Help: X299 vs AM4 2 years down the road.

[Atra1n2]

4 minutes ago, asand1 said:

Iirc half the PCI lanes and no raid to begin with. X299 is a neutered Xeon, so as to not cut into Xeon sales. X299 was a knee jerk reaction and a half assed product not keep sales from AMD , and just leaves Intel fanboys with a handicapped CPU. 

The two skylake based tiers will include 28 & 44 lane; which honestly sounds like plenty for the OP. x16 for 1 gpu, maybe x4 for pcie based nvme storage, and 8 more on the lowest end for whatever else. PCI-e raids are a different story, however with drives like the 960 pro that can reach 3.5 GB/S sequential reads, I just don't see a need to raid these type of drives. Keep raiding SATA if you must for backups, etc.

[VagabondWraith]

If you want the best performance, go X299. You can then upgrade your chip to a higher end one, if you need. Whether that's Skylake-X or Coffeelake-X. X299 is also a better platform. With the 7800X you'll have 28 lanes which is more than the AM4 platform. The 7800X at 6 cores also nips at the heels of 8 core Ryzen's.

 

@done12many2 can also tell you about the benefits of X299.

[Rig98]

3 minutes ago, robotsalad said:

7800X is good I would buy that if I could because it's beastly but doesn't have so much extra that I don't need.  But you really don't need it to be honest it seems like you just want a beast computer.

Yes i do want something similar to a beast. Best i can get now that will hold out for several years with upgrade ability. 

[robotsalad]

2 minutes ago, Rig98 said:

I have no specific interest in raid other than as backup. and its not like 1700x is rocking huge PCIe lane numbers.

threadripper will

[Jurrunio]

That depends on how much you can afford to upgrade in the future.

 

X299 is faster no doubt, but the 10-core 7900x you talked about costs $1000 new. Let's say 2 years later it prices dropped by 30%. You are now with a $700 CPU. Can you afford that? It also runs hot even with water cooling when overclocked. Ironically, overclocking ability is the main selling point for Intel CPUs

 

Threadripper's price haven't been disclosed yet by AMD. Rumour mentioned $850 for 16-core one. Let's say it also lost 30% of its value, at $600 2 years later. In this case, Threadripper is a much better value than X299 since it packed 6 (60%) more cores but lower clock speed.

 

X370 is not worth considering if CPUs with more than 8 cores are what you want to get in the future. Threadripper looks like (and likely to be) 2 Ryzen chips welded into 1. Therefore it's likely not to get past 8 cores in the future.

8 minutes ago, Rig98 said:

My problem with waiting for X399 is price. With the cost of X370 being comparable to X299 i can only assume X399 is going to be really pricey, not even knowing what CPU cost will be, and will cut into the other components i want.

X399 prices won't be too much more than current X370. Low price is AMD chips' selling point, and they are well aware of that.

[VagabondWraith]

8 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Well ryzen has been garunteed at least 2 more generations on the same chipset (maybe 3) and the promise of at least 15% ipc improvement per generation with the potential for more cores.

 

Definitely ryzen.

 

Also X299 is insanely hot.

If you actually owned the hardware you'd know your statement about it being "insanely hot" is complete hogwash.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, asand1 said:

Isn't it like 24 vs 40 or something? Personally I don't care, just pointing out the difference in functionality and value.

1700 has 24 lanes from the CPU, but only 8 from the chipsets. 

 

And RAID is available on X299. The key is only for a specific type of RAID. 

[Rig98]

2 minutes ago, asand1 said:

Isn't it like 24 vs 40 or something? Personally I don't care, just pointing out the difference in functionality and value.

7800X doesnt have the full 40 but i can upgrade to it. I believe the 1700x is at 24 yes.

[robotsalad]

2 minutes ago, Rig98 said:

Yes i do want something similar to a beast. Best i can get now that will hold out for several years with upgrade ability. 

x299 sounds like your guy

[BluJay614]

4 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Threadripper is using the same dies as Ryzen 7, and Ryzen 7 hits a wall at 4 ghz. Ryzen is behind Intel when it comes to single threaded performance and OCing.

 

Of course this isn't technically definitive, but I think it's safe to say that I have a 99.99999999% chance of being right.

So you are making an extreme assumption and claiming it as definitive fact without anything other then speculation to back it up.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Rig98 said:

7800X doesnt have the full 40 but i can upgrade to it. I believe the 1700x is at 24 yes.

 

Hey bud.  If you're looking for one platform that will allow the options of 6c/12t through 18c/36t based on your needs at the time, x299 is your only option.

 

Start out like you are planning with the 6 core part and pick up a higher core count part next year sometime if you need it and when people start to sell of the higher core part used when Intel's next best thing comes along next summer.  

[ARikozuM]

Just now, BluJay614 said:

So you are making an extreme assumption and claiming it as definitive fact without anything other then speculation to back it up.

Benchmarks, gaming, and production will back up those indications. And i5-7600K matched a 1600 in gaming and the i7-7700K swept it with the Ryzen system having overclocked RAM and the Intel bench being at base speed (and yes, RAM speed makes a difference for both platforms). 

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, BluJay614 said:

So you are making an extreme assumption and claiming it as definitive fact without anything other then speculation to back it up.

 

Unless AMD some how miracles and entirely new architecture by next month expect single threaded performance to remain lower than the Intel equivalent.  What @DocSwag is saying is based on common sense.  

[Rig98]

Its starting to seem like X299 mainly due to AMDs split of the platform to support Threadripper. I hope some solid info comes out on it soon.

[Damascus]

6 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

If you actually owned the hardware you'd know your statement about it being "insanely hot" is complete hogwash.

Maybe but I trust gamers nexus.  You can just look at the amount of current the damn things are pulling to back that up.

 

Why don't you share your OC, voltages and temps (and whether you delidded) instead of un helpfully sniping.

[VagabondWraith]

5 minutes ago, Rig98 said:

7800X doesnt have the full 40 but i can upgrade to it. I believe the 1700x is at 24 yes.

AM4 has 24 lanes, only 20 which are usable. And Ryzen chipset lanes are 8x PCIe 2.0. Skylake-X is 3.0 for 28 lanes on the CPU, plus 24 more from the chipset.

[robotsalad]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Benchmarks, gaming, and production will back up those indications. And i5-7600K matched a 1600 in gaming and the i7-7700K swept it with the Ryzen system having overclocked RAM and the Intel bench being at base speed (and yes, RAM speed makes a difference for both platforms). 

that only matters if he has a 200Hz display

[done12many2]

Just now, VagabondWraith said:

AM4 has 24 lanes, only 20 which are usable. And Ryzen chipset lanes are 8x PCIe 2.0. Skylake-X is 3.0 for 28 lanes on the CPU, plus 24 more from the chipset.

9 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

1700 has 24 lanes from the CPU, but only 8 from the chipsets. 

 

And RAID is available on X299. The key is only for a specific type of RAID. 

 

Only 16 PCIe lanes are for use with GPUs.  Of the 24, 4 are routed to the chipset and 4 are routed to NVMe M.2.  This leaves 16 usable.  

[VagabondWraith]

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Maybe but I trust gamers nexus.  You can just look at the amount of current the damn things are pulling to back that up.

 

Why don't you share your OC, voltages and temps (and whether you delidded) instead of un helpfully sniping.

Come again?

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, robotsalad said:

that only matters if he has a 200Hz display

No, it doesn't. RAM speed can have a huge impact to minimum frame-rates as well as overall frame-times. 

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, robotsalad said:

that only matters if he has a 200Hz display

 

High IPC and single-thread performance matter to much more than just gaming.  Don't buy into the single-threaded performance isn't as important type kool-aid.  Strong cores are just that.  Strong cores.  

[Atra1n2]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

No, it doesn't. RAM speed can have a huge impact to minimum frame-rates as well as overall frame-times. 

It's been mentioned by several YouTubers and others in the Tech world that Ryzen CPUs benefit greatly from faster RAM.

[Damascus]

1 minute ago, VagabondWraith said:

Come again?

OK,  you are running a 4.6ghz oc.  That answers one question, not exactly helping on temps while running a stress test or whether it's delidded. 

 

 

[done12many2]

5 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Maybe but I trust gamers nexus.  You can just look at the amount of current the damn things are pulling to back that up.

 

Why don't you share your OC, voltages and temps (and whether you delidded) instead of un helpfully sniping.

 

4.9 GHz at 1.255v.  Trust me, Skylake-X is fast.  I don't care what clickbait YouTubers are trying to say about it.  

[Atra1n2]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

High IPC and single-thread performance matter to much more than just gaming.  Don't buy into the single-threaded performance isn't as important type kool-aid.  Strong cores are just that.  Strong cores.  

You're right. Core count is irrelevant if your single-threaded performance is no good, especially considering that today's triple A games only utilize 4 cores at most.