Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QuorTek
...Am not a fan of either brand, but where I get the most bang for th bucks then I can live with X item being 5-10% slower or whichever... if you get a 110 fps or 103 fps.. you wont really notice the difference anyway.
And that's the best place for AMD to be disruptive. The area that makes you go "30% more cost for a ~10% performance increase?"
Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tabbykatze
And that's the best place for AMD to be disruptive. The area that makes you go "30% more cost for a ~10% performance increase?"
It's going to be worse than that though - in the high-thread-count heavy load scenarios these processors are targeted at they're going to be slower than AMD, while costing 50% - 70% more....
Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
It's going to be worse than that though - in the high-thread-count heavy load scenarios these processors are targeted at they're going to be slower than AMD, while costing 50% - 70% more....
Then it really does become a cost benefit analysis because i can't see some of the Intel unique features like avx512 really swaying the decision. The other areas are when software has been specifically written for Intel processors. Like the stuff i install is intel hardware only
Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors
When it comes to power consumption, we'll also have to wait and see what platform power and actual workload power is like - Ryzen ended up doing a lot better at the wall than its TDP would imply, with e.g. the '95W' 1700X/1800X (not even the most efficient bins) generally using less than the '91W' 7700k, even with all cores loaded up with Prime95:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ry...w-33843-8.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/..._1800X/14.html
And it looks wore again for Intel when you look at workloads like gaming. I still think this is one of the more impressive aspects of Ryzen's performance, especially since it's one of the things they've been so heavily criticised for in the past, even when the difference was a few watts!
It looks like X299 has its own teething problems e.g. with not clocking correctly and causing BSODs at stock when trying to use AVX512, and bizarre throttling causing performance to drop with additional threads: http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/