Another nail in Intel's over-priced coffin. That's hilarious pricing. Nvidia should follow their lead. Oh wait they already did.

notbBut you're also left with some architecture choices that were made to deliver the server product. Infinity Matrix is a technology that really never should have happened in the consumer segment. It ruins performance in huge class of tasks. And why? To make cheap 32C server CPUs possible. Great! :-D
Even you're praising this idea, which find fairly disappointing...

It hasn't ruined anything. It's overall on par with Intel. Infinity Fabric is just a cheap, efficient way to dump a load of CCX modules on a single chip... and, if you really hate it that much, Zen 2 is supposedly going to have 8 core CCX modules, so you can still get a <=8 core chip that doesn't use that. Sure, it doesn't perform as well as Intel's huge monolithic designs, but it's much cheaper, and gets the job done just as well. If you are paying for a server with a huge amount of cores, would you rather pay $4464 for AMD's best EPYC chip, or TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for Intel's only 28 core chip (which also uses more power than the EPYC). I mean, even if the EPYC is a little slower in some tasks, you're saving over $5k per chip...

notbYou missed what I'm trying to say. Apart from servers and workstations designed for particularly parallel tasks, nobody needs 16 cores for anything. Ever.

Computation is like cooking. It's about transforming what you have available into what you need - in the right order and quantity.
So how many pans do you have? And do you think owning 16 will make you a better or faster cook? :)
I kid you not: a well organized cook can make 16 omelettes at once on 16 pans.
But good scrambled eggs are single-panned and this will never change. If you need to prepare more eggs, you need a bigger pan, not more of them.

I just have this feeling that we're wasting time and potential on this pointless core war - betting that suddenly everyone will rewrite every mathematical recipe created in the last 300 years, because we're just too lame to make faster cores based on GaN or concentrate on quantum computing.

I don't understand? I was agreeing with you here when I said nobody needs 16 cores to game. Or even 8. 6 is usually optimal and recommended, unless you also do things besides gaming which benefit significantly from MOAR CORES.

notbSo why is it used so much on gaming websites? Why not just scrap it and learn a better way to test workstations?

It's just one part of a series of tests that usually get run by any competent person reviewing a CPU. Nobody in the history of ever has bought X CPU because it was 1337 at 7-zip.

notbNo one cares about HEDT. Just forget about it.
As for servers: Zen is seriously rubbish for databases and so-so for virtualization. It is good for some computation tasks simply because of core count advantage.
On the other hand, it's still an exotic technology that hardly anyone buys. You may think it's cheaper, but that's true only when the effect of scale kicks in (datacenters and stuff). For small and medium companies - operating up to a few servers - it might turn out to be more expensive and they won't take that risk.

Lots of people care about HEDT. You are on a forum filled with people who bought it. It's historically usually used by people who want more than what the mainstream platform has to offer, yet it's not practical or desirable to build a real server. As for Zen being rubbish for databases or virtualization, I haven't seen it. Every benchmark I've seen has AMD trading blows with Intel. Sure, Intel can be faster, but you've got to have deep pockets to afford that, when it comes to servers. I fail to see how Zen can be more expensive than Intel... the parts are cheaper.

notbLOL on "invaded". Ask around.[/url] Maybe invaded is a strong word? I merely meant that they are making sales in this space, especially in the wake of Spectre and Meltdown. Sure they may not be planting their flag in the server market, but they're in there.

notbTop3 already make desktops with AMD Ryzen CPUs. No one buys them.
Actually isn't Dell dropping these from the lineup??? I'm pretty sure they had more variants just few months ago...

Honestly can't say much about this. I don't follow what prebuilts do very well, but a quick look at Dell shows there's still AMD options there.

notbNo, they won't. Seriously, not happening. :-D

The hardware itself is cheaper... so not sure how it works out to be more expensive.

Bottom line is AMD made a "pretty good" architecture which, while it doesn't outclass Intel in performance, it sure does in price, while at least keeping up. It's not as far behind as some like to think.

notbSupporting a cup of tea?

Seriously, this is a gaming community. Why don't we stay with that theme and stop talking about the mystical "productivity"? Before Ryzen came along, hardly anyone here knew what SPEC is and how rendering works. :-D

Sorry what? Since when is TPU only for gamers? And maybe I use my computer for more than playing games and you don't? Maybe I use mine to do some work as well and some of that happily needs some extra threads?

FrickThat has always been the way to do it, even with Bulldozer. "What do you want to do, and how much do you want to spend?" Sometimes the FX6300 came out on top.

Yeah except I've seen people recommend Intel - because they're Intel, as if price/perf doesn't matter at all.

TheLostSwedeSorry what? Since when is TPU only for gamers? And maybe I use my computer for more than playing games and you don't? Maybe I use mine to do some work as well and some of that happily needs some extra threads?

Maybe you do. Maybe you also play the violin or run marathons. And I never said it's only for gamers. But lets be honest. Gaming is the glue infinity matrix that keeps this community together. It's the dominant topic/theme on the forum and in reviews.

And it's all great, really. I like the fact that this community is so focused on one thing. But why ruin this with this "productivity" b.s.? Is this all because of Ryzen? CPU discussions looked very different before Ryzen came along. I miss those times, honestly.

R0H1TYeah except I've seen people recommend Intel - because they're Intel, as if price/perf doesn't matter at all.

It's always about best performance in budget, not some magic price/perf ratios. You can't use 1.3 AMD CPU even if it has better "performance" than a single Intel. :)

hatIt hasn't ruined anything.

Apart from latency and performance in few marginal cases (games, databases...). :)

Zen 2 is supposedly going to have 8 core CCX modules, so you can still get a <=8 core chip that doesn't use that.

By that time I'll be able to buy purpose-built 8C from Intel with better heat distribution and less issues. And those 8C are coming for sure, while the 7nm dream remains just that for now.

Not true. Sure, it doesn't perform as well as Intel's huge monolithic designs, but it's much cheaper, and gets the job done just as well. If you are paying for a server with a huge amount of cores, would you rather pay $4464 for AMD's best EPYC chip, or TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for Intel's only 28 core chip (which also uses more power than the EPYC). I mean, even if the EPYC is a little slower in some tasks, you're saving over $5k per chip...

First of all: you're buying a 2S server, not just a CPU. So instead of $4.5k vs $10k it's more like $35k vs $46k. :)

So what if I was buying a single 2S server? Possibly still the cheaper option: Intel.
It's not just those $11k for CPUs. You have to consider training, tuning software and so on. Where I live $11k is ~the cost of employing an experienced database administrator for 2 months. In rich countries like US or Germany it's possibly more like 2 weeks. And the server will work for 3-5 years...

I've mentioned the effect of scale earlier. If you're looking to buy tens or hundreds of CPUs for a datacenter, the result might be in favor of EPYC. But when buying a single 2S machine is.

Lots of people care about HEDT. You are on a forum filled with people who bought it.

You really believe in this, don't you?
Sure, "HEDT platforms" are very popular among enthusiasts and communities like this one. But it practically ends there. Too expensive for most consumers and not used in business applications. They're just a technology show-off, but this is possibly what makes them attractive, right? :)

So what is this conversation about, penis size competition, "last one to speak being correct" concept, trolling, or what are you trying to achieve here?
Wouldn't admitting that you love Intel and hate AMD be enough?

OctopussSo what is this conversation about, penis size competition, "last one to speak being correct" concept, trolling, or what are you trying to achieve here?
Wouldn't admitting that you love Intel and hate AMD be enough?

A group of AMD lovers once told me that I'm ruining their Ryzen-praise-fest thread because I dared to mention things that Intel does better.
But since this thread is about Intel, I hope some Intel love won't hurt anyone.

As for hating:
I hate how much focus HEDT gets. I hate when people overuse the term "productivity". I hate 7-zip tests and Cinebench.

I'm clearly not an AMD hater. I'm not running around hoping that AMD will vanish and smiling when their stocks drop (sounds familiar?).
I'm just skeptical. But not being an AMD lover on this forum already makes you the opposite. :-)

notbNo one cares about HEDT. Just forget about it.
As for servers: Zen is seriously rubbish for databases and so-so for virtualization. It is good for some computation tasks simply because of core count advantage.
On the other hand, it's still an exotic technology that hardly anyone buys.

HAhahaha. Also, maybe you should look at the sale figures again with out the Intel glasses on.

TheLostSwedeGood thing only the 9900K has it then...



You mad because you only have a dual core CPU with HT? Or you just trying to take the piss for no reason?
Sure, AMD has things they can improve, but how can you say it's a bad CPU? It might not be as good as Intel for gaming, but it's way better for a lot of other things that requires more than a single thread.

I'm clearly not mad, cant say the same bout you.

Yes, 1800x is a bad CPU, a lot of memory incompatibility, motherboard issues, Adobe Premiere crashes and go on...

And i used to have 6800K, paid $329, but Phooshop and Illustrator works better with higher clocks, so i'm working with 4790K @ 4.8ghz which is way better than 1800x, btw i'm good, thanks for asking.

tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/images/photoshop.png

B-RealYou mean for maybe a 1,5X price? Well done. :D

We don't work with maybe.

TheLostSwedeSorry what? Since when is TPU only for gamers? And maybe I use my computer for more than playing games and you don't? Maybe I use mine to do some work as well and some of that happily needs some extra threads?

Not only for gamers, but i bet with you that most of users here are not content creators... most of us are gamers.