Just popped in and waiting for the "I'd pay a little more for Intel" crew.

Also makes me wonder if I wouldn't be better off with an i7 6900K.  Still want to see what Threadripper is going to perform like.  Sitting patiently, waiting to see this whole scenario play out.

bdary

panzlock
Just popped in and waiting for the "I'd pay a little more for Intel" crew.

I would pay a "little" more for Intel.  I don't consider "little" to be the difference between $2200 & $500 though.  I'm waiting to see how Threadripper performs realworld before any upgrade.  It could be I don't upgrade at all for awhile yet.

i7-5930k, you don't need to upgrade unless you need more cores or bootable NVME Raid 0.

kram36

bdary

panzlock
Just popped in and waiting for the "I'd pay a little more for Intel" crew.

I would pay a "little" more for Intel.  I don't consider "little" to be the difference between $2200 & $500 though.  I'm waiting to see how Threadripper performs realworld before any upgrade.  It could be I don't upgrade at all for awhile yet.

i7-5930k, you don't need to upgrade unless you need more cores or bootable NVME Raid 0.

And you know my needs how?    But you're right.  I feel like I'm in the driver seat this time around performance & feature wise.  I have no need to upgrade for my uses.  Where in the past (for me), there were always some good reasons & needs to upgrade.
 
I do have some family members that love it when I upgrade though.  My boards, CPU's, GPU's, & Memory all get handed down so everyone in the chain gets an upgrade.

kougar
Intel won't be happy about those 16-core chips competing directly with its 10-core 7900X for the same price.

Then Intel can lower the prices of their 10 core chips below AMD's 16 core chip MSRP.

Lephron
https://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2695223

I would upgrade from X99 on X299 only on 8 or 10 cores or 1950X AMD.
Other models are not interesting for X99 owners. Depend of model i7-6900K and i7-6950X no reason to change.
 
 

 
Ryzen beat Intel mainstream, Haswell-E and almost all Broadwell-E.
Intel launched Skylake-X and only option is to compare him with Ryzen because Inte;'s mainstream is weaker than Ryzen 5 not 7.
But Intel didn't planned maybe AMD Thredripper could beat most of Skylake-X models except twice more expensive models than AMD.
But 2000$ worth Intel is in price range of AMD EPYC Processors who will beat Intel Xeon line.
What AMD plan with EPYC, to give opportunity for OC or EPYC will be locked?
Price of Intel X299 motherboards help lot to AMD that's obvious.
Deluxe price jump from 380 to 490$. Ahahaaaa Ahahaaa Ahahaaaa

Intel has Pants Down Moment (or No Pants?). Something new for a very, very long time. Decade+ they just milked market and rightly so they should get really good spanking from AMD in whatever segment.
 
Simply put they haven't got a clue what to do and how respond to what AMD is doing. Serves them well. Intel stifled progress by making steps just tiny enough to not cut into profit margins. Well its now truly over. At least for few years Chipzilla has to deal with the fact they are no more most sought after brand in CPU world. Always was buying Intel because it was worth the money. Well no more, X99/2011-3 for now is my last step on the Team Blue road. Has to do much better and start to innovate like they did with C2D and Westmere or Nehalem or whatever the code name was for 1366... gosh too/so many names which are just meaningless to me.  
 
In same instance Intel went bananas with SSDs. Instead improving on 750 series for mainstream they released 600p which is trounced by anything from competition involved in NVMe. Yet they still persist with absolutely ludicrous pricing like nothing happened. Lately I found abroad 1.2TB 750 for really amazing money (probably guys just want to offload it) and was ready to buy it (as at least I know that it works perfectly well with W7 and X99 and its not M.2), but seeing how much cheaper 960s from Samsung still were I just couldn't resist - will see how compatibility looks like. For the price even with mega discount on aforementioned 750 I can almost get 2x1TB 960 Evos. Nuts^nuts!

If I had one India Rupee for every time I've read about how this time AMD is going to make a comeback.........
 

 
 
 

Intel's way of this presentation my be of a bit bad taste, but the "glued together" statement is actually the proper term used for the way AMD made these processors. Sorry but in technical terms, AMD did use what the industry calls glued together.
 
https://youtu.be/rscDxMrZmGU?t=8m55s

rjohnson11
https://www.techpowerup.com/235092/intel-says-amd-epyc-processors-glued-together-in-official-slide-deck
 
Intel must be pretty upset with AMD that they would lower themselves to indirectly insult AMD.  Intel is basically comparing a $2,200 8-core Xeon to AMD's usually $499 Ryzen 7 1800X.

Honestly they have done that off and on for years, not because something is a threat, but because there is a good product by AMD.  I think it was 2001 or 2002, when the Athlon MP, at the very beginning of the Opteron lines, was getting some traction in certain markets, there was an Intel hosted comparison that said the Itanium STOMPS these, and here is proof.  Well..... yeah, your few thousand$ proc crushed a 147$ or its big brother the 225$ processor, ONE WOULD HOPE!
 
How is Ryzen doing on single core performance, they have always done well with things that are heavily threaded but got killed in single core performance.  They are making some real positive strides right now.

Xavier Zepherious
Lephron
https://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2695223

I never doubted it, I think Intel is off base since they aren't just slamming AMD with their glued dies statement since nVidia will be pursuing it as well.  It just makes sense to have less die types and connect them through a high-speed link, rather than the giant monolithic which means more than one a few dozen die types and affecting yields.

In my mind, as it stands, if each of AMD's Zepplin dies are capable of 3.6/4.0GHz as Ryzen 7-1800X, then only an extreme TDP stops them from raising the frequency of their top 32-core model to the upper 3GHz range.  So all future refreshes of Zen are just that, an opportunity to raise clocks because it is already possible.
 

Xavier Zepherious
everyone is catching up and going to surpass them

That's more key in the sense of a hint to work on something new in the background.  It's just a question of how quickly Intel can widen the parity, I'm sure they will design-in their lazy refresh cycle, so the goal may be 50-100% better IPC than Skylake.  We'll see what they come up with in a couple years.  They need distance.


ARM was an annoyance for them since Intel had virtually no presence in mobile or competition with their x86 on the tethered-systems front meant no real threat.  But they are catching up, I know this with certainly given a recent Geekbench 4 test I ran comparing the Snapdragon 820 in my phone with my CPU, Broadwell-C based Core i5-5675C at stock.  The scores were 4379 single-core for the Intel quad-core at 3.1GHz and 1726 for the Arm processor at 1.6GHz.  

So it's 200% behind Intel; but if you normalize the frequency as the same, the IPC of ARM is just 30% behind Broadwell, that puts it at the level of Sandy Bridge-- while a shrink would allow an increase in frequency, my mobile processor is somewhat ancient.  I don't know how much faster the latest Snapdragons are.  So Intel is being hit on both sides, ARM for low-power and x86 by AMD on mega-core, therefore the next architecture will have to scale to tackle both.  

My best guess at this time, it will be a scaled mesh design similar to XeonPhi, a die with 72 x86 cores and 4-way hyperthreading.

Let's say with 7nm and upcoming 5nm, all AMD does is raise the frequencies a bit but uses the same die design for Zen, for the most part.  This means the top-end server processors will be more than 4 "glued" dies to keep it simple and up the yield, they can push 6 dies for Starship or even 9 for the successor, that's 72c-144t.  Intel will try to beat that; this is going to be the last single-layer monolithic die (so they don't catch heat for their glue comment) processor if they don't implement a 3D processor layout.

kram36
Intel's way of this presentation my be of a bit bad taste, but the "glued together" statement is actually the proper term used for the way AMD made these processors. Sorry but in technical terms, AMD did use what the industry calls glued together.
 
https://youtu.be/rscDxMrZmGU?t=8m55s

Maybe, but does it really matter if they glued them together if it works and lights a fire under Intel? Hell, if bubblegum and duct tape works too I say go for it AMD. Make Intel scared. More power to them.