Core i9 for what ???

[Anas Dweik]

Core I9 for what usage ?

2000$ cpu 

For gaming or edit or what ?

[Merppp]

For pixar

[WereCat]

Cinebench R15

[tom_w141]

For trying their luck to see if anyone is dumb enough to pay 2 grand for 2 more cores than threadripper will have.

[EurypteridX]

for 3d rendering, data processing, game server etc

[EurypteridX]

most of the usual workstation/server workload

 

[Guest]

• Bragging rights
• Workstation/content creation that uses lot of threads/cores
• Intel fanboy
• Because it's i9
• For fun
• Benchmarking purpose

[Guest]

5 hours ago, WereCat said:

Cinebench R15

get beaten by 7700k in single core performance 

 

but but more cores...

 

I think.

[WereCat]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

get beaten by 7700k in single core performance 

 

but but more cores...

 

I think.

Well, it is the core feature of that CPU so...

[Limecat86]

Workstation/Server usages like content creation, streaming, dataprocessing.

 An i9 for a gaming machine would be a waste of money.

[SCHISCHKA]

last i heard movie production CGI work is still done on the CPU rather than GPU because system RAM is so much higher. I rendered a scene once at uni and I had to cut out a lot of particle effects coz their computers only had 2GB of RAM.

[tridy]

i9 - as a heating element in the room. 140W - that's going to be literary hot.

 

In the same way as Xeons are overkill, i9 and thrdrppr will be as well. for most uses, I believe.

 

Could anyone give a scenario (besides 3d rendering, and benchmarking, and stuff like that) where consumer level i7 or Ryzen would bottleneck in games, code compiling, development etc?

 

To me it looks more of a "CPU SLI/Crossfire" rather than something that was designed to be truly multi-core. A quick and really dirty solution and a show-off. I hoped that processors would gradually increase the number of cores and optimize the architecture, size and energy consumption over time. Instead we got ... well ... that. Just because they can, I think.

 

 

 

 

 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

20 minutes ago, tridy said:

i9 - as a heating element in the room. 140W - that's going to be literary hot.

 

In the same way as Xeons are overkill, i9 and thrdrppr will be as well. for most uses, I believe.

 

Could anyone give a scenario (besides 3d rendering, and benchmarking, and stuff like that) where consumer level i7 or Ryzen would bottleneck in games, code compiling, development etc?

 

To me it looks more of a "CPU SLI/Crossfire" rather than something that was designed to be truly multi-core. A quick and really dirty solution and a show-off. I hoped that processors would gradually increase the number of cores and optimize the architecture, size and energy consumption over time. Instead we got ... well ... that. Just because they can, I think.

I personally wish Intel or AMD would come up with a new CPU architecture that would at least have a part in making already existing programs / processes several times faster.  I don't want to have to wait for developers to rewrite their software to support the new CPUs.  Also I might want to run older software that has a feature I like (or lacks a feature I hate - hello Microsoft?) that's no longer in development, or maybe even abandoned, and maybe doesn't support multithreading.  I wish they could go back to the improvements we had in the 1990s.  For example running the same program on a Pentium would scream compared to running it on like a 386.  Not so running a given program on like a 6950X vs a 2500K.

[dragoon20005]

for 2 grand minus the motherboard

 

I could prob buy the 16 Core AMD Treadripper CPUs is the prices are around 1K each

 

and there might be a 32 core variant based on AMD Naples server CPU

[PaintChips]

Besides rendering, plenty of us enjoy looking forward to Intel finally having a reason to compete in the workstation & server market.  Back in the Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad, many people would bash the Quad owners for settling for less speed in exchange for extra cores but as soon as Windows 7 launched you saw multi-core performance increase--Win8 & now Win10 you've seen more developers put extra effort into optimized core usage due to Broadwell-E marketshare.  For mainstream users a common hell is most creative software(Pro Tools, Ableton, etc) only scale up to 6-8 cores--it took nearly forever for Avid to optimize for dual-Xeons--in some studio environments you have an Adobe vs Apple situations, for example FCX has some slight benefits on the encoding optimization side but Adobe leverages render servers which is great for small to large-sized businesses vs independent filmmakers.

 

Work wise I'm looking forward to see how the Core i9 vs Xeon E5 market handles this kind of curve ball, I use servers so this kind of shake up will influence any pending equipment purchases.