4 ms·
Additionally, that hypothetical 5% is observed only in synthetic benchmarks devised to redline the CPU. Thus the performance difference is rather irrelevant and
by geezerjay 8y ago
Additionally, that hypothetical 5% is observed only in synthetic benchmarks devised to redline the CPU. Thus the performance difference is rather irrelevant and thus the price/performance ratio tilts rather favourably in favour of AMD.
- vbezhenar 8y agoIt's not only synthetic benchmarks. Compilation speed improvement is very real, rendering speed, some simulations, etc. If your workloads are very light, you don't need K-class CPU at all. That said, ThreadRipper should be even better for those tasks at similar price and provides additional features like ECC support, more PCI lanes. IMO 9900K is awesome if you need best in class single-thread performance for one task and good multithread performance for another task. It would be good for me, for example. I like to play WoW and this game is pretty much single-core limited to provide even 60 FPS. And I'm using my PC for development, so improvements for compilation time are nice as well. Whether I would want to pay that price is another matter, I definitely won't buy new Intel CPU until they fix those Meltdown issues causing significant slowdown in some tasks. And if AMD will reach 5+ GHz by that time, I'll happily switch without second thought.
- simion314 8y agoI agree, Intel is faster, what we complained here is the misleading benchmarks and tactics to make the huge price more justifiable. In programming community Intel also receives more skepticism because their compiler intentionally cripples AMD users and the disclaimer is put on the web as an image so is not picked up by search engines(last time I checked a few months back was still image).