QOTW: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X or Intel Core i9-7900X?

I don't game but the renderings I do needs lots of threads at a lower cost so TR for me.

I wouldn't get much use out of either CPU, seeing as my wife would murder me if I spent a grand on a pc component.

I'd go AMD this time round. I'd enjoy the chance to put 16c/32t to use ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tattysnuc

As much as I hate the monopoly of Intel, they gained the monopoly by doing something right...

---

They gained it by doing lots and lots of wrong but that's another topic. :)

If I hadn't gotten a 16c/32t system already I would have probably gone Threadripper, but.... then again I only spent £150 CPU wise to get that.

Hanging on to my 3770k until we see Ryzen 2 on 7nm. Motherboard and DDR4 pricing is silly at the moment.

I've scheduled a new build by year's end. TR as well as Intel's 18c/36t offering are overkill for me. The only games I play are various flight simulators since I can no longer fly. Knowing all that, for my last hurrah I'll likely go with the 1950x. Over the last couple of years I've felt Intel looks at me as a sucker waiting to be fleeced. The 1950x, even the 1920x ticks all the boxes for me while costing 1/2 of Intel's upcoming extortion CPU.

none of them they are BOTH OVERPRICED


Tom G Scotland

once they both drop to alf the price .... any.
could be 2 years could be 4 who cares ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilCycle

Being a gamer I'm happy with the 7700k and will be for some time, but if I was a professional and actually needed all these cores for those types of workloads... I would honestly still go the Intel route. Simply because when your are in a professional setting then you are looking more at long term costs such energy efficiency, performance (tasks completed over time), reliability, support etc. - The initial purchase price becomes moot, and as far as I can see Intel is still winning on the long term investment side of things.

(For the record I'm no Intel fan boy and I've used AMD in nearly ALL of my previous builds, however I've gotten tired of always having the lesser performing system)

---

Lesser performing mostly due to lack of multi-threading utilisation.
AMD were with the focus on that I would argue very forward thinking, aiming at a future which only now we are starting to see come to fruition.
If we had seen proper multi-threading utilisation years ago, the picture could have been very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tattysnuc

If AMD can improve the overclocking headroom and the focus on Multi-gpu's changes (SLI limited to 2x GPUs) then I'd seriously look at AMDs offering.

---

I believe the 2 GPU SLI limit is an Nvidia thing on their latest gpus so Intel have the same limit. The huge number of PCIe lanes should give AMD an advantage.

But overall that is out of my budget for a home CPU, though I could be tempted by the lower end Threadrippers come the next bonus day.

Not in the market for these. Waiting to see how Raven Ridge turns out.

If I had to have one it would be AMD Ryzen Threadripper, mainly because I've never had an AMD CPU.

would go AMD, best value for the money and over all if setting stuff up well then you wont notice the difference, AMD may be better in some games likewise Intel... and often the small differences you wont really notice anyway other than if you like throwing your epeen in peopels faces all the time or something.

I'll wait for the TR1900 as it matches my workload better than the 12 / 16 core models. I'll take the extra PCIe lanes and better memory bandwidth and match with a Vega56 or perhaps two!

Neither. I don't understand why/how anyone would want to spend that money on a single processor setup

However, having to pick, I'd go for the single thread advantage, since this is what the majority of what I play uses, although I would call that a 'limiting advantage', as I'm sure that things will quickly change...

if i am not wrong threadrippers all cores can be overclocked