Intel’s 18 CORE EXTREME EDITION!

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That's because it's probably just not worth it in this case Going TR makes you save half of the money you'd spend on getting an i9-7980XE and you lose like ~10-15% of performance (and actually gaining in some instances). Your power bill should also be lower

In another thread, I have some napkin math that says the 8700K at Kaby's average OC is right up the 1800X's ass when that is at it's average OC. That leaves Ryzen with 2 advantages, potentially lower price and better concurrent multitasking. Threadripper only has the first in this case, and I still don't see TR being able to be as good as the 7980XE is AXV/2 workloads, which are still far more common in the HEDT world than the consumer world.

[Morgan MLGman]

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

In another thread, I have some napkin math that says the 8700K at Kaby's average OC is right up the 1800X's ass when that is at it's average OC. That leaves Ryzen with 2 advantages, potentially lower price and better concurrent multitasking. Threadripper only has the first in this case, and I still don't see TR being able to be as good as the 7980XE is AXV/2 workloads, which are still far more common in the HEDT world than the consumer world.

Threadripper actually has better scaling with additional threads as AMD's SMT implementation is superior to Intel's HT, it has lower per-core performance but that was to be expected - you can overclock it to 4,1-4,2GHz on a decent AIO and considering not only the price difference between the 1950X & 7980XE themselves, but also the difference in the cost of a motherboard as you need a top-end one to even OC the 7980XE, and you need a custom loop too which is quite a bit more expensive than just a 240/280mm AIO.

 

All that summed up, I don't see any case where the 7980XE purchase is a valid one considering there are some tasks in which the TR is faster (I'm referring to Hardware Unboxed video linked previously by @Princess Cadence) and when the i9 is faster it's around 10-15% on average... If for such small difference you can save upwards of 1200$ then IMO the 7980XE is nothing more than a toy for overclockers and enthusiasts who bought that CPU because they can, not because they actually need it as any conscious businessman who needs a lot of CPU power for his business would just buy the 1950X. This is how it works in the real world, especially enterprise one.

 

So while I agree - the 7980XE is a faster CPU than the top-end TR, but is it a good product? No, not really.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

IMO the 7980XE is nothing more than a toy for overclockers and enthusiasts who bought that CPU because they can, not because they actually need it as any conscious businessman who needs a lot of CPU power for his business would just buy the 1950X.

Didn't I say that like 2 posts ago? Though I doubt many businesses went for Intel's HEDT. They might go for TR for ECC if they can't quite pony up for an equivalent Xeon or EPYC, but I don't see TR being the choice of many businesses.

 

5 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

This is how it works in the real world, especially enterprise one.

From my understanding, up front cost is justifiable if long term cost is well examined. Which is how I got my boss to buy an Acer 2 in 1 with an i5 and 8GB of RAM to replace a Toshiba running an A8.

 

7 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

but is it a good product? No, not really.

The product is good, it's the price that needs a little work.

[Morgan MLGman]

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

From my understanding, up front cost is justifiable if long term cost is well examined.

Yeah, but the long-term cost isn't really good considering the power consumption... Not to mention other X299 quirks like RAID keys that you need to purchase in addition to the ridiculous cost of the entire platform itself.

 

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The product is good, it's the price that needs a little work.

Depends on how you approach it - from my perspective it's not a good product because while the performance is obviously good (it's an 18-core i9 after all ), you're paying an additional 1000$ for 2C/4T more than in a 1950X and if you actually want to benefit from that single core performance then you need to overclock it, and if you want to overclock it you need a) a 500$+ motherboard, b) custom loop cooling, and c) an expensive, high-wattage power supply. There are too many (pricey) requirements to be met to even really benefit from this performance and the performance gap is really small when compared to the price, especially that even some professional workloads don't scale beyond 32T at the moment.

 

TL;DR If you add all of those requirements I mentioned above to the price of the CPU, how can you call it a good product if it costs 2000$ and you need to deal with a lot of crap to actually get a bit better performance than with a 1950X? Not to mention ridiculous power consumption figures.

 

EDIT: Hmmm, I just noticed - i9-7980XE has a 165W TDP rating? Made my day The 1950X has 180W for comparison

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Not to mention other X299 quirks like RAID keys that you need to purchase in addition to the ridiculous cost of the entire platform itself.

Wake me up when bootable NVMe RAID 1,5,6, or 10 actually becomes worthwhile beyond the pissing contests of serial e-peen competitors.

 

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

7980XE has a 165W TDP rating? Made my day The 1950X has 180W for comparison

TDP isn't something easily compared.

 

And to refute the rest of it- look at the car market, particularly rice cars. They're modded to hell because enthusiasts like it, not because it's the best price/performance option that meets their performance desires.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Wake me up when bootable NVMe RAID 1,5,6, or 10 actually becomes worthwhile beyond the pissing contests of serial e-peen competitors.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree that it's useless, but as people here on the forum like to say: "It's HEDT, it's the best of the best" so features like that should be included without a price premium.

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

TDP isn't something easily compared.

It's not a true figure either

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

And to refute the rest of it- look at the car market, particularly rice cars. They're modded to hell because enthusiasts like it, not because it's the best price/performance option that meets their performance desires.

What you wrote is partially true, look at it the other way though (I'll use your car analogy): Would you buy a 100k USD car that consumes less fuel and comes with more features out-of-the-box or a 200k USD car that has many restrictions, you need to buy additional stuff to use some of its features, uses more fuel and you need to build a dedicated garage for it? Keep in mind that overall it is only 10-15% faster than the 100k USD car despite all of that.

 

It would be a waste of money for me and most people would probably agree...

[Princess Luna]

42 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

So while I agree - the 7980XE is a faster CPU than the top-end TR, but is it a good product? No, not really.

Yup, after watching several videos about it we can get to the conclusion the i9 7960x is the best over all processor right now as it offers the "perfect" balance between over kill single and multi thread capacity, the 7980xe simply is still more horse power than "virtuality" as a whole needs as we've seen pretty much all software is not ready for paralleling the workload across that many threads and being realistic there is no difference in multi-tasking potential between the 16c and 18c processors.

 

If you want the pure best and can afford it the i9 7960x is the actual purchase here, I do have the feeling the i9 7980xe (even if sounds too childish xD) only ever came to life because Intel had to remain ahead of AMD in core count w/e way?

[done12many2]

20 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Yeah, but the long-term cost isn't really good considering the power consumption... Not to mention other X299 quirks like RAID keys that you need to purchase in addition to the ridiculous cost of the entire platform itself.

 

Depends on how you approach it - from my perspective it's not a good product because while the performance is obviously good (it's an 18-core i9 after all ), you're paying an additional 1000$ for 2C/4T more than in a 1950X and if you actually want to benefit from that single core performance then you need to overclock it, and if you want to overclock it you need a) a 500$+ motherboard, b) custom loop cooling, and c) an expensive, high-wattage power supply. There are too many (pricey) requirements to be met to even really benefit from this performance and the performance gap is really small when compared to the price, especially that even some professional workloads don't scale beyond 32T at the moment.

 

TL;DR If you add all of those requirements I mentioned above to the price of the CPU, how can you call it a good product if it costs 2000$ and you need to deal with a lot of crap to actually get a bit better performance than with a 1950X? Not to mention ridiculous power consumption figures.

 

EDIT: Hmmm, I just noticed - i9-7980XE has a 165W TDP rating? Made my day The 1950X has 180W for comparison

 

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion of overclocking being a requirement to get better single-threaded performance.  In stock configuration, single-threaded performance of the stock Skylake-X chips are already much higher than that of TR.  No overclock required.  

 

Let's however say that you want even more than the already higher single-threaded performance of Skylake-X.  You don't need a fancy motherboard to do that.  With Skylake-X you can adjust multipliers by syncing them all to the same ratio, by setting individual multipliers per core, or by using multipliers based on usage scaling.  Hell, you can even set individual voltages for EACH core.  With that said, you simply increase the clocks on the 2 favorite cores (indicated in BIOS) designated by Intel and your TDP remains essentially unchanged when compared to an all core overclock.  

 

There is a great deal of flexibility built into these newer Skylake-X chips that most don't even know exist let alone know how to use.  

 

Both platforms, x299 and x399 are great in their own rights and I for one am glad to recognize that.  They also both have issues.   Overclocking isn't what current AMD chips are well-known for.  Additionally, TR has an unusually low throttling point of 68c tdie.  AVX2 pretty much sucks compared to Intel (something that folks is productivity might actually want) and AVX-512 simply doesn't exist. 

 

I'm not here to say that one is better than the other, but I'm also not trying to imply that the grass is always as green on the other side as you try to make it sound.  

[Morgan MLGman]

3 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion of overclocking being a requirement to get better single-threaded performance.  In stock configuration, single-threaded performance of the stock Skylake-X chips are already much higher than that of TR.  No overclock required. 

From Hardware Unboxed recent review of the 7960X & 7980XE Those are Cinebench R15 Single & Multithreaded scores @stock.

5 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Let's however say that you want even more than the already higher single-threaded performance of Skylake-X.  You don't need a fancy motherboard to do that.  With Skylake-X you can adjust multipliers by syncing them all to the same ratio, by setting individual multipliers per core, or by using multipliers based on usage scaling.  With that said, you simply increase the clocks on the 2 favorite cores (indicated in BIOS) designated by Intel and your TDP remains essentially unchanged when compared to an all core overclock. 

Why would you only increase the clock speed of only 2 out of 18 cores on a 2k USD CPU? With that kind of money spent, you want the best experience possible and that's not it tbh...

7 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Both platforms, x299 and x399 are great in their own rights and I for one am glad to recognize that.  They also both have issues.   Overclocking isn't what current AMD chips are well-known for.  Additionally, TR has an unusually low throttling point of 68c tdie.  AVX2 pretty much sucks compared to Intel (something that folks is productivity might actually want) and AVX-512 simply doesn't exist. 

 

I'm not here to say that one is better than the other, but I'm also not trying to imply that the grass is always as green on the other side as you try to make it sound.  

Of course, but when you balance the drawbacks of both, then look at the benefits & performance and then look at the price, there seems to be one winner

My point is, if you can get (in theory) 32 Threadripper cores for the price of 18 Skylake-X cores then it's just not worth it to go for the latter. Their cores are more powerful in raw performance, but less efficient and not that much better actually ;_;

[DildorTheDecent]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Why would you only increase the clock speed of only 2 out of 18 cores on a 2k USD CPU? With that kind of money spent, you want the best experience possible and that's not it tbh...

>Because the only Skylake-X processor has 18 cores. 

 

lol

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, DildorTheDecent said:

>Because the only Skylake-X processor has 18 cores. 

 

lol

I'm not sure I understand your post - I'm talking about the 7980XE, not about the rest of the Skylake-X lineup.

[DildorTheDecent]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I'm not sure I understand your post - I'm talking about the 7980XE, not about the rest of the Skylake-X lineup.

And done12many2 was talking about Skylake-X as a whole. 

 

Not once does he specifically reference the 7980XE. He instead talks about the benefit of the whole platform. 

Quote

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion of overclocking being a requirement to get better single-threaded performance.  In stock configuration, single-threaded performance of the stock Skylake-X chips are already much higher than that of TR.  No overclock required.  
 
Let's however say that you want even more than the already higher single-threaded performance of Skylake-X.  You don't need a fancy motherboard to do that.  With Skylake-X you can adjust multipliers by syncing them all to the same ratio, by setting individual multipliers per core, or by using multipliers based on usage scaling.  Hell, you can even set individual voltages for EACH core.  With that said, you simply increase the clocks on the 2 favorite cores (indicated in BIOS) designated by Intel and your TDP remains essentially unchanged when compared to an all core overclock.  
 
There is a great deal of flexibility built into these newer Skylake-X chips that most don't even know exist let alone know how to use.  
 
Both platforms, x299 and x399 are great in their own rights and I for one am glad to recognize that.  They also both have issues.   Overclocking isn't what current AMD chips are well-known for.  Additionally, TR has an unusually low throttling point of 68c tdie.  AVX2 pretty much sucks compared to Intel (something that folks is productivity might actually want) and AVX-512 simply doesn't exist. 
 
I'm not here to say that one is better than the other, but I'm also not trying to imply that the grass is always as green on the other side as you try to make it sound.  

 

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, DildorTheDecent said:

And done12many2 was talking about Skylake-X as a whole. 

 

Not once does he specifically reference the 7980XE. He instead talks about the benefit of the whole platform.

I assumed he referred to the 16-18C i9 parts as this is what the conversation before with @Drak3 was mainly about.

 

My entire point is said by Steve here (link starts at 21:41), he also talks about what @Drak3 mentioned - the initial cost vs long-term cost:

 

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I assumed he referred to the 16-18C i9 parts as this is what the conversation before with @Drak3 was mainly about.

 

My entire point is said by Steve here (link starts at 21:41), he also talks about what @Drak3 mentioned - the initial cost vs long-term cost:

 

No need to mention Drak3 twice in the same post.

 

And I absolutely would OC 4 or 6 cores of the 7980XE and leave the rest at stock. Run Windows in KVM on the 6 OC'd cores, OS X in KVM on 6 cores, and Linux as the KVM host on the remaining 6.

[done12many2]

42 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

From Hardware Unboxed recent review of the 7960X & 7980XE Those are Cinebench R15 Single & Multithreaded scores @stock.

 

I find it humorous that choose Steve from Hardware Unboxed as he is extremely AMD biased and happens to be the only one that managed to achieve lower single-threaded performance numbers, but hey it fits your argument.

 

I'd expect that you would go with a conglomeration of data instead of picking one biased one.

 

Anyhow, Steve was actually the only one on the entire internet that got those low of a single-threaded score for the 7980XE when compared to the TR, which is also not a surprise.  He also decided to only overclock the 7980XE 4.1 GHz during his OC portion of his review, while stating that he felt it could go higher, but wanted to stop there.  Wonder why?  Again, everyone else on the internet achieved higher.  Getting the idea?

 

Like I said, the 7980XE's singe-threaded performance is substantially higher than that of TR and anyone with common sense already knows that.  Let me know if you need more unbiased examples than what's below as I have tons of them.  

 

Paul's Hardware:

 

 

OC3D:

 

 

 Linus:

 

 

Quote

Why would you only increase the clock speed of only 2 out of 18 cores on a 2k USD CPU? With that kind of money spent, you want the best experience possible and that's not it tbh...

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

you're paying an additional 1000$ for 2C/4T more than in a 1950X and if you actually want to benefit from that single core performance then you need to overclock it, and if you want to overclock it you need a) a 500$+ motherboard, b) custom loop cooling, and c) an expensive, high-wattage power supply. There are too many (pricey) requirements to be met to even really benefit from this performance and the performance gap is really small when compared to the price, especially that even some professional workloads don't scale beyond 32T at the moment.

 

I was simply addressing your original comment on the topic and now your trying to change the subject.  I can't help you there bud.  

 

You stated that to get better single-threaded performance, you needed to OC the 7980XE (which is already higher than TR) along with a whole laundry list of other stuff that was required to purchase.  I simply showed you that you don't need to do all of that as you stated.  Now you're turning this into a "well who only clocks up 2 cores" deal, when that's not what this was about.

 

Quote

Of course, but when you balance the drawbacks of both, then look at the benefits & performance and then look at the price, there seems to be one winner

My point is, if you can get (in theory) 32 Threadripper cores for the price of 18 Skylake-X cores then it's just not worth it to go for the latter. Their cores are more powerful in raw performance, but less efficient and not that much better actually ;_;

 

I know you are trying to hype Threadripper and all, but we all know that TR only goes up to 16 core.  32 cores is for Epyc.    There is absolutely no indication of an 32 core TR coming in the future.  

 

 

16 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No need to mention Drak3 twice in the same post.

 

And I absolutely would OC 4 or 6 cores of the 7980XE and leave the rest at stock. Run Windows in KVM on the 6 OC'd cores, OS X in KVM on 6 cores, and Linux as the KVM host on the remaining 6.

 

I agree and more cores should allow us the freedom to customize and clock them how we want. 

 

If people only realize how powerful individual core control is when combined with affinity in Windows.

 

 

[Lathlaer]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

What you wrote is partially true, look at it the other way though (I'll use your car analogy): Would you buy a 100k USD car that consumes less fuel and comes with more features out-of-the-box or a 200k USD car that has many restrictions, you need to buy additional stuff to use some of its features, uses more fuel and you need to build a dedicated garage for it? Keep in mind that overall it is only 10-15% faster than the 100k USD car despite all of that.

 

It would be a waste of money for me and most people would probably agree...

 

Comparing CPU's to cars in such a manner is a bad idea. Do you think that people buy Porsche Carrera GT just for it's speed? Do you think they care how much fuel it consumes or how much the replacement clutch costs? Or how little of extra features that come now in every good car for $100k it has? 

[Drak3]

23 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

If people only realize how powerful individual core control is when combined with affinity in Windows

Or running virtual machines a la KVM.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I find it humorous that choose with Steve from Hardware Unboxed as he is extremely AMD biased and happens to be the only one that manage to achieve lower single-threaded performance numbers, but hey it fits your argument.

 

I'd expect that you would go with a conglomeration of data instead of picking one biased one.

 

Like I said, the 7980XE's singe-threaded performance is substantially higher than that of TR and anyone with common sense already knows that.  Let me know if you need more unbiased examples than what's below as I have tons of them. 

What I find more humorous is that you put the OC3D graph in there and it's actually not relevant to anything as it doesn't even show singlethreaded performance in it The lower graph is actually OpenGL performance but as you said yourself: "hey it fits your argument".

 

I'm also not sure on what basis you're accusing Hardware Unboxed of being AMD biased, I'd understand if you said that the "stock" settings are flawed and the CPU scored lower "but hey, it fits your argument"...

 

It's the same if I called Paul's Hardware graph Intel biased because Linus got 167 points on singlethreaded in R15 and Paul got only 161... It's probably a matter of different BIOS settings.

12 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Anyhow, Steve was actually the only one on the entire internet that got those low of a single-threaded score for the 7980XE, which is also not a surprise.  He also decided to only overclock the 7980XE 4.1 GHz during his OC portion of his review, while stating that he felt it could go higher, but wanted to stop there.  Wonder why?  Again, everyone else on the internet achieved higher.  Getting the idea?

IDK, might be because he didn't have sufficient cooling, might be because he was worried about the motherboard, might be the power supply or he just didn't want the police to raid his office under the accusation of having an illegal weed farm there, you know, police often checks the power bill figures because those farms use a lot of electricity

18 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I know you are trying to hype Threadripper and all, but we all know that TR only goes up to 16 core.  32 cores if for Epyc.  

Why would I hype Threadripper, I only meant that for the price of a 7980XE you can get two 1950Xs which is 18 vs 32 cores, not sure what to respond to that

Also, I don't even have anything from AMD in my PC, I'm always getting the best for my buck and I'm doing the same recommending parts to other people.

 

And more "unbiased" reviewers actually agree with that, watch the video I linked in my previous post, it starts at 21:41 and it's around 2-3 minutes long:

It's Gamers Nexus and not HW Unboxed, don't worry Unless you don't trust that source either  
Pretty much: If you do heavy productivity, just buy a 1950X. There's too many cons to justify the extra performance of the 7980XE.

25 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

You stated that to get better single-threaded performance, you needed to OC the 7980XE (which is already higher than TR) along with a whole laundry list of other stuff that was required to purchase.  I simply showed you that you don't need to do all of that as you stated.  Now you're turning this into a "well who only clocks up 2 cores" deal, when that's not what this was about.

That was a mental shortcut in a way -> I meant that to actually get meaningfully higher singlethreaded performance in the real world compared to the TR, you need to do some overclocking.

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I'm also not sure on what basis you're accusing Hardware Unboxed of being AMD biased

1. In his 7820X gaming performance review, the Ryzen 7 1700 was able to match the 7820X. @TahoeDust benchmarked his 7820X against a 7700K and the gaming performance was identical. And other reviewers got much better results
2. He overclocked the 7980XE to 4.1GHz and most reviewers were able to hit 4.5+GHz. His chip was definitely capable of hitting that frequency, he simply didn't want to do it.

Hardware Unboxed isn't what I would consider "unbiased", GN is a much more credible source. 

13 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Pretty much: If you do heavy productivity, just buy a 1950X.

TBH I kinda agree, the 7980XE is mostly an enthusiast CPU. It's for people like @done12many2 who want to get it to overclock the hell out of it  

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

1. In his 7820X gaming performance review, the Ryzen 7 1700 was able to match the 7820X. @TahoeDust benchmarked his 7820X against a 7700K and the gaming performance was identical. And other reviewers got much better results

Haven't we talked about that his motherboard for those benchmarks was bad?

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

2. He overclocked the 7980XE to 4.1GHz and most reviewers were able to hit 4.5+GHz. His chip was definitely capable of hitting that frequency, he simply didn't want to do it. 

I can't say it's due to the motherboard because he used the 499$ Aorus Gaming 9 one I'm honestly not sure, maybe the thermals were an issue? We don't know the voltage he used and we don't know what cooler he used as it's not mentioned.

 

Also, @done12many2 I gotta admit one thing I was wrong at because the HWU video has a flawed Cinebench R15 performance slide, here's the graph from the same review but in a written form at techspot:

My point doesn't change though, without any OC the SC difference isn't really significant. It's something like Haswell vs Skylake in single core performance

[PCGuy_5960]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Haven't we talked about that his motherboard for those benchmarks was bad?

It was a theory of mine, but idk. He did test the 7820X with the Gigabyte board in his 7980XE review and the scores are still weird.

7 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I can't say it's due to the motherboard because he used the 499$ Aorus Gaming 9 one  

The board should be fine. @done12many2 had the Gaming 7 and he managed to push 600W through that board (7900X with Linpack MKL iirc) without any sort of throttling

8 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I'm honestly not sure, maybe the thermals were an issue? We don't know the voltage he used and we don't know what cooler he used as it's not mentioned.

Why though? I bet that he used a 212 Evo.

9 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

My point doesn't change though, without any OC the SC difference isn't really significant. It's something like Haswell vs Skylake in single core performance

The 7940X strikes a good balance between single and multi core performance, so if that is what you're looking for, don't waste money on a 7980XE 

[done12many2]

Edited for the good of humanity.  

 

 

 

 

[Morgan MLGman]

59 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Here we go again.  Instead of further supporting your actual statement, which was wrong, you are now talking about irrelevant stuff by focusing on any little error that has nothing to do with the topic.  Shift focus much?

 

The point is EVERYONE knows that single-threaded performance is already notably higher on Skylake-X chips when compared to TR chips.  To continue to state or imply otherwise because you're continuing to support your incorrect original statement is just silly.  There is no overclock needed for the 7980XE chip to outperform the TR in single OR multi-threaded performance.

 

Here are some additional comparisons since you found the one error that you think justified shifting focus away from the topic.  Just add them to the ones I showed you above.  You're right though.  You managed to find one from Steve @ HWU.  Like I said.  Know surprise. 

I can't argue that TR isn't a great value because it is.  It's for those who want close to the same performance at a lower price.  No arguing that at all.  It's when people try to imply that it's better than it is such as by hyping single-threaded performance or casting shadow on the other that I start to call bullshit.  

 

I would absolutely recommend a 1950x to anyone that needs non-AVX multi-core performance.  I've never said anything to the contrary, but then again, I don't know why were talking about it other than you continuing to hype TR over Skylake-X?

 

10 to 15% or more at stock with even more overclocked.  Meaningful enough to most, but I see that you're continuing to try to fit the need to overclock in there.  I think this is a lost effort.  

TechSpot reviews = HW Unboxed in another format

 

The conclusions from the reviews that you mentioned are accurate though:

TechSpot:

Quote

Finally, I said that unless Intel is willing to move on pricing I couldn't see why anyone would invest in the X299 platform. That was my honest opinion and it's just as true with the arrival of these 16-core and 18-core parts from Intel. Unless I simply had the money to burn, I struggle to imagine a scenario where I would spend $1,000 (100%) more on the Core i9-7980XE to gain at best 20% more performance.

That said, there are businesses that could justify the investment and by being the world's most powerful desktop/workstation CPUs, Intel's new chips aren't irrelevant.

 

ExtremeTech:

Quote

The problem for Intel’s triumphant narrative is, well, AMD. The Core i9-7980XE is unquestionably fast, but it’s not 2x faster, or even 50 percent faster than Threadripper in any test we ran. CPUs above $1,000 are going to be less elastic than the conventional desktop market, but cost always matters to some extent. Just because companies or individuals can afford to pay top dollar for a CPU doesn’t mean they don’t care about price at all. When Intel had the high-end market entirely to itself, the company could afford to set its own prices. With AMD’s Threadripper 1950X already in market, it’s harder to justify the cost.

Customers who want the absolute highest-end CPU and can afford to pay for it will prefer the Core i9-7980XE. But anyone who doesn’t fit into that market is going to be hard-pressed to opt for the Core i9-7900X when the Threadripper 1950X offers higher workstation performance at the same price. Intel has retaken the performance crown, but it hasn’t swept the workstation field — not by a long shot.

 

Anandtech:

Quote

$1999 is a new record for consumer processors. Intel is charging this much because it can – this processor does take the absolute workstation performance crown. For high performance, that is usually enough – the sort of users that are interested in this level of performance are not overly interested in performance per dollar, especially if a software license is nearer $10k. However for everyone else, unless you can take advantage of TSX or AVX-512, the price is exorbitant, and all arrows point towards AMD instead. Half the price is hard to ignore.

 

Pretty much what I think about those chips, IMO the 16C i9 is a hell of a lot better product overall than the 18C chip, and I'm very curious about the 14C part.

So far, the best X299 CPU to me is the 8-core 7820X as it's finally an 8-core from Intel under 1K USD. Though the mesh architecture of cache isn't as good on LCC X299 CPUs as on HCC ones as the ring bus design would probably yield more benefits to those under 10C CPUs

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

TechSpot reviews = HW Unboxed in another format

 

The conclusions from the reviews that you mentioned are accurate though:

TechSpot:

 

ExtremeTech:

 

Anandtech:

 

Pretty much what I think about those chips, IMO the 16C i9 is a hell of a lot better product overall than the 18C chip, and I'm very curious about the 14C part.

So far, the best X299 CPU to me is the 8-core 7820X as it's finally an 8-core from Intel under 1K USD. Though the mesh architecture of cache isn't as good on LCC X299 CPUs as on HCC ones as the ring bus design would probably yield more benefits to those under 10C CPUs

 

FYI.  I removed all that after your previous post.