Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 7 Nov 2019.
I think they have got the cache numbers wrong on the new TR chips..
I watched an interview with Robert Hallock from AMD, and he explained the 3 product tiers.
Ryzen desktop takes care of the entire Intel desktop and most of their HEDT (including the 18core you mention). If you can accept an 18 core intel chip, then you don't need to buy anything higher than the 16 core Ryzen. Higher IPC and higher frequency at these core counts means intels 18 core is beaten soundly, even on price.
Robert also explained that new threadripper is so far above Intel HEDT that even their 28 core part can't match the 24 core new threadripper. To make sure AMD stays competitve with Intel, they are positioning Threadripper gen 2 vs intel HEDT, because thats good enough.
Threadripper 3 is a massive leap above Threadripper 2 and Intel HEDT and sits in it's own tier with no challengers from intel currently planned in the 10th gen lineup.
There is no way if you were seriously considering the 32c TR3, you would be able to accept the performance if an 18 core intel, they are not even in the same product category.
And on top of this, there are also rumours that AMD will be launching a Workstation tier of threadripper chips above the announced 24 and 32 chips. Meaning if you really have a need for the CPU compute power, Intel would be the furthest from your thoughts.
Yeah, yeah, I know I replied to the troll post....
And of course he said that AMDs X are amazing and Intel's X are crap. That's what he's paid to do, it doesn't need to resemble reality outside of contrived benchmark scenarios either.
Like anyone sane does when purchasing expensive CPUs/GPUs/accelerators: benchmark under your workloads to confirm real-world performance. Otherwise you pay out the arse of for high-core-count CPUs when you have workloads that are barely threaded, or high-clocking CPUs when your workload can go GPGPU in 1/1000 the execute time.
Whenever you see some large company purchase x thousand CPUs and yell "but the AMD Y has more cores and is a quarter the price!!1!", consider that they may not actually do what that company needs them to any faster in their acceptance testing.
As i said erlier in the thread -
Ryzen is positioned against the Core lineup [be it Consumer or HEDT]
Threadripper is positioned against the Xeon W lineup, 1st/2nd gen againt the 2xxx series, 3rd gen is more against against the 3xxx series
...and ofc, Epyc -> Xeon
And this is from spending possibly too long saring at product lineups and spec sheets for a build for someone, rather than what either company's PR/Marketing teams say.
As @edzieba says, which one is the right tool for the job largely depends on the job. If what you're doing requires AVX-512, it really doesn't matter if AMD are cheaper, you'll be going Intel as their wares support that instruction set, AMDs don't. Likewise, AMD's gpus being cheaper matters not a **** if everything you do uses CUDA.
So much this.
Often something that is overlooked in normal reviews or "top trumps" on discussion forms or comments sections. Also applies to gaming or any software / usage for that matter. There are times where one "team" is simply faster / better for what you need or want it for. This is different to when you are just looking at an all round scenario "best bang for the buck gaming / video editing system".
Recent good example is the 'not-available-to-buy' 9990XE, a 14 core 5Ghz all core part. A very niche ~$3k part that found its place in Gigabytes (amongst others) watercooled 1U server in Stock / currency exchanges (high frequency trading).
In the future these same servers may be rocking xGhz Epyc (or whatever its inevitable replacement is called) parts from AMD if they fit the clients requirements.
You make valid points, none of which I dispute, however, that was not the point I am making. Having none of the silicon available, the poster says that the price alone means they will get the 18 core vs the 32 from AMD, I was expressly stating that the two chips are in vastly different work spheres, and that if they actually needed the 32 core, the 18 core is not a substitue, and the 24 core would still be in the running, especially as we have no benchmarks. I was making the point that the illogical argument they were making was troll like.
I understand AVX512 is very attractive, QuickSync is also an important factor for some users, which AMD can't compete with currently, but QuickSync really benefits specific workloads, so again, if thats a reason to go intel then great, but if you need to go intel for AVX512 or QuickSync specifically, why would you be considering the 32core from AMD anyway?
Separate names with a comma.