4 ms·

If money were no object, Xeon Platinum 8180m ($13k retail).

KekDemaga 9y ago
28 cores sure, but they run a base frequency of 2.50GHz. For $1469 you can have the i9-7940X 14 cores at 3.1GHz probably more suitable for a workstation.
- SSLy 9y ago
  No ECC support
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    I'd go for the Threadripper 1950X if that is a requirement then 16 cores, 3.4 GHz, ECC support all for under $1000. Intel doesn't really have anything that meets those requirements at a reasonable price.
    - really_operator 9y ago
      I thought he said if money was no object...
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        It depends on the workload but for most cases those extra cores will just sit idle (that Intel is for things like webservers serving many concurrent requests), for most general workstation tasks you'll get better performance from the AMD offering. It's sort of like buying a half million dollar tractor trailer to go fast instead of a hundred thousand dollar sports car.
      - mtgx 9y ago
        Then his choice is $13,000 vs $1,000. Money may not be an object, but choosing the first option seems a little stupid. Even rich people don't throw away money like that, because if they did, they probably wouldn't have gotten rich in the first place.
- Coding_Cat 9y ago
  28 cores @ 2.5 GHz = 70 GHz Cores, 14 cores @ 3.1 GHz = 43.4 GHz cores. So the total performance (to first order) is almost twice as good for the 28 core part. Sure you need to use all cores for that comparison to hold, but usually software either scales up to 8 cores or less or it scales up to N cores.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    This gets muddied by the use of boost clocks, and this part does 3.8Ghz in that mode. What would be nice to see is a processor aimed at long stretches of interactive use with few cores (1-4) and then long stretches of offline uses with many cores (16-32 cores). A lot of "workstation" use is long stretches of interactive use on a few cores followed by periods of offline use (NN training, Graphical rendering, Code compilation/testing etc). The boost clocks on these higher end cpu's should really be able to go even higher, even if it means the base clocks would have to go down somewhat. I'd rather have a 28core CPU where it runs either 20 cores entirely OFF and the rest at 4.5Ghz, than one where it runs at 2.5-3.8Ghz.
mda 9y ago
For that money you can go for 2xEpyc 7551 (64 cores, 128 threads ~$6K) and spend the rest of $7K on decent ECC Ram and big fat fast ssds.

28 cores sure, but they run a base frequency of 2.50GHz. For $1469 you can have the i9-7940X 14 cores at 3.1GHz probably more suitable for a workstation.

SSLy 9y ago
No ECC support
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  I'd go for the Threadripper 1950X if that is a requirement then 16 cores, 3.4 GHz, ECC support all for under $1000. Intel doesn't really have anything that meets those requirements at a reasonable price.
  - really_operator 9y ago
    I thought he said if money was no object...
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      It depends on the workload but for most cases those extra cores will just sit idle (that Intel is for things like webservers serving many concurrent requests), for most general workstation tasks you'll get better performance from the AMD offering. It's sort of like buying a half million dollar tractor trailer to go fast instead of a hundred thousand dollar sports car.
    - mtgx 9y ago
      Then his choice is $13,000 vs $1,000. Money may not be an object, but choosing the first option seems a little stupid. Even rich people don't throw away money like that, because if they did, they probably wouldn't have gotten rich in the first place.
Coding_Cat 9y ago
28 cores @ 2.5 GHz = 70 GHz Cores, 14 cores @ 3.1 GHz = 43.4 GHz cores. So the total performance (to first order) is almost twice as good for the 28 core part. Sure you need to use all cores for that comparison to hold, but usually software either scales up to 8 cores or less or it scales up to N cores.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  This gets muddied by the use of boost clocks, and this part does 3.8Ghz in that mode. What would be nice to see is a processor aimed at long stretches of interactive use with few cores (1-4) and then long stretches of offline uses with many cores (16-32 cores). A lot of "workstation" use is long stretches of interactive use on a few cores followed by periods of offline use (NN training, Graphical rendering, Code compilation/testing etc). The boost clocks on these higher end cpu's should really be able to go even higher, even if it means the base clocks would have to go down somewhat. I'd rather have a 28core CPU where it runs either 20 cores entirely OFF and the rest at 4.5Ghz, than one where it runs at 2.5-3.8Ghz.

mda 9y ago

For that money you can go for 2xEpyc 7551 (64 cores, 128 threads ~$6K) and spend the rest of $7K on decent ECC Ram and big fat fast ssds.