You've heard about Ryzen Whitehaven and Skylake-X (i9). Which do you think will be better?

Will Whitehaven perform better or Skylake-X?

  • Skylake-X (i9's)

    Votes: 39 39.8%
  • Ryzen Whitehaven

    Votes: 59 60.2%

  • Total voters
    98
I just built a Broadwell-E system... but if someone comes out with a dually threadripper mobo... . Ima be all over that thing.
I don't think you'll get your wish on dual Threadrippers :\
I'll let someone else fill this in, too much going through my mind right now to properly remember what was release details and what was rumored details... So I'll jot down what I recall and believe to be non-rumor info:
- The sockets are 4000-some pin LGA. The HEDT (Threadripper, "TR", WhiteHaven) version will have like 80-less pins --I feel like this was upwards of 120?-- , which comes from being a Single-Chip-Only design and those additional pins on the Server (EPYC, Naples) are the PCIe "Fabric" lanes for multi-chip communication.
- The TR platform will be limited to just a portion of the chip's total PCIe lanes, but will have enough for multiple FULL x16 slots, and plenty for storage solutions. It'll be a capped-amount in their HEDT design, not a limitation of what the chip has available.
- The CPUs will actually be the same, like Ryzen are, all based off the 32C EPYC chip, just disabled to make what will be the 16C TR chips. This is why it will have an abundance of un-used PCIe lanes. So while you probably won't be able to get dual 16C, you MIGHT be able to plop in a single 32C chip.
- The TR platform will have a higher TDP socket, allowing the chips to run at higher speeds, drawing more power. Their cut down 16C nature being done to free up the additional thermal headroom. Like Ryzen, I can only imagine this is programmed into the chip itself and while the board will be rated to deliver more power, it'll be just as capable of handling a 32C chip, since it will run at slower speeds and ultimately draw around the same power (or possibly less, given what 7's draw as they pass 3.2GHz).

ARMCHAIR ENGINEER SPECULATION TIME: I presume that these are like Ryzen, where it was originally intended to run around the 3.0-3.2GHz max, but was ultimately pushed to what we have now. I'll bet TR to be a 1700X clocked part with 16C/32T, and the fastest EPYC to be maybe 2.6-2.8GHz. HOWEVER, I'm betting that the trade off is going to come down to the Infinity Fabric... The TR will in turn being 1:1 with DRAM (aka 1:2, since the Fabric is 1/2 that of DDR's effective clock, where DDR4-2400 is running at 1200MHz, which is the same speed as the Fabric), where as the EPYC chips will be able to take advantage of the Fabric running at "Full Speed" with DRAM (which would be 2400MHz at DDR4-2400). No doubt TR will benefit from the relaxed environment and have faster memory speeds, too. EPYC I'm sure will get capped at DDR4-2666, though I suspect 2400 to be the 'adopted standard'.


As for price... I'm an optimist :p I wouldn't be surprised if they plan to continue shaking things up and offer A 16C for as low as $900, and probably closer to $1100 for the top one. 12C/24T models for $750, and if a 10C/20T model is in the stack, $700. *nods* It'll be interesting to see what it ends up being heh I'm literally basing this solely off what Ryzen ended up getting priced at.
And just for giggles, which I may very well be putting my foot in my mouth since I haven't see any other speculation or announcement for EPYC's pricing, but... I'm slapping an absurd price tag on the 32C/64T of $1800! (yea, I looked up what the 20C and 24C Xeons are going for, so about 1/2 their price. I really do think AMD is out for blood here.)
 
Keep in mind that workstation software licenses are based on the number of cores a machine has. This would really muddy up the price/performance analysis, depending on the software used.
 
I don't think I will need to upgrade my cpu any time soon. My GPU needs an upgrade!

I might sell my 5820k system with a 290x that is collecting dust and maybe buy a AMD system. :)

I think it's going to come down to pricing.
 
I actually think the Whitehaven is going to really surprise people in a positive way, but I also fear for cost. I mean, it's all just speculation at this point but I think it's going to be so expensive that outside of workstation specific builds, nobody is going to be able to buy them. Same for the Intel counterparts however, all of these huge core count CPU's are just going to be so expensive.
 
Keep in mind that workstation software licenses are based on the number of cores a machine has. This would really muddy up the price/performance analysis, depending on the software used.

Depends on the software. At that level, price/performance analysis is REALLY targeted to your specific use case.
 
In the websites comments people are making mention that asrock confirmed x299 and 399 and itx am4 boards to come out very soon.

Exciting ... hope to be able to snatch an itx board. Damn you AMD for coming out with pipeluber or thread spitter or whatever stupid named high perf chip literally after making us spend our cash on the lesser 8 core variant sigh
 
Core for core Intel will dominate AMD. AMD will win with pricing and overall performance I am sure. I can see the 16 core AMD being cheaper then Intel's 12 and maybe even their 10 core.
 
Core for core Intel will dominate AMD. AMD will win with pricing and overall performance I am sure. I can see the 16 core AMD being cheaper then Intel's 12 and maybe even their 10 core.

Core for Core doesn't matter anymore. Single core performance doesn't matter anymore. Quite literally those days are long gone. If the only argument supporters of team Intel have to argue is that the core IPC is higher then the only thing that matters in is some weird and weak bragging right.

Now days, contemporary computing requirements, are based on multi-threaded throughput as a whole. You can't cherry pick 1 or even 5 pieces of software anymore and say that single thread matters as it does NOT. All games coming out now are utilizing some form of multithreaded scenario and moving forward almost all PC games are going to require multicore setups at a minimum where as of old days, console ports were exclusively single threaded.

I argue that whoever delivers the higher multi-threaded performance IS THE SUPERIOR chip period. That is who gets my money. Multithreaded performance. Remember don't buy a processor TODAY for software released yesterday as you must use wisdom and purchase for software of tomorrow since you are probably going to have your $1000+ processor for at least 5 more years unless you are Mr/Mrs DEEP pockets and some of you are but most of us are not.

(Lastly)!!! Dominate is a powerfully strong word with no modern evidence to substantially support that claim. Assuming you are using a quantitative emotionally driven opinion of what "Dominate" means, I again argue that current benches show a slight lead, [SLIGHT], lead in almost all scenarios where Intel literally has to clock 1GHZ faster than a 4ghz Ryzen 1800X to get a few % higher IPC in almost all scenarios. Not quite domination, in fact not even close by any stretch of the actual definition of the word.

People refuse to let go of the single core WINS ALL argument. It is strongly moot by todays demanding multithreaded environments.
 
Core for Core doesn't matter anymore. Single core performance doesn't matter anymore. Quite literally those days are long gone. If the only argument supporters of team Intel have to argue is that the core IPC is higher then the only thing that matters in is some weird and weak bragging right. *snip*
.


In what software and license world do you live?
Humor me...try and list the hardware requirements for a server ^^
 
In what software and license world do you live?
Humor me...try and list the hardware requirements for a server ^^

There you go referencing something that holds NO relevance to this conversation or about 90% of the users here. A server will sit in a closet, or a rack, or a data center and just serve 24/7. A server is not what these chips are designed for. These are designed for gaming, productivity, throughput, workstation etc....

You have to be relevant with the use of the chip otherwise you are just proving the point that you are hunting for a reason that single threaded crap matters to the consumer market.

Hell I will take that argument, even in the server world, most software is not licensed by the thread, it is licensed by the CPU count. Sure a few nit picky companies want to charge per thread but most useful and practical and used software suites and OS's are licensed by the CPU. Again making your point moot in my humble opinion.

Hell even my DJI Mavic drone has 24 cores lol.... even a drone is freaking multi-threaded lol....

and to humor you ... last server I built was Server 2016 machine and it had SQL server on as well and both are socket licensed not threads.... this is just Microsoft which is about 4/5ths of the server market worldwide for general conversational reasons. Yes there are min and max core counts but even with a max core count on certain license structures these are still 16 and below cores per CPU. They are not charging for the extra 16 virtual threads.
 
Last edited:
Core for Core doesn't matter anymore. Single core performance doesn't matter anymore. Quite literally those days are long gone. If the only argument supporters of team Intel have to argue is that the core IPC is higher then the only thing that matters in is some weird and weak bragging right.

Now days, contemporary computing requirements, are based on multi-threaded throughput as a whole. You can't cherry pick 1 or even 5 pieces of software anymore and say that single thread matters as it does NOT. All games coming out now are utilizing some form of multithreaded scenario and moving forward almost all PC games are going to require multicore setups at a minimum where as of old days, console ports were exclusively single threaded.

I argue that whoever delivers the higher multi-threaded performance IS THE SUPERIOR chip period. That is who gets my money. Multithreaded performance. Remember don't buy a processor TODAY for software released yesterday as you must use wisdom and purchase for software of tomorrow since you are probably going to have your $1000+ processor for at least 5 more years unless you are Mr/Mrs DEEP pockets and some of you are but most of us are not.

Like Factum said, what world do you live in?

Also I think you will be very disappointed if you think 16 AMD cores is going to beat 12 Intel cores in any metric for HEDT. ;)

There is a reason why AMD already have given up completely on Naples. (Yes, look at their revenue expectations).
 
Like Factum said, what world do you live in?

Also I think you will be very disappointed if you think 16 AMD cores is going to beat 12 Intel cores in any metric for HEDT. ;)

There is a reason why AMD already have given up completely on Naples. (Yes, look at their revenue expectations).

Not your world apparently. This just goes on and on.... like saying ford is better than chevy, people are such single issue voters.
 
There you go referencing something that holds NO relevance to this conversation or about 90% of the users here. A server will sit in a closet, or a rack, or a data center and just serve 24/7. A server is not what these chips are designed for. These are designed for gaming, productivity, throughput, workstation etc....

You have to be relevant with the use of the chip otherwise you are just proving the point that you are hunting for a reason that single threaded crap matters to the consumer market.

Hell I will take that argument, even in the server world, most software is not licensed by the thread, it is licensed by the CPU count. Sure a few nit picky companies want to charge per thread but most useful and practical and used software suites and OS's are licensed by the CPU. Again making your point moot in my humble opinion.

Hell even my DJI Mavic drone has 24 cores lol.... even a drone is freaking multi-threaded lol....

and to humor you ... last server I built was Server 2016 machine and it had SQL server on as well and both are socket licensed not threads.... this is just Microsoft which is about 4/5ths of the server market worldwide for general conversational reasons. Yes there are min and max core counts but even with a max core count on certain license structures these are still 16 and below cores per CPU. They are not charging for the extra 16 virtual threads.

I asked you a trick question...and you ran SMACK into the wall....funny, but sad.

You start by defineing your NEEDS...then you look at the hardware...and if you need to focus on Mhz, IPC, core-count, SAN etc.

You speak like there is one server type and thus only one CPU type...
 
Not your world apparently. This just goes on and on.... like saying ford is better than chevy, people are such single issue voters.

What you did was to already conclude you wanted a V8, despite needs, performance or any other metrics. Why not get a Xeon Phi then? All those cores and you can run any load! Did you also buy Bulldozer or other FX chips for the core count alone?
 
Factum.... what trick question? You trying to save face now I see.

Shintai... still doing millions in revenue for Intel with your complementary marketing I see

And that graphic card is exactly the point... even GPUs and games are Multithreaded lol.... you lose yet again.

I want to see the check Intel sends you for being thier biggest forum salesman... oh right you do it for free boldly.

Now if I may ill go back to playing a game that is 4 fps slower than your 1700 dollar intel due to its devastating IPC superiority on my little crappy 399 dollar Zen.

Oh for 1300 less I can still transcode videos faster than your beloved Intel with my cheap GPU lol
 
Last edited:
We run +5K servers.
Trust me...their hardware configuration varies a lot.
-20 of those (now EOSL) have AMD CPU's

Your needs versus my needs are a world apart.
 
We run +5K servers.
Trust me...their hardware configuration varies a lot.
-20 of those (now EOSL) have AMD CPU's

Your needs versus my needs are a world apart.
I'm not going to unzip my fly and participate in this pissing match... lol However, I will point out one thing --and keep in mind this is just stating a fact, nothing more, not siding either way-- which is you're bringing up servers in a workstation discussion. Granted, Threadripper is to EPYC as Ryzen 3 is to Ryzen 7, same-same however you slice it, but the difference is still the application.

*bows out*
 
You should have used that one right away...but you wanted to go head-to-head...not my fault you didn't like the real world.
 
Factum.... what trick question? You trying to save face now I see.

Shintai... still doing millions in revenue for Intel with your complementary marketing I see

And that graphic card is exactly the point... even GPUs and games are Multithreaded lol.... you lose yet again.

I want to see the check Intel sends you for being thier biggest forum salesman... oh right you do it for free boldly.

Now if I may ill go back to playing a game that is 4 fps slower than your 1700 dollar intel due to its devastating IPC superiority on my little crappy 399 dollar Zen.

Oh for 1300 less I can still transcode videos faster than your beloved Intel with my cheap GPU lol

If all you do is gaming and transcoding you should have saved yourself some money and gone 7700K+Quicksync.
 
Don't want to get into this....But stating single core performance doesn't matter is just false. It might be correct if we were talking about a single CORE chip vs a 16 core chip, but we are not, we are talking about 10-12 core. Along with most uses you are talking about, such as gaming and transcoding, the 7700K in many places is the faster choice. Will the slower but more cores be better in some application and work loads? Absolutely, but you speaking of "GPU multithreading" in relation to CPU's shows a big lack of understanding. You keep saying that people are either Ford or Chevy and get stuck as "single issue voters", might I suggest you are as well? The others are just pointing out what most people here would be using these for in gaming and the like, and chances are Intel will take the lead there, but as soon as something is mentioned that doesn't put AMD at the stop, you shrug it off as not mattering.

There are places AMD will shine with this and places it will lose out to Intel, you will have to wait for it to come out and see where it lands in relation to a given workload. For budget systems and performance for the dollar in heavy multi-threaded workstation apps, AMD will probably do very well. For those who want the absolute best performance, who cares about price, will probably tend to be Intel. I will be happily wrong about this however if somehow AMD pulled both of those off. For very specific apps that are very expensive, the choice of AMD or Intel will come down to simple core or socket licensing, and it will not matter about anything else at that point.

For me, it doesn't matter who comes out on top, because I still win.
 
I'm jumping on the thread ripper hype train, supposedly it will have more cache and I've heard things about a infinity fabric 2x multiplier
 
Threadripper never had a chance, even with core count if anyone wanted to believe the fairy tale that it could have made a difference. So I guess we are back to price as the only single element for Threadripper.

Single mesh chip vs 4 penalized CCXes. Even ARM can do a meshed 8 core now.
 
I'm supporting AMD this time around because:

a) they are giving me what I want (a high core count unlocked processor with ECC) and are not obsessed with trying to screw me out of features that I find useful, simply because I want an unlocked CPU.

b) we all know how progress hits a nearly complete stall when AMD is not providing healthy and meaningful competition for Intel. I personally don't want to see a return to the mire that represents the last ten years.
 
Again what world do you live in?
The last 10 years of progress has been fantastic for datacenters...why do you think data-centers are full of Intel CPU's?

Saying that there has been no progress for years speaks volumes of your ignorance (and you are still buthurt that I will not pay for your ECC...so sad).

Firstly, this isn't a datacenter forum, if you want to discuss datacenters, go find an IT forum somewhere else.

Let me spell it out for you the progress we've seen on the HEDT side...

Core 2 Quad: 4-core
Nehalem: 4-core
Westmere: 6-core
Sandy Bridge-E: 6-core
Ivy Bridge-E: 6-core
Haswell-E: 8-core
Broadwell-E: 10-core

10 years...an increase of 6 cores total on an HEDT "flagship" chip...Whoop-de-fucking do...:rolleyes:

You obviously love Intel because they've been giving YOU what YOU want over the last ten years, all the while while screwing over enthusiasts royally, offering us little more than Xeon scraps. All I want is a fully enabled, fully unlocked, dual capable high core count chip...a product that isn't available from Intel for any price!
 
Yeah, what a concept, huh??? Funny how my E5-1680 V3 (the last unlocked Xeon) works very well with LRDIMMs while overclocked across all 8-cores to 4GHz...;)

When you decided to overclock you also decided that data integrity got no value for you. Yet you want ECC that's pointless due to the first factor.
 
When you decided to overclock you also decided that data integrity got no value for you. Yet you want ECC that's pointless due to the first factor.

Dude, are you still here? News flash, AMD has been successful with the Ryzen release, you were not successful, sorry. On the other hand, even the pollsters think Whitehaven is going to be better than Skylake-X.
 
When you decided to overclock you also decided that data integrity got no value for you. Yet you want ECC that's pointless due to the first factor.

Uh, no it does not. If I were using liquid N2 and trying to squeeze every last MHz out of the chip, that's one thing, but to comfortably use the headroom in a chip does not mean I don't care about data integrity. The chip is set to 100% default voltage, has zero issues and works like a charm.

If I didn't care about data integrity, I'd have it cranked to 4.7GHz at 1.45V or something asinine like that.
 
Last edited:
Dude, are you still here? News flash, AMD has been successful with the Ryzen release, you were not successful, sorry. On the other hand, even the pollsters think Whitehaven is going to be better than Skylake-X.

When are we going to see the financial side of this success? ;)

Dont worry, look on the bright side. 250$ 1800X chips and very cheap Threadripper CPUs.
 
Uh, no it does not. If I were using liquid N2 and trying to squeeze every last MHz out of the chip, that's one thing, but to comfortably use the headroom in a chip does not mean I don't care about data integrity. The chip is set to 100% default voltage, has zero issues and works like a charm.

If I didn't care about data integrity, I'd have it cranked to 4.7GHz at 1.45V or something asinine like that.

Yet you cant in any way guarantee the stability of the headroom, despite I am sure you will make some claims about it. That's why saying you want overclocking abilities and ECC the same time is so silly.
 
Yet you cant in any way guarantee the stability of the headroom, despite I am sure you will make some claims about it. That's why saying you want overclocking abilities and ECC the same time is so silly.

I don't have to guarantee it's stability to you and It's stable enough for me (it has never crashed), passes every test I throw at it and runs very cool.

I use it in my iTX system which has two DIMM slots and since it supports LRDIMMs, I can run 2x32GB sticks and upgrade much higher if I want, and the lack of this ability in most systems is the reason why most iTX systems are mostly useless for anything serious.

This may be silly to you...I don't care. The only reason why Intel disables ECC is because it can, not because it has to.

Here's a novel concept for Intel: let the end user decide whether or not to use a feature...don't just disable it for them.
 
When are we going to see the financial side of this success? ;)

Dont worry, look on the bright side. 250$ 1800X chips and very cheap Threadripper CPUs.

There's making a decent profit and then there's the extortionate variety that Intel was happy to charge for when it had no competition. AMD is making what it considers to be adequate profit from Ryzen as well as encouraging value conscious consumers to try Ryzen. If they find Ryzen to meet their needs and be a good value, these same consumers will very likely seek out an AMD chip in the future for their next system, as well as pass along positive word of mouth to those people they know who are also looking for a reasonably priced computer.
 
There's making a decent profit and then there's the extortionate variety that Intel was happy to charge for when it had no competition. AMD is making what it considers to be adequate profit from Ryzen as well as encouraging value conscious consumers to try Ryzen. If they find Ryzen to meet their needs and be a good value, these same consumers will very likely seek out an AMD chip in the future for their next system, as well as pass along positive word of mouth to those people they know who are also looking for a reasonably priced computer.

Right, AMD the generous company again? Ahahaha.

AMD will take as much money as they can get. There is no charity, besides when the board is busy handing bonuses out to one another.
 
Only fools think AMD is some kind of charity and gives a fuck about their paying customers. Any company that did such things wouldn't last long in the market. AMD and Intel both sell their cpu's for the maximum they can and still maintain a solid business. Neither (or any company) is in it to be some kind of benevolent entity. Pull off the fanboi glasses you guys.
 
Only fools think AMD is some kind of charity and gives a fuck about their paying customers. Any company that did such things wouldn't last long in the market. AMD and Intel both sell their cpu's for the maximum they can and still maintain a solid business. Neither (or any company) is in it to be some kind of benevolent entity. Pull off the fanboi glasses you guys.

I know neither company is a charity, but I think AMD recognizes the fact that they need to re-establish their reputation in both the consumer and business market. They need to do this before they can charge more for their chips. I'm not a fanboy, but I know how much Intel has screwed enthusiasts (particularly the ultra high end enthusiasts) over the last 10 years, so naturally I'm hoping AMD can get re-established and return to financial stability to ensure that we don't have a repeat of the last 10 years anytime soon.
 
Back
Top