7 ms·
Not really.... Core i9-9900K 8/16 Cores 3.6-.5.0 GHz - $488 Core i7-9700K 8/8 Cores 3.6-.4.9 GHz - $374 Ryzen 7 2700X 8/16 cores 4.3 GHz - $320 Easy pick fo
by jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
Not really....
Core i9-9900K 8/16 Cores 3.6-.5.0 GHz - $488
Core i7-9700K 8/8 Cores 3.6-.4.9 GHz - $374
Ryzen 7 2700X 8/16 cores 4.3 GHz - $320
Easy pick for me, Intel isn't even a consideration.
- qaq 8y agoAs AMD shareholder I am glad you see it that way :)
- jaxtellerSoA 8y agoFull disclosure: I am also an AMD shareholder :) I am not fanboying AMD here either. The facts for me are clear, AMD is going to continue to eat Intel for breakfast for the next 2 years at least. Intel isn't going to be competitive until they release a modular designed chip, which although they haven't announced they ware working on, I am 100% certain they are. Why am I certain, first they now have Jim Keller, who designed the Ryzen chip. Second, they acquired NetSpeed, which has IP around modular CPU design (likely a play to ensure they don't get sued by AMD when they release a modular chip). I know a lot of people are looking at Intel right now, thinking it is a bargain prices and a good time to buy. I think they have a long way more to fall. When the chips that Jim Keller is working on are about to hit the market, that is when it will be time to buy Intel. Until then I have no interest in anything Intel has to offer.
- O_H_E 8y agoWould be really interested if you could provide a source or explanation on modular chips. Couldn't find anything with a couple of searches
- jaxtellerSoA 8y agoSure I would be happy to. The tech is called "infinity fabric", you can look it up there is lots out there about it. It basically allows AMD to make several smaller dies and have them function together as one CPU. Here is an excellent video that explains it all (and also goes into why this is such a huge advantage that allows AMD to have significantly better yields with their wafers) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ
- jsheard 8y agoYou should see the prices here in the UK, we can get a Ryzen 2700X 8C/16T for £300 or an Intel 9900k 8C/16T for £600. The Intel is probably faster... but enough to justify literally double the money? I seriously doubt it.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago>The Intel is probably faster... Only in specific IPC heavy workflows.
- ianai 8y agoThe amd probably can be built with ECC ram while the intel cannot, as well. I hope that’s a hat trick amd pushes them to release on the i7s.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cronz 8y agoWhen was the last time your computer crashed because of a cosmic ray?
- Scramblejams 8y agoThe problem isn't a crash, the problem is silent data corruption. I have a system with 128 gigs of ECC and it catches a soft bit flip or two about every 6 months.
- cronz 8y agoMost people don't have that amount of RAM. What are the chances that a soft bit flip will cause silent data corruption that matters for a user with, say, 8 GB of RAM?
- jjcm 8y agoReally depends on what you're doing. If you're doing a lot of builds or running virtual machines, AMD is the clear winner here. No contest. If you're only doing primarily single threaded things (i.e. gaming) then the intel chips will give you better performance.
- mtgx 8y agoGaming has not been single-threaded for a while, even on mobile.
- dragontamer 8y agoGaming has multiple threads, but often is single-threaded bound due to Ahmdal's law. Lets say you can split up your threads to AI, Physics, Rendering, Networking, etc. etc. But lets say Physics dominates: then your game is still single-threaded bound. You only get faster if you make your physics faster. You can split your game up into work-queues, thread pools, and such. Except not everyone is up-to-date with the latest techniques yet. Furthermore, thread-pools aren't always cache friendly and may hamper your performance. (If Core1 works on something, then Core4 completes the work, you have to transfer all the data out of your L1 and L2 cache to continue working on it on Core4). So its not exactly an easy thing to program.
- gameswithgo 8y agonewer AAA games/3d drivers lead to a pretty nice workload split over multiple cores really. Battlegrounds was coded in a rush and inexpertly so but it still lights up 4 cores pretty well. Probably in part due to drivers and unreal engine helping out even if the game programmers aren't explicitly working at it.
- dragontamer 8y agoOh yeah, SOME games are certainly multithreaded well. Doom, Battlegrounds, and more. DX12 apparently helped a lot with that. But many games are still single-thread bound (despite being multithreaded). As such, Gamers should still prefer single-thread performance.
- Keyframe 8y agoSame for AMD. Not even a consideration without thunderbolt.
- berbec 8y agoWe should see it sooner or later. Thunderbolt is royalty-free. But what application are you needing more than 10Gbps externally?
- Marsymars 8y ago> But what application are you needing more than 10Gbps externally? Laptop docking. Running a 4K monitor over a USB Type-C cable leaves you with only the USB 2.0 lanes available for data. (And 5K is impossible.)
- Keyframe 8y agoAll of the damn external disks and devices I bought for video editing.
- gameswithgo 8y agoRyzen still stuck at SSE instruction. AVX2 instructions are faked and go at SSE speed. [EDIT - removed AVX-512 claim that was wrong] Overall perf is likely a lot better with the i9 for most workloads.
- jsheard 8y agoThe i9-9900k does not support AVX-512, since it's still based on the Coffee Lake uarch. ARK confirms: https://ark.intel.com/products/186605 https://ark.intel.com/products/186605 It's true that Coffee Lake has a performance edge over Ryzen when running AVX/AVX2 code though.
- floatboth 8y ago"SSE speed" is the most meaningful term I've ever seen. Ryzen doesn't have 256-bit wide units, so 256-bit instructions take 2x as long. The benefit of that is that Ryzen doesn't throttle the clock speed of the whole chip when executing AVX2 instructions :P Intel's widening of units has brought a giant downclocking problem: https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequency-scaling/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequen...
- floatboth 8y ago(least meaningful of course)
- vbezhenar 8y agoNot easy pick for me. Intel has 16% performance advantage. Pricing is bad, but they charge because they can. If I wanted to buy best CPU, I probably would have spend 1.5x more. If I wanted to save money, it's another story.
- dragontamer 8y agoThe upper-end of Intel's offerings start to get into AMD's Threadripper price range. AMD is offering a 16-core / 32-thread 4.4GHz monster for $899, and a 32-core / 64-thread for $1799. If you wanted the best under $5000 (total cost of a computer), it seems like AMD Threadripper is the best. If you wanted the best below $1000, it seems like AMD Ryzen is the best. Only if you are single-thread bound (5GHz clocks!!), AVX2 or AVX512 bound, or PEXT / PDEP bound (Stockfish 9) should you consider Intel. But otherwise, AMD is offering more performance at all price points up to the EPYC 7601 (~$3000 CPU: 32-core/64 threads / 8-memory controllers / 64 PCIe lanes direct to CPU, support for dual-socket). -------- With that being said, I'm definitely interested in Intel's Xeon Silver platform. If Intel pushed dual-socket out better, then they would be cheaper AND faster. IMO, its a bit weird that Intel isn't taking advantage of their dual-socket solutions to counter AMD Threadripper (I mean... Threadripper really is just a dual-socket or quad-socket NUMA chip combined into a single socket). As it is, Xeon Silver is hard to find and seems to be ticking up in price unfortunately. But their nominal prices are actually quite good, although their clocks are kinda low. But Xeon Silver really seems like Intel's price/performance champ (even if its still a bit more expensive than Threadripper or EPYC).