Threadripper if the gaming performance decrease is less than 10%
not getting either though, as i am giving up my desktop middle of next year sadly.
I am more than happy with my i7-5930K so I am not actually after an upgrade.
But hypothetically, if I was I think I would be more likely to go for the i9-7900X
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)
Threadripper for me :) I have too many Intel based builds in my home at the moment, so time to give AMD a try :) Not that I'd need 16 cores (my 8 core 5960X has been sat here for over a year not doing anything because of lack of money and more important issues such as my daughter, so it's been delayed a while and my 920 D0's, twin Xeon's and 2600k etc are all doing me proud but moving on!!) but when I do a build a bit of overkill is always so much fun, so why not :D
If I had both the money and, just as importantly, an actual need for a CPU that can handle many threads, I would go with the AMD for more performance for my money. As it is though, a Ryzen 5 1600(X) would suit my needs very nicely.
Having seen some reviews now threadripper it's actually making this a little harder than I thought it would be.
My gut feeling was/is that threadripper with 16c/32t should be the go to for 3D rendering etc but some review sites are using benchmarks for vray and they are showing that there is either very little or no benefit of the extra cores over the i9-7900x. Yet on the official Vray benchmarks site threadripper is roughly 18% faster so either there are specific differences in the test which I'm missing, there's an intel bias on the site (it's possible on some of them) or vray isn't fully optimised for threadripper yet, again entirely possible.
I think if I was buying this very second I'd be going threadripper because unless theres some random magic being applied to the intel cpu's a threadripper 16c/32t should outrun an intel 10c/20t even with a small performance deficit per core. Then there are other factors like pcie lanes and well AMD wins that with ease.
Threadripper for sure. I'll go for the 8 core version though because I'm not wasting that much money on a single component of my system. £500 is the target for each individual component, motherboard and CPU have wiggle room but I'd rather spend more on a motherboard with future upgrading possible.
I would go threadripper myself, unfortunately my budget only pushes to a R7 1700 which is my current upgrade path.
Because Intel have only dripthread small incremental increases due to lack of competition and because i like to root for the little guy then i would probably go Threadripper.
The poor overclocking ability of threadripper plus my familiarity with Intel would probably mean that I'd stick with intel…. this time round. 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.
The AMD platform is not faster-enough than Intel to move away. As much as I hate the monopoly of Intel, they gained the monopoly by doing something right… That stability and wealth of material supporting the platform makes me more comfortable when spending that kind of money on a platform.
Looks like I'll be squeezing every last bit of performance out of this 5960X setup… :)
If i would upgrade today i would choose R7 1700X, if i could spent twice for the build, i would then go threadripper 1950x. Yet honestly ~1000$ for cpu is a bit too much imo.
Fortunetly i am not strugling with performance just yet.
Definitely Threadripper but I'm waiting for reviews of the Epyc 7551P, preferably with benchmarks that make the two comparable.
Has to be Threadripper….The value for money proposition is just too great in favour of AMD at the moment.
Intel's pricing across the whole range of cpu's seems like a deliberate rip-off of their loyal customer base.
No reason not to go threadripper out of the 2 but I personally find them both overpriced. Though I'm not the target market for super expensive CPUs do it doesn't really matter.
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 ;)
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 ?
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.
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
big_hairy_rob
Neither. I don't understand why/how anyone would want to spend that money on a single processor setup
Because it's cheaper than paying for two separate systems.
Threadripper, soon to be in my hands :D .
Enjoyed Ryzen, been nice to be back on AMD after so long.
gupsterg
Threadripper, soon to be in my hands :D .
Enjoyed Ryzen, been nice to be back on AMD after so long.
Cough,some benchmarks please,when you get it!!
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)
Realistically I don't agree with you. if you need the cores (multi-threaded workloads), Threadripper is actually more power efficient in perf/watt & perf/core.
As for everything else you tried to make an argument for their both the same. You can only argue for insignificantly better single core performance, but why bother with a HEDT then. Get the i7-7700k.
Tattysnuc
The poor overclocking ability of threadripper plus my familiarity with Intel would probably mean that I'd stick with intel…. this time round. 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.
The AMD platform is not faster-enough than Intel to move away. As much as I hate the monopoly of Intel, they gained the monopoly by doing something right… That stability and wealth of material supporting the platform makes me more comfortable when spending that kind of money on a platform.
Looks like I'll be squeezing every last bit of performance out of this 5960X setup… :)
LOL if you are still on a 5960x and it's fine for you then don't upgrade, but just a sleight correction. Intel didn't gain the monopoly by doing something right. It's actually quite the opposite.
Check out adore TV's video (think it's Intel monopoly)
You could argue in a sick way that they did do something right if you are not interested fair play and actually letting the products do the fighting. Not something Intel was good at pre-sandybridge.
It's actually a miracle that AMD is still with us today.
I'm Happy to go with AMD for all my builds. Vega 56 + Ryzen TR (all looks great for an upgrade path)
currently on a R7-1700@3.9Ghz, 32GB RAM & 2xSapphire RX480's & have been happy ever since (it's been way better than my prev system, )
probably gonna go Ryzen TR 1950x, keep the 32GB RAM, and 4xRX Vega 56's (eth mining) probably gonna get 2 to start off, but would love to play with 4xcrossfire.
KN1GHT
It's actually a miracle that AMD is still with us today.
Nah, Intel need AMD to exist to be able to claim they are not a monopoly. I think if Intel wanted AMD to not exist, they would be as big as VIA who were once everywhere and considered a bigger threat to Intel than AMD. Anyone bought a VIA product recently?
DanceswithUnix
Nah, Intel need AMD to exist to be able to claim they are not a monopoly. I think if Intel wanted AMD to not exist, they would be as big as VIA who were once everywhere and considered a bigger threat to Intel than AMD. Anyone bought a VIA product recently?
With the steps they've taken against AMD behind the scenes i'd wager to differ, but I do think that what you say have merit at-least initially, but sadly that quickly changed from the 90's onwards.
I highly recommend Adore TV's Video on YouTube regarding the history of both companies. It's all backed up with sources.
I knew some of it before I watched the video, but was totally shocked to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.
I would go Threadripper. But not the top end one. I would be more inclined to go with the 8-core bottom end TR long with a lovely 60 PCIe lane motherboard. The 8 physical cores would more than cover the performance needs while the PCIe lanes would handle my I/O and feature needs for a very very long time.
KN1GHT
With the steps they've taken against AMD behind the scenes i'd wager to differ, but I do think that what you say have merit at-least initially, but sadly that quickly changed from the 90's onwards.
I highly recommend Adore TV's Video on YouTube regarding the history of both companies. It's all backed up with sources.
I knew some of it before I watched the video, but was totally shocked to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.
Nah, I think if that video were really accurate then lots of people would dismiss it as hysterical nonsense, so it holds back a bit. I remember when Athlon first came out the only motherboards you could get tended to be in plain white boxes as motherboard manufacturers were scared of what Intel would do if they openly made Athlon motherboards. At the risk of sounding tin foil hat, I remember reading about that first at Tom's Hardware back in the day but Googling for it now I came up with:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/tom,review-4037.html which mentions the white box boards, but the link in there to the original article appears to be erased, like someone didn't like it…
But still, I think that Intel have always let AMD up for just enough air to keep them going, so they can point and say “Monopoly, us?”