square
Veteran Member
Asst. Creative Designer
Posts: 1,294
| Likes: 1,291
|
Post by square on Mar 31, 2020 17:50:16 GMT
"Threadripper 3990x only leads in benchmarks under circumstances in which hyperthreading is in play" it's better than the xeon platinum 8280 in single core usage and no, it's not just "when every core is utilized perfectly" as it can be seen from pratical uses such as blender or video editing. not sure what you're talking about with "normal conditions" either. video editing and blender applications will use all cores perfectly fine which is the main reason people buy high end cpus. still haven't actually given me a xeon or intel core that beats the newest threadripper. i don't understand your point on how this makes amd inferior to intel: "amd is not selling older cpus more than intel". the individual consumer is not going to care about that as the supply is still the same as it was a year ago. "ton of computers right now selling computers using like seventh generation CPUs," again, i don't see your point - you keep bringing up how just because they use it it means it's better for everybody else. they use it because the laptop company can probably bulk buy intel more easily and so on. "and yes they work well because those CPUs last a long ass time" this goes for amd as well "AMD, meanwhile, has to market their latest generation to be able to make their revenue" and? how does this affect me or the consumer in any way? There is a difference between value and performance. Threadripper 3990X has performance, yes, but poor value. Just because it has 64 cores doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly run every application and operating system faster, that is not how it works, you're throwing out $4k so that you can run 3D modeling and rendering software faster than any Xeon can. Yes, in that sense it beats out every Xeon, but that's shit value even for a workstation. You can spend way less money on a Xeon and still have the capability to do those things at reasonable performance and have the excellent single-threaded performance that Intel has. My point is, there is a use case for the Threadripper 3990X, but it's not the same as the use case for a Xeon and that actually hurts AMD because they're going with the strategy of just having as many cores as possible, except because there is no such thing as linear scalability with the vast majority of software and Windows 10. Basically: Threadripper 3990X: - Not good for networking/server infrastructure - 64 cores is good for applications designed on linear scalability such as 3D modeling and rendering - Costs about $4000 Xeon: - Utilized by the server and networking industry for infrastructure, perfect for that - Costs up to $3000 - Great performance for 3D modeling and rendering, just not as much as the Threadripper 3990X - Single-threaded performance makes everything run better - Better value than the Threadripper 3990X simply because of how general purpose it is, it's a good workstation for everything, not just the type of applications that a Threadripper 3990X is great for Epyc: - Costs up to $1000 - Better for networking/server infrastructure, not a good workstation - Doesn't have the type of power either the Threadripper or Xeon has - Fails at tapping into the Xeon market So really, the Xeon is still the best for value. My point was that Intel brings in more revenue through their old CPUs being just as marketable as their new ones, whereas if you go into the past AMD's CPUs were fucking horrible. you keep bringing up points which are not relevant: we're talking about workstation/pc build consumers and not about servers and networking industries. "just because it has 64 cores doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly run every application and operating system faster" i never said it'd run the operating system and applications faster - it can help against large applications by handling the threads simultaneously and thus, making it faster. the threadripper was designed for applications which use all of the cores so if you're not using those applications just not get a tr or a tr with not as many cores "strategy of just having as many cores as possible" again, pulling things out of your ass. they're not just 'increasing cores'. look at an amd presentation when they show new cpus and see what they're actually doing. "but that's shit value even for a workstation" and having £9000 xeon platinums aren't? just get lower-end threadrippers. "- Not good for networking/server infrastructure" - the purpose of threadrippers are not for server uses, look at epyc. "- 64 cores is good for applications designed on linear scalability such as 3D modeling and rendering" - and good on applications that aren't as well. -"Costs up to $3000" - xeon platinums go up to 10,000 and golds 7000 but alright - Single-threaded performance makes everything run better - threadripper actually beats most xeons to what i see, and if xeons were to win they would win by 50 in benchmarks or by a few seconds on real-world tests. this makes no difference compared to the multi-threaded peformance which amd dominates in. don't try and compare a xeon with much less cores than a tr with much more cores as it's enevitable that it would peform worse in single threaded tasks. however, this won't make much of a difference in praticality because if you're buying trs you would use them for applications which benefits from high core counts (as i said above). also i have no actual experience in epyc so i won't be dipping into that. "My point was that Intel brings in more revenue through their old CPUs being just as marketable as their new ones, whereas if you go into the past AMD's CPUs were fucking horrible." the past amd cpus were indeed fucking horrible but the time is now and they're actually getting their shit together. i'm expecting both competition from amd and intel to counter it however at this time it does seem that amd is winning by a large margin. but hey, if you want to get like 6 extra fps just for gaming and buy an i9 9900k, go ahead however ryzen 9s can do the job just the same. edit: i seemed to have forgotten to mention about how amd runs 7nm architecture against intel's 14nm cpus which is an added benefit
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Mar 31, 2020 18:15:14 GMT
There is a difference between value and performance. Threadripper 3990X has performance, yes, but poor value. Just because it has 64 cores doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly run every application and operating system faster, that is not how it works, you're throwing out $4k so that you can run 3D modeling and rendering software faster than any Xeon can. Yes, in that sense it beats out every Xeon, but that's shit value even for a workstation. You can spend way less money on a Xeon and still have the capability to do those things at reasonable performance and have the excellent single-threaded performance that Intel has. My point is, there is a use case for the Threadripper 3990X, but it's not the same as the use case for a Xeon and that actually hurts AMD because they're going with the strategy of just having as many cores as possible, except because there is no such thing as linear scalability with the vast majority of software and Windows 10. Basically: Threadripper 3990X: - Not good for networking/server infrastructure - 64 cores is good for applications designed on linear scalability such as 3D modeling and rendering - Costs about $4000 Xeon: - Utilized by the server and networking industry for infrastructure, perfect for that - Costs up to $3000 - Great performance for 3D modeling and rendering, just not as much as the Threadripper 3990X - Single-threaded performance makes everything run better - Better value than the Threadripper 3990X simply because of how general purpose it is, it's a good workstation for everything, not just the type of applications that a Threadripper 3990X is great for Epyc: - Costs up to $1000 - Better for networking/server infrastructure, not a good workstation - Doesn't have the type of power either the Threadripper or Xeon has - Fails at tapping into the Xeon market So really, the Xeon is still the best for value. My point was that Intel brings in more revenue through their old CPUs being just as marketable as their new ones, whereas if you go into the past AMD's CPUs were fucking horrible. you keep bringing up points which are not relevant: we're talking about workstation/pc build consumers and not about servers and networking industries. "just because it has 64 cores doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly run every application and operating system faster" i never said it'd run the operating system and applications faster - it can help against large applications by handling the threads simultaneously and thus, making it faster. the threadripper was designed for applications which use all of the cores so if you're not using those applications just not get a tr or a tr with not as many cores "strategy of just having as many cores as possible" again, pulling things out of your ass. they're not just 'increasing cores'. look at an amd presentation when they show new cpus and see what they're actually doing. "but that's shit value even for a workstation" and having £9000 xeon platinums aren't? just get lower-end threadrippers. "- Not good for networking/server infrastructure" - the purpose of threadrippers are not for server uses, look at epyc. "- 64 cores is good for applications designed on linear scalability such as 3D modeling and rendering" - and good on applications that aren't as well. -"Costs up to $3000" - xeon platinums go up to 10,000 and golds 7000 but alright - Single-threaded performance makes everything run better - threadripper actually beats most xeons to what i see, and if xeons were to win they would win by 50 in benchmarks or by a few seconds on real-world tests. this makes no difference compared to the multi-threaded peformance which amd dominates in. don't try and compare a xeon with much less cores than a tr with much more cores as it's enevitable that it would peform worse in single threaded tasks. however, this won't make much of a difference in praticality because if you're buying trs you would use them for applications which benefits from high core counts (as i said above) also i have no actual experience in epyc so i won't be dipping into that. "My point was that Intel brings in more revenue through their old CPUs being just as marketable as their new ones, whereas if you go into the past AMD's CPUs were fucking horrible." the past amd cpus were indeed fucking horrible but the time is now and they're actually getting their shit together. i'm expecting both competition from amd and intel to counter it however at this time it does seem that amd is winning by a large margin. I don't see how this is irrelevant considering that's literally a major part of the market for Xeon and is completely relevant when talking about how it is used and what it is? You rephrased the point that I was already making. Yes, the 64 core Threadripper is faster for those applications, that's mutually agreed upon. The issue is that the vast majority of applications and operating systems (especially Windows 10) don't practice linear scalability which is the entire point of having more cores, so you're spending $4k just to have some more performance in 3D modeling and rendering applications over the Xeon, none of the server/networking benefits with Xeon or anything else. It's poor value for good performance in certain cases is the issue. I don't know how it is over in the classy British Isles, but in America a good Xeon is way cheaper than a Threadripper 3990X. Your point is that Xeon is either marginally better than AMD, or AMD barely beats it out. This actually hurts your argument because you're trying to defend a product that costs a thousand dollars more than the Xeon and all the benefits it has.
|
|
square
Veteran Member
Asst. Creative Designer
Posts: 1,294
| Likes: 1,291
|
Post by square on Mar 31, 2020 18:30:40 GMT
you keep bringing up points which are not relevant: we're talking about workstation/pc build consumers and not about servers and networking industries. "just because it has 64 cores doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly run every application and operating system faster" i never said it'd run the operating system and applications faster - it can help against large applications by handling the threads simultaneously and thus, making it faster. the threadripper was designed for applications which use all of the cores so if you're not using those applications just not get a tr or a tr with not as many cores "strategy of just having as many cores as possible" again, pulling things out of your ass. they're not just 'increasing cores'. look at an amd presentation when they show new cpus and see what they're actually doing. "but that's shit value even for a workstation" and having £9000 xeon platinums aren't? just get lower-end threadrippers. "- Not good for networking/server infrastructure" - the purpose of threadrippers are not for server uses, look at epyc. "- 64 cores is good for applications designed on linear scalability such as 3D modeling and rendering" - and good on applications that aren't as well. -"Costs up to $3000" - xeon platinums go up to 10,000 and golds 7000 but alright - Single-threaded performance makes everything run better - threadripper actually beats most xeons to what i see, and if xeons were to win they would win by 50 in benchmarks or by a few seconds on real-world tests. this makes no difference compared to the multi-threaded peformance which amd dominates in. don't try and compare a xeon with much less cores than a tr with much more cores as it's enevitable that it would peform worse in single threaded tasks. however, this won't make much of a difference in praticality because if you're buying trs you would use them for applications which benefits from high core counts (as i said above) also i have no actual experience in epyc so i won't be dipping into that. "My point was that Intel brings in more revenue through their old CPUs being just as marketable as their new ones, whereas if you go into the past AMD's CPUs were fucking horrible." the past amd cpus were indeed fucking horrible but the time is now and they're actually getting their shit together. i'm expecting both competition from amd and intel to counter it however at this time it does seem that amd is winning by a large margin. I don't see how this is irrelevant considering that's literally a major part of the market for Xeon and is completely relevant when talking about how it is used and what it is? You rephrased the point that I was already making. Yes, the 64 core Threadripper is faster for those applications, that's mutually agreed upon. The issue is that the vast majority of applications and operating systems (especially Windows 10) don't practice linear scalability which is the entire point of having more cores, so you're spending $4k just to have some more performance in 3D modeling and rendering applications over the Xeon, none of the server/networking benefits with Xeon or anything else. It's poor value for good performance in certain cases is the issue. I don't know how it is over in the classy British Isles, but in America a good Xeon is way cheaper than a Threadripper 3990X. Your point is that Xeon is either marginally better than AMD, or AMD barely beats it out. This actually hurts your argument because you're trying to defend a product that costs a thousand dollars more than the Xeon and all the benefits it has. i was talking about xeon and i9s in the usage of workstations but alright. and yet the applications you talk about will not benefit from single core peformance at that end so yes, you're spending $4k for extra peformance in 3D modeling, rendering applications and editing - and damn good peformance at that. I wouldn't go as far to say that either has poor peformance but you're paying for a cpu designed for that. trs are much much cheaper than any xeon here and i'm not so sure on how america is like however from what i've seen it's also $10,000 or so "defend a product that costs a thousand dollars more than the Xeon and all the benefits it has" price at this range does not matter as you can easily downgrade however in europe and much other places other than where you're at, the high end xeons are much much much more expensive. my point is not that "xeon is marginally better than AMD or AMD barely beats it out" as it dominates intel at what it does. you're defending a product with only one seeable benefit in this situation which is single core performance which, again, is not a big of a gap as you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Mar 31, 2020 18:58:27 GMT
I don't see how this is irrelevant considering that's literally a major part of the market for Xeon and is completely relevant when talking about how it is used and what it is? You rephrased the point that I was already making. Yes, the 64 core Threadripper is faster for those applications, that's mutually agreed upon. The issue is that the vast majority of applications and operating systems (especially Windows 10) don't practice linear scalability which is the entire point of having more cores, so you're spending $4k just to have some more performance in 3D modeling and rendering applications over the Xeon, none of the server/networking benefits with Xeon or anything else. It's poor value for good performance in certain cases is the issue. I don't know how it is over in the classy British Isles, but in America a good Xeon is way cheaper than a Threadripper 3990X. Your point is that Xeon is either marginally better than AMD, or AMD barely beats it out. This actually hurts your argument because you're trying to defend a product that costs a thousand dollars more than the Xeon and all the benefits it has. i was talking about xeon and i9s in the usage of workstations but alright. and yet the applications you talk about will not benefit from single core peformance at that end so yes, you're spending $4k for extra peformance in 3D modeling, rendering applications and editing - and damn good peformance at that. I wouldn't go as far to say that either has poor peformance but you're paying for a cpu designed for that. trs are much much cheaper than any xeon here and i'm not so sure on how america is like however from what i've seen it's also $10,000 or so "defend a product that costs a thousand dollars more than the Xeon and all the benefits it has" price at this range does not matter as you can easily downgrade however in europe and much other places other than where you're at, the high end xeons are much much much more expensive. my point is not that "xeon is marginally better than AMD or AMD barely beats it out" as it dominates intel at what it does. you're defending a product with only one seeable benefit in this situation which is single core performance which, again, is not a big of a gap as you think it is. Sorry, but I don't see somebody complaining about the performance of a Xeon when it comes to 3D modeling and rendering. You yourself have shown the marginal leads of a Threadripper when it comes to that, "extra" performance is truly extra and it's not worth the extra $1k. The single core performance actually is inherently beneficial because every application uses at least one core, that's not the same thing as utilizing multiple cores in a linear scalable way. Not sure where you got $10k, great Xeons are cheaper than a Threadripper 3990X significantly. You can easily downgrade from what? From what I'm seeing a high-end Xeon can go for $3k which is cheaper, if you're downgrading from a Threadripper 3990X because it's too expensive compared to a lesser Threadripper then you're just losing the benefits you get with that, significantly worse than a cheaper high-end Xeon. You say that AMD is dominating but then talk about how the gaps aren't big which is contradictory. I'll take the CPU which is $1k less, will still perform well in 3D modeling and rendering without the overkill performance, is capable of simultaneous server/networking infrastructure performance and workstation performance that the Threadripper 3990X and Epyc don't both have, and is significantly faster than even a Core i9.
|
|
square
Veteran Member
Asst. Creative Designer
Posts: 1,294
| Likes: 1,291
|
Post by square on Mar 31, 2020 19:10:27 GMT
i was talking about xeon and i9s in the usage of workstations but alright. and yet the applications you talk about will not benefit from single core peformance at that end so yes, you're spending $4k for extra peformance in 3D modeling, rendering applications and editing - and damn good peformance at that. I wouldn't go as far to say that either has poor peformance but you're paying for a cpu designed for that. trs are much much cheaper than any xeon here and i'm not so sure on how america is like however from what i've seen it's also $10,000 or so "defend a product that costs a thousand dollars more than the Xeon and all the benefits it has" price at this range does not matter as you can easily downgrade however in europe and much other places other than where you're at, the high end xeons are much much much more expensive. my point is not that "xeon is marginally better than AMD or AMD barely beats it out" as it dominates intel at what it does. you're defending a product with only one seeable benefit in this situation which is single core performance which, again, is not a big of a gap as you think it is. Sorry, but I don't see somebody complaining about the performance of a Xeon when it comes to 3D modeling and rendering. You yourself have shown the marginal leads of a Threadripper when it comes to that, "extra" performance is truly extra and it's not worth the extra $1k. The single core performance actually is inherently beneficial because every application uses at least one core, that's not the same thing as utilizing multiple cores in a linear scalable way. Not sure where you got $10k, great Xeons are cheaper than a Threadripper 3990X significantly. You can easily downgrade from what? From what I'm seeing a high-end Xeon can go for $3k which is cheaper, if you're downgrading from a Threadripper 3990X because it's too expensive compared to a lesser Threadripper then you're just losing the benefits you get with that, significantly worse than a cheaper high-end Xeon. You say that AMD is dominating but then talk about how the gaps aren't big which is contradictory. I'll take the CPU which is $1k less, will still perform well in 3D modeling and rendering without the overkill performance, is capable of simultaneous server/networking infrastructure performance and workstation performance that the Threadripper 3990X and Epyc don't both have, and is significantly faster than even a Core i9. the render time between the 8280 and the threadripper 3990x in itself is significant so for $1k where you are and much more expensive where i am it's down to preference and time - the whole reason for this argument funnily enough. www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-xeon-platinum-8280-s-3647-cascade-lake-sp-28-core-56-threads-27ghz-40ghz-turbo-385mb-cache-205www.amazon.com/Intel-Processor-CD8069504228001-OEM-Tray/dp/B07V397TZJ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Intel+Xeon+Platinum+8280www.amazon.com/Intel-Xeon-Platinum-28-Core-Processor/dp/B077S25CW9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Intel+Xeon+Platinum+8280www.amazon.com/Intel-Xeon-Platinum-8160-Cache/dp/B073XFL6ZT/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Intel+Xeon+Platinum+8280and other retailers, not forgetting to mention www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/7and www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-s-latest-server-grade-Xeon-Platinum-8180-CPU-has-a-ridiculous-price-tag.234260.0.htmla 3990x to a 2950x? i mean literally any other threadripper that is cheaper. "significantly worse than a cheaper high-end Xeon" you can find a 3970x down here for £1200 or so (https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-24-core-48-threads-3960x-4.50ghz-socket-trx4-processor-retail-cp-3bn-am.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1Iv0BRDaARIsAGTWD1v1B5jsWxmvScnUnvdm5LcGMZDWKipDTt_4RRy3WOjbOML4Axx5WKYaAj3kEALw_wcB) which still slams the xeon platinums while being much much cheaper. " talk about how the gaps aren't big which is contradictory" i'm talking about single thread peformance which you seem to boast about mainly "will still perform well in 3D modeling and rendering without the overkill performance, is capable of simultaneous server/networking infrastructure performance and workstation performance that the Threadripper 3990X and Epyc don't both have, and is significantly faster than even a Core i9" you do you however the difference is much noticeable for professionals and that could cost them a lot of valuable time. may seem overkill to you, not to others. im curious to where you find these $3000 xeons, could you tell me one?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Mar 31, 2020 19:42:56 GMT
Sorry, but I don't see somebody complaining about the performance of a Xeon when it comes to 3D modeling and rendering. You yourself have shown the marginal leads of a Threadripper when it comes to that, "extra" performance is truly extra and it's not worth the extra $1k. The single core performance actually is inherently beneficial because every application uses at least one core, that's not the same thing as utilizing multiple cores in a linear scalable way. Not sure where you got $10k, great Xeons are cheaper than a Threadripper 3990X significantly. You can easily downgrade from what? From what I'm seeing a high-end Xeon can go for $3k which is cheaper, if you're downgrading from a Threadripper 3990X because it's too expensive compared to a lesser Threadripper then you're just losing the benefits you get with that, significantly worse than a cheaper high-end Xeon. You say that AMD is dominating but then talk about how the gaps aren't big which is contradictory. I'll take the CPU which is $1k less, will still perform well in 3D modeling and rendering without the overkill performance, is capable of simultaneous server/networking infrastructure performance and workstation performance that the Threadripper 3990X and Epyc don't both have, and is significantly faster than even a Core i9. the render time between the 8280 and the threadripper 3990x in itself is significant so for $1k where you are and much more expensive where i am it's down to preference and time - the whole reason for this argument funnily enough. www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-xeon-platinum-8280-s-3647-cascade-lake-sp-28-core-56-threads-27ghz-40ghz-turbo-385mb-cache-205www.amazon.com/Intel-Processor-CD8069504228001-OEM-Tray/dp/B07V397TZJ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Intel+Xeon+Platinum+8280www.amazon.com/Intel-Xeon-Platinum-28-Core-Processor/dp/B077S25CW9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Intel+Xeon+Platinum+8280www.amazon.com/Intel-Xeon-Platinum-8160-Cache/dp/B073XFL6ZT/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Intel+Xeon+Platinum+8280and other retailers, not forgetting to mention www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/7and www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-s-latest-server-grade-Xeon-Platinum-8180-CPU-has-a-ridiculous-price-tag.234260.0.htmla 3990x to a 2950x? i mean literally any other threadripper that is cheaper. "significantly worse than a cheaper high-end Xeon" you can find a 3970x down here for £1200 or so (https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-24-core-48-threads-3960x-4.50ghz-socket-trx4-processor-retail-cp-3bn-am.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1Iv0BRDaARIsAGTWD1v1B5jsWxmvScnUnvdm5LcGMZDWKipDTt_4RRy3WOjbOML4Axx5WKYaAj3kEALw_wcB) which still slams the xeon platinums while being much much cheaper. " talk about how the gaps aren't big which is contradictory" i'm talking about single thread peformance which you seem to boast about mainly "will still perform well in 3D modeling and rendering without the overkill performance, is capable of simultaneous server/networking infrastructure performance and workstation performance that the Threadripper 3990X and Epyc don't both have, and is significantly faster than even a Core i9" you do you however the difference is much noticeable for professionals and that could cost them a lot of valuable time. may seem overkill to you, not to others. im curious to where you find these $3000 xeons, could you tell me one? Core i9-9900 is not even a Xeon, costs $600, and still beats out a 3970X no matter how many cores are involved in benchmarks. So I'm not sure where this notion of "AMD dominating Intel" comes from when even a Core i9 can beat it out. The "difference for professionals" you noted is not objective, a Xeon or a Core i9 will do the job well and it's worth noting that these things are not all made equal, a Xeon is more likely to do something that a Threadripper won't as well than the other way around due to how general-purpose a Xeon is and how many types there are.
|
|
square
Veteran Member
Asst. Creative Designer
Posts: 1,294
| Likes: 1,291
|
Post by square on Mar 31, 2020 19:46:58 GMT
Core i9-9900 is not even a Xeon, costs $600, and still beats out a 3970X no matter how many cores are involved in benchmarks. So I'm not sure where this notion of "AMD dominating Intel" comes from when even a Core i9 can beat it out. The "difference for professionals" you noted is not objective, a Xeon or a Core i9 will do the job well and it's worth noting that these things are not all made equal, a Xeon is more likely to do something that a Threadripper won't as well than the other way around due to how general-purpose a Xeon is and how many types there are. I have no clue where you have got that "it still beats out a 3970X" at all because it's completely untrue. Look at literally any pratical test or benchmark and it'll be apparent that the tr beats an i9. " Xeon or a Core i9 will do the job well " you're missing my entire point. the time the tr saves can be very significant to some individuals and so they wouldn't mind spending more. how long will it take you to realise it's not just intel > amd and just admit that amd is doing well for themselves at this time compared to intel.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Mar 31, 2020 19:54:40 GMT
Core i9-9900 is not even a Xeon, costs $600, and still beats out a 3970X no matter how many cores are involved in benchmarks. So I'm not sure where this notion of "AMD dominating Intel" comes from when even a Core i9 can beat it out. The "difference for professionals" you noted is not objective, a Xeon or a Core i9 will do the job well and it's worth noting that these things are not all made equal, a Xeon is more likely to do something that a Threadripper won't as well than the other way around due to how general-purpose a Xeon is and how many types there are. I have no clue where you have got that "it still beats out a 3970X" at all because it's completely untrue. Look at literally any pratical test or benchmark and it'll be apparent that the tr beats an i9. " Xeon or a Core i9 will do the job well " you're missing my entire point. the time the tr saves can be very significant to some individuals and so they wouldn't mind spending more. how long will it take you to realise it's not just intel > amd and just admit that amd is doing well for themselves at this time compared to intel. Except no? Core i9-9900 beats out a 3970X according to the benchmarks, that's not only with single threaded performance but also with multi core performance. It's quite possible that the $4000 Threadripper 2 is more practical for certain people, I'm just saying that Xeon has established a broader market than AMD, and them splitting workstation & server/networking into Threadripper and Epyc is actually bad for both of those CPUs and their marketing. Xeons are excellent as a workstation and the server/networking industry is dominated by them, not AMD. Not really? Intel is making closer to 100 billion dollars in revenue, AMD is making closer to 10 billion.
|
|
square
Veteran Member
Asst. Creative Designer
Posts: 1,294
| Likes: 1,291
|
Post by square on Mar 31, 2020 20:00:44 GMT
I have no clue where you have got that "it still beats out a 3970X" at all because it's completely untrue. Look at literally any pratical test or benchmark and it'll be apparent that the tr beats an i9. " Xeon or a Core i9 will do the job well " you're missing my entire point. the time the tr saves can be very significant to some individuals and so they wouldn't mind spending more. how long will it take you to realise it's not just intel > amd and just admit that amd is doing well for themselves at this time compared to intel. Except no? Core i9-9900 beats out a 3970X according to the benchmarks, that's not only with single threaded performance but also with multi core performance. It's quite possible that the $4000 Threadripper 2 is more practical for certain people, I'm just saying that Xeon has established a broader market than AMD, and them splitting workstation & server/networking into Threadripper and Epyc is actually bad for both of those CPUs and their marketing. Xeons are excellent as a workstation and the server/networking industry is dominated by them, not AMD. Not really? Intel is making closer to 100 billion dollars in revenue, AMD is making closer to 10 billion. what benchmark lmao yes, however (and you seem to forget this) i am only really talking about the individual person. amd at this current moment gives the power (threadrippers) and price (ryzen 5/7/9) for peformance which is superior to intel in most cases. the networking industry is another topic and if we were talking about that, fair point. and how does that affect the consumers? it's not like intel are cutting costs more to be close to amd or starting to find someway to get better than amd: they're researching 7nm for 2021 when amd did it in 2019.
|
|
?Robin
Club 4000 Member
caleb get off of tf
Posts: 8,027
| Likes: 8,604
|
Post by ?Robin on Mar 31, 2020 20:10:10 GMT
locked, this thread has gone stupid far off the topic that it cannot be rescued
it was deadass over a keyboard smh
|
|