Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Intel Processors' started by Organik, Nov 4, 2019.
I did. The entire concept is ridiculous.
There is no way a $749 CPU is the #1 seller.
Looks like it is...
Is it the 'best seller' because they sold out of all ten units they got for the launch?
I know it bugs you that Intel is boxed in between the 3950X which wins on performance/value and the only "real" choice in HEDT is TR3 but don't worry. One day Intel will be back on top...
The 2950 will still be available, brand new. They aren't discontinuing production on it yet.. MSRP on it is around $700. About 30% slower than a 10980xe for...about 30% less money.
I like performance, so I find your accusation quite hilarious.
The fun part is that for the product in question, AMD actually doesn't have a good answer
And it's not a good alternative. Lower clockspeeds and the NUMA architecture hamper performance quite a bit, not to mention the old-before-it-was-new Zen+ architecture it uses. And do note that Intel has a lineup of CPUs below the 10980XE that are also going to embarrass TR2 on a per-core basis and for consumer workloads while still providing the benefits of HEDT.
Right...and all the reviewers astutely pointed this out in their revie...err...waitaminute! They trashed Fat Elvis, universally. you almost tricked me!
You mean their opinions?
Please, make your purchasing decisions based on those and not actual performance. I recommend updating your signature to reflect the same so we know where you're coming from.
As opposed to "your" opinion? They're far more trusted to be objective than "random dude on hardforums".
So you'd prefer to appeal to authority than actually discuss performance data?
Based on what I saw today, So does Intel. Why else remove the embargo an hour before Threadripper unless you're trying to get no comparison between them...Oh...wait...they got called cowards for that, lol
Now that the embargo is over......................................
5.1GHz my ass. Few of the reviews I've looked at today even bothered to include overclocking which may be partly why they have such a negative opinion of the chip. The few that did overclock it seemed to top out around where I did at 4.7GHz. Lastly, the 9900K boosts up to 5.0GHz in single threaded applications.
Reviewers have to deal with shenanigans from marketing departments. I expect them to react somewhat emotionally, but to also present the data.
Their reactions make for good juvenile entertainment, but that's it. For most of us
Since there are plenty of 2950x vs 9980xe reviews out there, and we now know it is simply another 7980xe refresh, we can use the 9980xe reviews to get an approximation. We don't have to guess. The 30% performance gap is real. 2950s arent going to suddenly develop issues now that the 980xe parts are priced appropriately. They still work just fine and will most likely see some minor price cuts over the next 6 months.
The hard sell here now is the *all* of the intel HEDT line has to justify itself vs the 3900 and 3950. Not AMD HEDT. They dont compete there. At all, really.
The 980xe parts have more PCIe lanes than the x570, by a lot. However, they're all gen3. It supports 256 GB of ram vs 128GB. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be much separating what was once the intel HEDT line and the top end AMD consumer stack.
I agree with you for the most part but there is one thing I'd add. Intel's Cascade Lake-X CPU's seem to be capable overclockers. While I've only worked with the 10980XE at present, there is hope that a 10920X or 10940X might be good overclockers. Without quite as many cores for pulling power, they might be more competitive. The 10980XE is "meh" in its stock form, but overclocked its a different animal. There are substantial gains to be had in most applications I tested from doing this.
They still have their disadvantages versus literally everything on the market, including from AMD.
Given that TR2 isn't really competitive, AMD doesn't actually have a product lineup that competes with Intel HEDT. AMD priced themselves high and neglected the rest.
You're making mountains out of literal mole hills. PCIe 4.0?
256GB of RAM for what is at best a workstation SKU?
For who? What workload?
This is a very silly comparison.
I think that both Intel and AMD are happy (to an extent) with the current landscape: they have carved out specific niches.
I'd hope so but both my 9900X CPUs left me with a bad experience (and slow drawn out refund from Intel since they can't make them apparently) and even beyond that they required more voltage than my 7900X at the same clocks which was surprising. Once you OC at least the delta from the IPC reduction will hurt less, if we can get 50x+ multi pretty easily on custom loop it'd be nice.
This 5.1ghz claim is a bigger pile of BS than the 28 core at 5.0 ghz water chiller fiasco.
Most are getting about 4.9 ghz, which is really just for benchmarking. A Steve from HUB puts it, 4.5-4.6 ghz is more realistic on water.
602w system power consumption at 100*C on a 360mm custom loop. As if someone is going to run those setting all day every day. You would be better off running the 14 core part in the 5.0 ghz range than the 18 core part in the 4.5 ghz range.
10980x: The Vega of CPUs but without the undervolting capability.
(B-b-but power doesn't matter when it's Intel, guyzz)
Didn't realize Intel only sold two CPU models? Looks like some problems have Ryzen from the dead!