still stand out to me as the brand whose machines just won't die.

 

reminds me of dell xps m2010, still love this machine. if i had the time i'd love to learn bios/vbios/display mod, then find a possible upgrade on GPU for that ancient machine.

 

My previous record-holder before the two ASUS models was an Inspiron from (2001?) that lasted several years beyond expectations.

 

Looks like we may be getting Intel CPU's with AMD IGP's.

 

Confirmed by AMD & Intel - Rivals Intel and AMD Team Up on PC Chips to Battle NVidia
Today at 8:10 AM.
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...team-up-on-pc-chips-to-battle-nvidia.2525951/

AMD Delivers Semi-Custom Graphics Chip For New Intel Processor
SUNNYVALE, Calif., Nov. 06, 2017
http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2314567

New Intel Core Processor Combines High-Performance CPU with Custom Discrete Graphics from AMD to Enable Sleeker, Thinner Devices
November 6, 2017
https://newsroom.intel.com/editoria...cpu-discrete-graphics-sleek-thin-devices/amp/

Anandtech links has previous denials and announcements...

What a silly idea...I'm sure Nvidia is quaking in their boots

 

It is just the IGP, NVidia may compete there with their lower end offerings but that is about it.

 

If they can actually run with the low end of competing discrete gaming cards I'll be impressed. I'm sure they'll have no problem knocking off the bare minimum -30 and -40 series, maybe even punch at the -50 in some cases, but I doubt they'll make much of a dent in the gaming scene.

 

FYI - x299 VRM thermal issues with high core count i9 CPU's

When You Should Care About VRM Temperatures (Ft. Der8auer)

ASUS Rampage VI Extreme VRM Thermals with Intel i9-7980XE (Ft. Der8auer)
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3113-asus-rampage-vi-extreme-vrm-thermals

 

Glued together solution AMD Is probably happy that they ain’t alone anymore with this tech solution

 

This is one thing I don't recall running up against in past builds. He's probably right about the higher powered CPUs but I just don't recall seeing it even in fairly powerful HEDT setups before now.

 

The change in specifications from 10c/20t max power / thermal requirements to 18c/36c is also unprecedented, and is the cause of the ill spec'd x299 boards.

The vendors simply didn't have all the knowledge of the new CPU's available for their designs and builds. How could they be to blame for problems with 18c/36t motherboards when they were designing x299 boards for 10c/20t specifications?

It's all Intel's fault.

 

No argument there, they really should have shared that.

 

Intel probably did as soon as they changed their release scope, but it was too late to make the design and production changes, the vendors were committed.

I assume that was why Intel delayed the release of the higher than 10c/20t CPU's, so the motherboard vendors could develop and ship up-rated power and cooling versions of their x299 motherboards.

With that delay and news like those articles and video's posted about VRM design / product problems I would have expected to see more new x299 motherboards by now.

Maybe next year, or next generation?

 

I'm gonna go with early 2018 for my guess.

 

All Intel's fault? No.

I find it hard to believe that a 25W TDP difference (for the highest end 7940X, 7960X, 7980XE processors) would make these boards so bad.

The M/B manufacturers were just shaving cost from where they shouldn't, imo.

 

The 25w TDP difference will increase a lot with overclocking. And all know HEDT will be used by enthusiasts It's a huge difference in max power draw between a nice oc'd 10 core 7900 vs. 16 cores i9-7960. Or not forget 7980xe.

 

No doubt O/C'ing will increase that TDP difference - but it is still a very small window for error for the M/B makers to have built in. That is only less than ~18% headroom. Very poor decision on their part.

If everything was done at this low window of error margin; I'd consider this normal. But this isn't seen anywhere else previously.

Especially for an enthusiast computer part that is known to be pushed to it's limits and beyond? This is just issuing garbage to consumers.

I can't see how Intel can be at fault for that. They can't buy out everyone.

I can give them a pass if the boards can be returned/replaced with a proper/working/'fixed' version. We all make mistakes, after all. But crying that Intel is to blame is not how I see this.

It doesn't matter if the product has 10C or 20C or 40c or more - the TDP rating covers it all.

Does any 10C cpu give similarly bad results? If it does; the blame is firmly in the M/B manufacturers hands. Otherwise, Intel is partly to blame - I agree - but most of the blame is still on M/B makers shoulders - it's their product, they designed it and they know the limits of it, after all.