3 ms·
The actual TL;DR is that the Core i9 beat the Threadripper ist almost every test. The bang-for-the-buck argument is only briefly mentioned towards the end, and
by ckastner 9y ago
The actual TL;DR is that the Core i9 beat the Threadripper ist almost every test.
The bang-for-the-buck argument is only briefly mentioned towards the end, and is followed up by:
One last thing to consider is that the price of just the CPU isn't everything. When it's watered down by the total cost of the system, it may indeed be worth it for some. For example, the Falcon Northwest Talon systems that we used were both dream configurations with $2,400 in GPUs, maybe $1,800 in RAM and $1,200 in SSDs. That doesn't count the motherboard, hard drive, cooling, case, power supply or custom hand-paint jobs. When you're building a box in this range, the price difference in the CPU isn't that much.
- mda 9y agoNot by a margin that warrants the price difference. Tbh most are negligible and power consumption is worse as well.
- ycombinete 9y agoI'll take both as TL;DRs.
- gwynD 9y agoI'm sort of unsure if that argument makes any sense. Say you're at a restaurant, and they're selling a salad at $600. It's a really good salad, but not $600-salad. But hey, you're at the restaurant with the realtor you're buying a house from. Combined, the salad and house are $865,300. Would that change your choice of meal? More realistically, people often make the mistake to see money in relative terms where it should be treated in absolute terms. Say you're buing a nice ballpoint pen for $20. On the way out the store, you see a sign that the pen was actually on offer for just $10. Chances are, you'll invest the two minutes to get the rebate. Now consider the same situation, but you're buying an iPhone. Again, you see a sign advertising the iPhone for just $675, not the $685 you paid. Most people are less likely to invest the two minutes here, even though the payoffs are equal.