"According to Intel’s internal testing, its Cascade-Lake-X processors will provide a 1.74x – 2.09x relative per-dollar performance improvement when compared to Skylake-X."
This is because they are cutting the price by 35-50%? Because we all know they aren't getting a 2x performance increase out 14nm+++++++++++!
Well cutting prices would be good thing! It would mean that amd Also should cut prices and consumers would win... but because this is intel, I have some doupts...
You miss the point. People assume that AMD should have less expensive products because they are better, but Intel still has the general public fooled into thinking that Intel is still in the lead?
If AMD products have a higher level of performance(or have more cores), then there is no reason why AMD should lower prices. Intel is also looking at the products from last year, when everyone is waiting for Threadripper third generation.
Intel should lower prices because it is NOT the leader anymore, but AMD is already offering more for the money, so doesn't need to cut prices to remain competitive, even if Intel does lower prices.
" Because thats how competition works. " yes.. in intels case.. intel cant way over charge for its cpu's any more.. but there is no need for amd to cut their prices as well...
"no need for AMD to cut their prices as well" there is no such thing if competition can out value your products and your sells decline you will cut prices to keep sells coming. again we need to see the products to believe those claims but there always place for price cut especially in HEDT where margins are high and AMD can sure lower prices a lot or release better products that give more value for the same price.
I'm seeing 9900KF parts going for ~$400 USD now, even with the 3900X being quite hard to get and very new. If they get pushed down to the $350 range near the 3700X,would it make more sense to get a 9900KF or the 3700X Ryzen?
AMD is currently by far winning price/performance, they're not going to cut it for a while, if Intel halves the price they'll probably cut a little, but I doubt Intel would do so.
These are probably very specific benchmarks for e.g. Some cache change or AVX improvement.
That's exactly how I read the statement as well. In theory, Intel's Cascade processors could provide exactly the SAME performance as Skylake, but if they price them a lot cheaper the statement could still be true.
3900X availability is so poor right now AMD is selling ghosts. I couldn't wait any longer and just built a core i9 9900K system. It's fast enough for everything I do, and still faster on the desktop with better single core perf. The platform is also mature and 100% reliable now, where Ryzen 3000 is still suffering from not hitting it's advertised boost clocks.
Jokes on you for buying a dead-end socket and security hole ridden design from 2015, costing 50% more than what it's worth. :)
I'd have just waited for the 3900X to be back in stock. Course, you had to bring up the boost clock issue for Ryzen 3000, I bet that helps make your impulsive decision to waste your money a little bit more palatable. Funny thing is that when you're forking out for a new motherboard when you upgrade from the 9900K, I'll be enjoying maybe 16 cores and beyond on the £80 B450 I bought laster year. Not that my 2700X is showing any signs of slowing down, something that the 9900K might even literally do.
If you don't know how to order online to get one, then that's your fault. 3900X is available and comes into stock multiple times each day from many sources(Amazon, Newegg, Best Buy, and others). Yes, supplies are tight due to a very high demand, but that shows that it wasn't just an initial group of enthusiasts who wanted them.
TEAMSWITCHER. " 3900X availability is so poor right now AMD is selling ghosts " nope... i can go to the store i get my hardware from and buy one, no problem, maybe its just where you are ??
The problem is Epyc 2 (Rome) isn't Meh. It's like 20% faster than Epyc 1 and 1/4 the price of a Xeon. You'd have to want to waste money to buy Xeon at this point.
There are still reasons to go with Xeons but they are few and far between. The paradigm has shifted though in that it is easier to select Epyc as the generic default and then exploring your use-case to see if a Xeon platform makes more sense.
They will offer 40-60% more cores, with a 15% IPC improvement, and a 100 MHz clock speed bump....whatever it takes...and similar prices as before (i.e., still too much!)
I think you are confused (or perhaps I am). Better process tech can give us smaller, faster, and cheaper transistors. Assuming the same architecture, this gives us more clock frequency at the same power or lower power consumption at the same frequency (or some combination). Better process tech may have an indirect influence on architecture due to having more transistors to work with, but it is the architectural improvements that give us our IPC gains.
Putting aside the process tech, it has been a long time since Intel has introduced a new architecture with a general IPC gain of 15%. That said, I could see them getting a larger gain for specific use cases (I.E. AVX).
They cannot put Sunny Cove on 14nm++++ or they would have already done it. I suspect it would have very bad perf/watt (vs 7nm Zen2) and require very large dies. Sunny Cove for sure needs more transistors per core to achieve that IPC increase. Also it may very well need more power if it was on the same node.
We may still see Sunny Cove on 14 nm. The back porting takes time and the question is when Intel would have made the decision to back port it. If they thought that the 10nm issues would be short lived, they would have waited it out. Now three years later with a reduction in planned 10nm capacity (due to a fab moving to 14 nm), there is still room for a 14 nm Sunny Cove before 7nm is ready for desktop parts.
They moved from pure performance gain to performance per dollar, so its 30% cheaper at least :) they used statistic that was AMD domain for years..... So they are not ahead in performance per vat, pure power or any other meaningful metric. What's next performance per ramstick ?
10980XE that's 5% faster than the 9980XE but for $1099. That's what that sounds like to me. If you actually need the cores AND they need to be as fast as possible...that's actually not bad.
I returned my 3900X and have an X399 board to drop a new TR in(to replace my 1900X that I bought as a placeholder). Zen 2 is an improvement over Zen+, but it was definitely over hyped. Never mind the driver issues because AMD hasn't been able to do a proper launch in years. I'll pay a little bit extra for a processor that actually works correctly. The past year with AMD has been a nightmare.
OK, this is confusing. From your description, you have a socket TR4 board but also two Socket AM4 CPU.
Also, the timing seems a bit odd - since you are talking about the past year, I would assume that you had an older Ryzen+ (so 2xxx) and board, then got a 3900x which you returned because "the last year with AMD has been a nightmare" / you were disappointed.
So disappointed in fact that you decided to go for AMD's Threadripper platform (same company, same core, just more expensive) ?
Whatever floats your boat, but it sounds a bit odd.
Probably paid to trash-talk Ryzen 3000. The sad thing is, it's actually something that happens a lot. We have to remember how Intel play dirty when they had an inferior design to Athlon 64.
doesnt sound confusing, or like he is trash talking the 3900x. he has a 1900X and an AM4 board for it.. bought a 3900x to replace the 1900x, but then changed his mind, returned the 3900X, bought a x399 board to put a TR3 into, and is still running the 1900X in the mean time... but the last part of his post is trash talking amd in general, which if thats the case, WHY did he bother with the x399 and future TR in the 1st place if amd has been a nightmare in the last year ... that makes no sense....
I'd like to see a link for that because AMD has said repeatedly to the financial press that it would be announced Q3 and go on sale in Q4. The Q3 announcement was right on schedule.
Sounds like Intel is planning some serious price cuts on next-gen CPUs to try to blunt AMD's attack. I'm just not sure it's going to matter - they need to get 7nm out the door and fast, or the status quo will have changed.
If we are to speculate on what this means in terms of cores and pricing, the 2950x is a 16-core processor with a list price of $900. The i9-7980XE is an 18-core processor with a list price of $2,000. The 2950x cost half as much, but didn't offer quite the same level of performance - let's say Intel considers the 7980XE to be slightly faster.
So what I take from this, is that Intel will probably offer a next-gen version of their 18-core chip for $1k - which is probably where their "2.09x" comes from - and will also offer a 24 and/or 28-core variant of their big die that they calculate to be at "1.74x".
R9 3950X with it's 16C/32T at stock is beating a stock 9980XE in both performance and Price, even if cut in half the 18C/36T i9 will still be beat by a mainstream R9, When Zen 2 TR arrives it will be Brutal.
TR3 was announced already. It goes on sale in Q4. That's what this press release is a response to. It's basically a big "wait, don't buy that TR, we've got a better product".
They are hoping to delay the TR purchases with a paper release of a respin of the same thing.
Marketing department in turbo boost mode. Cut prices, create a new metric to say new product is better. Threadripper 2 will likely also move up on this chart when TR3 is announced and TR2 goes into clearance mode.
It is when you are the "Underdog", it has been AMD main selling point till Zen, now with Zen 2 the tables have turned arround completely and now Intel is trying to look like the Perf/$ Champion.
Obviously marketing BS from Intel in an attempt to slow the bleeding.
The thing that I find interesting is that they're admitting that AMD TR chips are a significantly better value and have been for a while! Throwing yourself under the bus to promote what's coming next is a risky strategy.
Great and all, but there will still be the bitter taste of 14 nm as a new generation... Not to mention its still the Skylake architecture. I already see AMD having the more efficient CPUs for the first time.
HEDT has been a segment that's never really made sense to me. Like, I understand that for certain industries, there's a need for them. And there's the fools who need to be parted from their money.
But for what I do, I more or less feel that the situations where a consumer grade CPU isn't going to cut it are the ones where you're going to want a server, and you may as well go big or go home there.
Dude, when I checked a couple of weeks ago, you could by an X399 board + 12 core TR 1920X for $500 combined. This is less than than the price of a 3900X alone, not to say anything about availability. And you have 2 x16 PCIe + 2 x8 PCIe + 3 x4 NVMe slots. The performance is staggering even on this old chip let alone what TR3 will be. If you play with VMs a lot (you can have several virtual machine with GPU passthrough!) and/or video encoding you'd be a fool to consider anything else.
There are significant market segments where HEDT can save a lot of money by reducing processing time. CAD/CAM, Design and engineering disciplines use these systems because they save money. Sure your average home user doesn't need them, but the cost of having someone that costs $300 a hour to sit around for an extra 20 minutes a day will quickly pay for an HEDT system that saves that time. At those rates you pay for the HEDT system premium in less than a month.
You shouldn't assume that just because you can't fathom the need in whatever segment of the market you are in means that no one out there is using that kind of horsepower or that those that do are a tiny market segment. HEDT isn't as big as retail consumer but it's not a small segment when you consider all the designer and engineers that need these systems.
Yeah, no. At this point it's PCIe 4.0 or bust. Double no at high end price points. You'd be better off to go low with 3950X, or high and splurge on Epyc Rome, or wait for new Threadripper.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
Back to Article
Sttm - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
"According to Intel’s internal testing, its Cascade-Lake-X processors will provide a 1.74x – 2.09x relative per-dollar performance improvement when compared to Skylake-X."This is because they are cutting the price by 35-50%? Because we all know they aren't getting a 2x performance increase out 14nm+++++++++++!
haukionkannel - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Well cutting prices would be good thing! It would mean that amd Also should cut prices and consumers would win... but because this is intel, I have some doupts...svan1971 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Why exactly should AMD cut prices? because Intel cant overcharge anymore? though they will and have for a decade.Beaver M. - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Because thats how competition works.UltraWide - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Amen.Targon - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
You miss the point. People assume that AMD should have less expensive products because they are better, but Intel still has the general public fooled into thinking that Intel is still in the lead?If AMD products have a higher level of performance(or have more cores), then there is no reason why AMD should lower prices. Intel is also looking at the products from last year, when everyone is waiting for Threadripper third generation.
Intel should lower prices because it is NOT the leader anymore, but AMD is already offering more for the money, so doesn't need to cut prices to remain competitive, even if Intel does lower prices.
Qasar - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
" Because thats how competition works. " yes.. in intels case.. intel cant way over charge for its cpu's any more.. but there is no need for amd to cut their prices as well...Eliadbu - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
"no need for AMD to cut their prices as well" there is no such thing if competition can out value your products and your sells decline you will cut prices to keep sells coming. again we need to see the products to believe those claims but there always place for price cut especially in HEDT where margins are high and AMD can sure lower prices a lot or release better products that give more value for the same price.Qasar - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
still no need to.. AMD is already offering more for the price.. its intels pricing that is way off.. and BTW, its sales, nor sells :-)RobJoy - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
Duh.According to your logic, Intel should offer cheaper chips than AMD is currently.
Same or better performance for CHEAPER.
Because THAT'S how competition works.
As so far, the ball is in Intel's court now. And Intel has not shown to outperform AMD for cheaper.
Harry Voyager - Thursday, September 12, 2019 - link
I'm seeing 9900KF parts going for ~$400 USD now, even with the 3900X being quite hard to get and very new. If they get pushed down to the $350 range near the 3700X,would it make more sense to get a 9900KF or the 3700X Ryzen?RSAUser - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
AMD is currently by far winning price/performance, they're not going to cut it for a while, if Intel halves the price they'll probably cut a little, but I doubt Intel would do so.These are probably very specific benchmarks for e.g. Some cache change or AVX improvement.
Carl Bicknell - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
That's exactly how I read the statement as well. In theory, Intel's Cascade processors could provide exactly the SAME performance as Skylake, but if they price them a lot cheaper the statement could still be true.nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
R9 3950X will make them EOL even before they are released :)TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
3900X availability is so poor right now AMD is selling ghosts. I couldn't wait any longer and just built a core i9 9900K system. It's fast enough for everything I do, and still faster on the desktop with better single core perf. The platform is also mature and 100% reliable now, where Ryzen 3000 is still suffering from not hitting it's advertised boost clocks.AshlayW - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Jokes on you for buying a dead-end socket and security hole ridden design from 2015, costing 50% more than what it's worth. :)I'd have just waited for the 3900X to be back in stock. Course, you had to bring up the boost clock issue for Ryzen 3000, I bet that helps make your impulsive decision to waste your money a little bit more palatable. Funny thing is that when you're forking out for a new motherboard when you upgrade from the 9900K, I'll be enjoying maybe 16 cores and beyond on the £80 B450 I bought laster year. Not that my 2700X is showing any signs of slowing down, something that the 9900K might even literally do.
Middlem4n - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
nobody gaf budXyler94 - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
You gave enough to respondTargon - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
If you don't know how to order online to get one, then that's your fault. 3900X is available and comes into stock multiple times each day from many sources(Amazon, Newegg, Best Buy, and others). Yes, supplies are tight due to a very high demand, but that shows that it wasn't just an initial group of enthusiasts who wanted them.Qasar - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
TEAMSWITCHER. " 3900X availability is so poor right now AMD is selling ghosts " nope... i can go to the store i get my hardware from and buy one, no problem, maybe its just where you are ??drothgery - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Though it's likely they'd have more cores at the same price point even if EPYC was kind of meh.nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Even if Rome had not performance gains, a 64 C/128T 1P Naples would have murked Intel's 9200 Xeons in performance and Price.rahvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
The problem is Epyc 2 (Rome) isn't Meh. It's like 20% faster than Epyc 1 and 1/4 the price of a Xeon. You'd have to want to waste money to buy Xeon at this point.Kevin G - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
There are still reasons to go with Xeons but they are few and far between. The paradigm has shifted though in that it is easier to select Epyc as the generic default and then exploring your use-case to see if a Xeon platform makes more sense.Irata - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
It also depends how they measure performance (cough *Bapco* cough).It is interesting that they stress "performance per dollar" and not absolute performance.
It is probably a combination of higher IPC, more cores, lower price, but as a consumer if you get more for less that is good.
MDD1963 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
They will offer 40-60% more cores, with a 15% IPC improvement, and a 100 MHz clock speed bump....whatever it takes...and similar prices as before (i.e., still too much!)nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
No Way, No How they can squeeze another 15% IPC from 14++++++ refreshBurntMyBacon - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
I think you are confused (or perhaps I am). Better process tech can give us smaller, faster, and cheaper transistors. Assuming the same architecture, this gives us more clock frequency at the same power or lower power consumption at the same frequency (or some combination). Better process tech may have an indirect influence on architecture due to having more transistors to work with, but it is the architectural improvements that give us our IPC gains.Putting aside the process tech, it has been a long time since Intel has introduced a new architecture with a general IPC gain of 15%. That said, I could see them getting a larger gain for specific use cases (I.E. AVX).
AshlayW - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
They cannot put Sunny Cove on 14nm++++ or they would have already done it. I suspect it would have very bad perf/watt (vs 7nm Zen2) and require very large dies. Sunny Cove for sure needs more transistors per core to achieve that IPC increase. Also it may very well need more power if it was on the same node.Kevin G - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
We may still see Sunny Cove on 14 nm. The back porting takes time and the question is when Intel would have made the decision to back port it. If they thought that the 10nm issues would be short lived, they would have waited it out. Now three years later with a reduction in planned 10nm capacity (due to a fab moving to 14 nm), there is still room for a 14 nm Sunny Cove before 7nm is ready for desktop parts.deil - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
They moved from pure performance gain to performance per dollar, so its 30% cheaper at least :)they used statistic that was AMD domain for years.....
So they are not ahead in performance per vat, pure power or any other meaningful metric.
What's next performance per ramstick ?
SanX - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Performance per RAM channel. The bigger the better :)YB1064 - Wednesday, September 11, 2019 - link
Is there a need for a giant Intel banner in this blurb?jcc5169 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Intel Propaganda machine kicks into high gear to convince us that they still matterDug - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
And threadripper 3rd gen should be releasing about same time.I'd be curious how well Ryzen 3950x would do which apparently is out this month.
nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
No, Zen 2 based TR will be released in first quarter 2020shreduhsoreus - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
10980XE that's 5% faster than the 9980XE but for $1099. That's what that sounds like to me. If you actually need the cores AND they need to be as fast as possible...that's actually not bad.I returned my 3900X and have an X399 board to drop a new TR in(to replace my 1900X that I bought as a placeholder). Zen 2 is an improvement over Zen+, but it was definitely over hyped. Never mind the driver issues because AMD hasn't been able to do a proper launch in years. I'll pay a little bit extra for a processor that actually works correctly. The past year with AMD has been a nightmare.
Irata - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
OK, this is confusing. From your description, you have a socket TR4 board but also two Socket AM4 CPU.Also, the timing seems a bit odd - since you are talking about the past year, I would assume that you had an older Ryzen+ (so 2xxx) and board, then got a 3900x which you returned because "the last year with AMD has been a nightmare" / you were disappointed.
So disappointed in fact that you decided to go for AMD's Threadripper platform (same company, same core, just more expensive) ?
Whatever floats your boat, but it sounds a bit odd.
AshlayW - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Probably paid to trash-talk Ryzen 3000. The sad thing is, it's actually something that happens a lot. We have to remember how Intel play dirty when they had an inferior design to Athlon 64.Mr.Vegas - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
WOW, your a real life nut case, i bet you have a collection of tin foil hatsQasar - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
doesnt sound confusing, or like he is trash talking the 3900x. he has a 1900X and an AM4 board for it.. bought a 3900x to replace the 1900x, but then changed his mind, returned the 3900X, bought a x399 board to put a TR3 into, and is still running the 1900X in the mean time... but the last part of his post is trash talking amd in general, which if thats the case, WHY did he bother with the x399 and future TR in the 1st place if amd has been a nightmare in the last year ... that makes no sense....shreduhsoreus - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I didn't mean to reply to you, my bad.nandnandnand - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Late 2019 launch, maybe a paper launch.rahvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I'd like to see a link for that because AMD has said repeatedly to the financial press that it would be announced Q3 and go on sale in Q4. The Q3 announcement was right on schedule.Targon - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
That is wishful thinking for Intel stockholders. New Threadripper will be out before the end of this year, probably in October.twtech - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Sounds like Intel is planning some serious price cuts on next-gen CPUs to try to blunt AMD's attack. I'm just not sure it's going to matter - they need to get 7nm out the door and fast, or the status quo will have changed.If we are to speculate on what this means in terms of cores and pricing, the 2950x is a 16-core processor with a list price of $900. The i9-7980XE is an 18-core processor with a list price of $2,000. The 2950x cost half as much, but didn't offer quite the same level of performance - let's say Intel considers the 7980XE to be slightly faster.
So what I take from this, is that Intel will probably offer a next-gen version of their 18-core chip for $1k - which is probably where their "2.09x" comes from - and will also offer a 24 and/or 28-core variant of their big die that they calculate to be at "1.74x".
nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
R9 3950X with it's 16C/32T at stock is beating a stock 9980XE in both performance and Price, even if cut in half the 18C/36T i9 will still be beat by a mainstream R9, When Zen 2 TR arrives it will be Brutal.rahvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
TR3 was announced already. It goes on sale in Q4. That's what this press release is a response to. It's basically a big "wait, don't buy that TR, we've got a better product".They are hoping to delay the TR purchases with a paper release of a respin of the same thing.
MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Marketing department in turbo boost mode. Cut prices, create a new metric to say new product is better. Threadripper 2 will likely also move up on this chart when TR3 is announced and TR2 goes into clearance mode.Phynaz - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Since when is perf/$ a new metric?nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
It is when you are the "Underdog", it has been AMD main selling point till Zen, now with Zen 2 the tables have turned arround completely and now Intel is trying to look like the Perf/$ Champion.ZipSpeed - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
It's not, but there's not a whole of metrics Intel can use these days. AMD used it a lot during the Bulldozer days. Now it's Intel's turn.nicamarvin - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Oh how the tables have turned memeshabby - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Intel's turn? Intel providing a better perf per $? Lololololsorten - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Obviously marketing BS from Intel in an attempt to slow the bleeding.The thing that I find interesting is that they're admitting that AMD TR chips are a significantly better value and have been for a while! Throwing yourself under the bus to promote what's coming next is a risky strategy.
rahvin - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
The most interesting thing about the $/performance graph is that it shows TR2 is 30-60% better than Skylake-X.I'm frankly Surprised Intel marketing allowed that graphic to be produced.
Beaver M. - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Great and all, but there will still be the bitter taste of 14 nm as a new generation... Not to mention its still the Skylake architecture. I already see AMD having the more efficient CPUs for the first time.III-V - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
HEDT has been a segment that's never really made sense to me. Like, I understand that for certain industries, there's a need for them. And there's the fools who need to be parted from their money.But for what I do, I more or less feel that the situations where a consumer grade CPU isn't going to cut it are the ones where you're going to want a server, and you may as well go big or go home there.
kobblestown - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Dude, when I checked a couple of weeks ago, you could by an X399 board + 12 core TR 1920X for $500 combined. This is less than than the price of a 3900X alone, not to say anything about availability. And you have 2 x16 PCIe + 2 x8 PCIe + 3 x4 NVMe slots. The performance is staggering even on this old chip let alone what TR3 will be. If you play with VMs a lot (you can have several virtual machine with GPU passthrough!) and/or video encoding you'd be a fool to consider anything else.rahvin - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
There are significant market segments where HEDT can save a lot of money by reducing processing time. CAD/CAM, Design and engineering disciplines use these systems because they save money. Sure your average home user doesn't need them, but the cost of having someone that costs $300 a hour to sit around for an extra 20 minutes a day will quickly pay for an HEDT system that saves that time. At those rates you pay for the HEDT system premium in less than a month.You shouldn't assume that just because you can't fathom the need in whatever segment of the market you are in means that no one out there is using that kind of horsepower or that those that do are a tiny market segment. HEDT isn't as big as retail consumer but it's not a small segment when you consider all the designer and engineers that need these systems.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
"An Atom ought to be enough for anyone."dgingeri - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
LOL! Yeah, right, I'll believe that when I see it. I bet it won't even match the 2950X in perf per dollar, with the way Intel rates things.Colin1497 - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Chart:Our last gen product was a bad deal compared to our competition, but our new one will be marginally better than their old one.
hubick - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Yeah, no. At this point it's PCIe 4.0 or bust. Double no at high end price points. You'd be better off to go low with 3950X, or high and splurge on Epyc Rome, or wait for new Threadripper.Middlem4n - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Woot Woot time to upgrade 7820x for a 10960x