- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,995 (0.78/day)
Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS |
Cooling | Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock |
Memory | Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz |
Video Card(s) | MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB |
Storage | Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB |
Display(s) | Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24" |
Case | Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2 |
Audio Device(s) | Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus |
Power Supply | Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2 |
Mouse | Razer Abyssus |
Keyboard | CM Storm QuickFire XT |
Software | Ubuntu |
It does, however the real truth will be shown in benchmarks, as rated clock speeds only tell a tiny piece of the picture. Especially Intel are known for throttling and having inconsistent performance. E.g. those 65W high-core CPUs are basically a terrible deal, they may look good in benchmarks, but will throttle like crazy when you use them for anything, and the user experience will suffer as a result. But I would rather have the 6 P-core 245K over the (presumably) 65W 8 P-core 265/285.The 245K looks decent.
I do feel your pain, although they do have a workstation lineup Xeon W-2400/3400 (Sapphire Rapids) or the refresh W-2500/3500.If I win the Lotto and want a real intel CPU for desktop I'm buying a Xeon. I'm so sick of P cores and E cores. If I want something pure now have to buy a xeon.
Intel® Xeon® w9-3495X Processor (105M Cache, 1.90 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Xeon® w9-3495X Processor (105M Cache, 1.90 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.www.intel.com
4 grand but still a real CPU.
But so I'm poor AMD is the only company that shows they are for gamers now with pure 16 core cpu's
They are still pricy, the most relevant would probably be w5-2455X at $1039 (12-core 3.2/4.6 GHz), w5-2465X at $1389 (16-core 3.1/4.7 GHz) or w7-2495X at $2189 (24-core 2.5/4.8 GHz).
The most relevant motherboard would probably be Asus Pro WS W790-ACE at ~$900 and a specialized cooler, probably Noctua NH-U14S DX-4677 at ~$190.
So, depending on your needs for memory, storage and GPU, you're probably looking at a system cost ~$4000-6000.
But if you're looking for just something consistent, solid, and with good IO, you can go for one of the lower core CPUs and get it cheaper than that.
The bigger issue with such parts is limited availability. Most computer stores wouldn't have these parts, and those who do rarely have it in stock. Compared to the good old HEDT days (x79/x99/x299), great deals are hard to come by. But be aware that when they get discontinued, there can be some great discounts. And the used market do have some amazing deals if you don't need the latest and greatest.
I do wish Intel and AMD would bring back "proper" HEDT platforms, as the mainstream platforms are increasingly held back by IO and memory bottlenecks, as well as thermal limits. For pure gamers this shouldn't be a big concern though.
May I ask how the user experience of these platforms are to you?I have the w2495x. I also have a 12700k. Let me tell you, my 12700 k with only p-cores enabled working at 5.1Ghz all cores managed to do a Linpack bench at 350 Gflops.<snip>
Click the spoiler for context:
I have an i5-13600K at work running Windows 11, but I haven't had the chance to compare it to a "HEDT" counterpart, and preferably on Linux. But I have done a lot of comparison of Sandy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge-E (x79) and the Skylake family vs. X299. And the one that is very noticeable is consistency. Even when the rated clock speeds don't favor the HEDT model and the core count isn't significantly higher, just having that consistent clock speed and ample memory bandwidth gives it as sense of "unrestricted performance" which makes it much easier to focus on being productive. For a while I even used the "unimpressive" 6-core Skylake-X i7-7800X (3.5/4.0 GHz), and yet it was a great performer at the time. My workloads have not consisted of large batch jobs, but rather either "lighter" web-development or desktop applications or 3D programming with some tools, VMs, graphics applications, web browser, etc. in the background. And this where the limits of benchmarks in reviews comes into play, no review can ever fit everyone's real workflow, and especially those who run a mix of "medium" workloads at the same time, like probably most in programming, CAD, graphics and content creation does, no review will ever realistically reflect that.
But for Raptor Lake, it certainly gives me the impression of being more inconsistent and "jerky". I don't know yet how much of this should be attributed to Windows 11, and how much of it is the absurd turbos of Raptor Lake, but to use a car analogy; it certainly gives the feeling of driving a car with a tiny turbo 4-banger vs. a smooth V8, sure the turbo engine has some peak power and looks great in benchmarks, but the inconsistency is a persistent source of annoyance and discomfort. I have done a side-by-side comparison to a Comet Lake system on Windows 10 though, and the Raptor Lake is certainly faster overall, but also noticeably more inconsistent.
But for Raptor Lake, it certainly gives me the impression of being more inconsistent and "jerky". I don't know yet how much of this should be attributed to Windows 11, and how much of it is the absurd turbos of Raptor Lake, but to use a car analogy; it certainly gives the feeling of driving a car with a tiny turbo 4-banger vs. a smooth V8, sure the turbo engine has some peak power and looks great in benchmarks, but the inconsistency is a persistent source of annoyance and discomfort. I have done a side-by-side comparison to a Comet Lake system on Windows 10 though, and the Raptor Lake is certainly faster overall, but also noticeably more inconsistent.
Or to put it more bluntly; if you had to choose only one to have at home, which one would you prefer?
I'm just curios, although I will probably wait until the next iteration before buying any.