AMD RYZEN 9 v.s Intel i9

[Black_Panther]

AMD is soon releasing a new enthusiasts CPU called "Threadthipper" and Intel is also about to release the intel i9 series.

 

 

source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3197184/components-processors/amd-ryzen-threadripper-prices-specs-release-date-and-more.html

 

 

Source:http://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-core-i9-leaks-its-not-a-question-of-whether-you-really-need-twelve-cores-on-the-desktop-but-of/

For High end computing such as video editing, 3D modelling and CAD (perhaps 3D scanning and 3D printing (pre-processing))... 

 

What's your take on these?

If you have anymore information please do share, speculations are also welcome

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Black_Panther said:

AMD is soon releasing a new enthusiasts CPU called "Threadthipper" and Intel is also about to release the intel i9 series.

I already see a flame war coming...

[Mohenjo]

if i didnt care about price, probably the i9 for that higher ipc and most likely better overclocking potential

[grimreeper132]

depends on  the price, same price the R9 looks better, cause if your able to use 12 cores fully, you probably will be able to use 16 fully, making R9 better, but if the 12 core i9 is £500 (doubt it) and it's competing against the R7 1700-1800X (cause I doubt R9 will be that low then i9. So in the end it completely lies on the price of these CPUs

[grimreeper132]

2 minutes ago, Mohenjo said:

if i didnt care about price, probably the i9 for that higher ipc and most likely better overclocking potential

if you could use all  12 cores of the i9 you could probably use all 16 cores of the R9 and your workload probably would  benefit from the more cores of the R9, cause your able to use the 12 cores fully, so sames probably true about the 16, so the slightly lower IPC, doesn't matter of the R9 cause it's extra cores more than make up for it, iof not more, assuming the same price I would say R9, that being said, the big thing there is "assuming the same price" this entirely relies on the price of the 2, but I feel the R9 line up will be cheaper, because the R7/5 line up was alot cheaper than intels but yea, really in the end it relates to price

[Mohenjo]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

if you could use all  12 cores of the i9 you could probably use all 16 cores of the R9 and your workload probably would  benefit from the more cores of the R9, cause your able to use the 12 cores fully, so sames probably true about the 16, so the slightly lower IPC, doesn't matter of the R9 cause it's extra cores more than make up for it, iof not more, assuming the same price I would say R9, that being said, the big thing there is "assuming the same price" this entirely relies on the price of the 2, but I feel the R9 line up will be cheaper, because the R7/5 line up was alot cheaper than intels but yea, really in the end it relates to price

i personally would not utilize all the cores. I would be gaming lol. So for me the i9 makes more sense, but i would never ever buy it.  I dont even utilize 50 percent of my 6700k. 

[WereCat]

Neither, I don't need it.

[grimreeper132]

5 minutes ago, Mohenjo said:

i personally would not utilize all the cores. I would be gaming lol. So for me the i9 makes more sense, but i would never ever buy it.  I dont even utilize 50 percent of my 6700k. 

yea that sorta shows it, gaming wise quads are good enough, mind you I recon due to the R7 and R5 that soon games will be able to use more cores, and for me more cores would be good to a point, as I do some CAD, meaning the perfect CPU would probably be the R7 1700 overclocked. That being said I would love either a R9 or i9 CPU cause bragging rights entirely. I might look at the 10 core R9 though, cause bragging rights and quad channel memory could be handy

[tom_w141]

Threadripper because:

 

- Its only a little behind on IPC and you shouldn't be buying this kind of CPU for single threaded workloads.

- When multithreaded 16 cores @ ~ 3.5GHz beats 12 @ ~ 4GHz.

- It has a better chance of being reasonably priced whereas the i9 will likely cost you your house.

[PSUGuru]

Threadripper workstations only.

 

i9 for both gaming and workstations.

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, QuantumElement said:

Threadripper workstations only.

 

i9 for both gaming and workstations.

Not really as it will only be slightly behind in single threaded games, even then we are talking the high refresh rate territory at 1080p.

 

However it should prove better at multithreaded work station tasks so anyone that has to do both would get the Threadripper for the following reasons:

 

- At 4k, 1440p or <100Hz 1080p gaming it won't be any different.

- Multithreaded workstation tasks it should be better.

- Wouldn't be surprised if it was half the price or maybe even less. You could use this saving on a better GPU or multi GPU. Or build a 2nd PC dedicated to gaming  If Intel follow X99 pricing trend (8 core CPU $1000) then I don't foresee it being a better option than Threadripper.

[Biggerboot]

Overall I couldn't say until they came out, but I think if I were in the market for something with this many cores I wouldn't be looking at gaming, so likely it would be thread ripper.  But with the i9, just like the i7 x99's, you can have your cake and eat it too, with a price.

[UglyDuckiling]

Neither will OC more than 500hz so expect it to be a bad gaming chip.

[Biggerboot]

Side note: honestly a dual socket xeon would probably be a better value than either of these chips. 

[MasterChromatica]

I would choose the R9, even though I dont do things with cad and 3D, you would still destroy anything you throw at Plex. I have a 1600 which is 6 cores and I can have 6 4K transcodes on medium x264 settings and still have enough headroom for gaming @1080p60. So I think this CPU will be able to double those transcodes and still have room for gaming. 

[Black_Panther]

1 hour ago, Biggerboot said:

Side note: honestly a dual socket xeon would probably be a better value than either of these chips. 

What's the price range of Xeons again? ...12 cores 24 threads upwards

[Black_Panther]

1 hour ago, Biggerboot said:

Side note: honestly a dual socket xeon would probably be a better value than either of these chips. 

What's the price range of Xeons again? ...12 cores 24 threads upwards

[Biggerboot]

17 hours ago, Black_Panther said:

What's the price range of Xeons again? ...12 cores 24 threads upwards

They're quite up there, but I would say if you can go used take advantage of that.  

 

LGA 2011 becomes worth it if you go dual socket (so 2x 6 cores).  So something like $300usd for the motherboard, but $50usd for each cpu.  You also get a ton of cache and ECC support if you needed that.

 

Broadwell/Skylake single Xeons of that core count are much pricier, like $2000+.  Up to this point those core counts were really for servers in larger organizations, so there's a premium associated with those.