5 ms·

I have the fastest HEDT Intel processor (10980xe) and have benchmarked it extensively against AMD's equivalents (3950x and 3960x). If you are willing to OC the

I have the fastest HEDT Intel processor (10980xe) and have benchmarked it extensively against AMD's equivalents (3950x and 3960x). If you are willing to OC then Intel has a significantly better price/performance ratio than AMD for general use. If you doing anything that benefits from AVX then Intel will pull away significantly. And if you are doing deep learning than DLBoost is seriously under-appreciated. However if you're not in these three camps then AMD is the better option. Also the x299 LGA1151 socket has been around for 3 years so Intel doesn't always just change sockets for no reason.

foepys 6y ago
Does price/performance include power draw, mainboard, and PSU? The 10980xe requires 250W while boosting afaik.
xxs 6y ago
3950x is not a HEDT. It has only 2 memory channels for instance.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  maybe not in the official product stack, but it's a 16-core processor that costs $700. it performs the same as or slightly worse than the 3900x in any workload that isn't massively parallel. imo, when you get to the point in the product stack where $300 dollars yields the same or worse single-thread performance, you have entered HEDT land.
  - xxs 6y ago
    >it performs the same as or slightly worse than the 3900x This is getting nowhere, 3900x is 12core version of 3950x, both are commodity grade hardware with 'cheaper' motherboards and two memory channels. 3950x tends to have the higher quality silicone, it boosts higher on its right own. HEDT has more memory channels and more PCIe lanes - this is "the land".
hn_check 6y ago
If you are willing to OC then Intel has a significantly better price/performance ratio than AMD for general use You're engaged in some serious attempts at rationalization. The 3950X trounces the 10980XE in virtually every metric (including measures where the 10980XE gets to use AVX-512). It costs 1/3rd less. Unless you're significantly overclocking, with expensive cooling hardware, you aren't making that up. And in the real world the headroom for overclocking is pretty tiny. Intel is behind, and even after price cuts they're still seriously overpriced. Trying to rationalize that they're "significantly better price/performance" if you just do A,B, C (which are of course completely unverifiable, moving target meaningless steps) is nonsense.
- threeseed 6y ago
  I have provided benchmarks here: https://browser.geekbench.com/user/threeseed https://browser.geekbench.com/user/threeseed By all means do the comparison against the 3950x. And my cooler is a standard 360mm AIO which is hardly expensive.
  - hn_check 6y ago
    "By all means do the comparison against the 3950x." Just to be clear, here, your overclocking was so extreme, and so extremely atypical, that you're on the "world record" list- https://hwbot.org/benchmark/geekbench4_-_multi_core/halloffame https://hwbot.org/benchmark/geekbench4_-_multi_core/halloffa... And you're seriously positing this as just a typical thing to do? Your processor costs 33%+ more than the 3950X. Your cooler, even your "hardly expensive" cooler, costs another $200-$300+. No, you didn't hit anywhere close to a high in price/performance -- even if we assume that you aren't blasting through 300W to the processor alone, and suffering a cascade of faults if you tried to pretend this was normal operations, you still haven't come close to breaking even on that ratio. And all of that is going by Geekbench which already has an oddly synthetic slant towards Intel. In actual benchmarks of real world activities -- compiling, running blender, most games, etc -- the 3950X absolutely shoots in the lead (despite having just two RAM channels, where in memory access it barely lags the 4 channel 10980XE) I don't have any dog in this race. This laptop has an i7. My MBP has an i7. My "gaming" PC has an older Zen. But you have to seriously stretch and twist reality to try to make a case for Intel, much less a value proposition.
govg 6y ago
Aren't Threadrippers the HEDT offerings from AMD?

foepys 6y ago

Does price/performance include power draw, mainboard, and PSU? The 10980xe requires 250W while boosting afaik.

xxs 6y ago

3950x is not a HEDT. It has only 2 memory channels for instance.

leetcrew 6y ago
maybe not in the official product stack, but it's a 16-core processor that costs $700. it performs the same as or slightly worse than the 3900x in any workload that isn't massively parallel. imo, when you get to the point in the product stack where $300 dollars yields the same or worse single-thread performance, you have entered HEDT land.
- xxs 6y ago
  >it performs the same as or slightly worse than the 3900x This is getting nowhere, 3900x is 12core version of 3950x, both are commodity grade hardware with 'cheaper' motherboards and two memory channels. 3950x tends to have the higher quality silicone, it boosts higher on its right own. HEDT has more memory channels and more PCIe lanes - this is "the land".

hn_check 6y ago

If you are willing to OC then Intel has a significantly better price/performance ratio than AMD for general use You're engaged in some serious attempts at rationalization. The 3950X trounces the 10980XE in virtually every metric (including measures where the 10980XE gets to use AVX-512). It costs 1/3rd less. Unless you're significantly overclocking, with expensive cooling hardware, you aren't making that up. And in the real world the headroom for overclocking is pretty tiny. Intel is behind, and even after price cuts they're still seriously overpriced. Trying to rationalize that they're "significantly better price/performance" if you just do A,B, C (which are of course completely unverifiable, moving target meaningless steps) is nonsense.

threeseed 6y ago
I have provided benchmarks here: https://browser.geekbench.com/user/threeseed https://browser.geekbench.com/user/threeseed By all means do the comparison against the 3950x. And my cooler is a standard 360mm AIO which is hardly expensive.
- hn_check 6y ago
  "By all means do the comparison against the 3950x." Just to be clear, here, your overclocking was so extreme, and so extremely atypical, that you're on the "world record" list- https://hwbot.org/benchmark/geekbench4_-_multi_core/halloffame https://hwbot.org/benchmark/geekbench4_-_multi_core/halloffa... And you're seriously positing this as just a typical thing to do? Your processor costs 33%+ more than the 3950X. Your cooler, even your "hardly expensive" cooler, costs another $200-$300+. No, you didn't hit anywhere close to a high in price/performance -- even if we assume that you aren't blasting through 300W to the processor alone, and suffering a cascade of faults if you tried to pretend this was normal operations, you still haven't come close to breaking even on that ratio. And all of that is going by Geekbench which already has an oddly synthetic slant towards Intel. In actual benchmarks of real world activities -- compiling, running blender, most games, etc -- the 3950X absolutely shoots in the lead (despite having just two RAM channels, where in memory access it barely lags the 4 channel 10980XE) I don't have any dog in this race. This laptop has an i7. My MBP has an i7. My "gaming" PC has an older Zen. But you have to seriously stretch and twist reality to try to make a case for Intel, much less a value proposition.

govg 6y ago

Aren't Threadrippers the HEDT offerings from AMD?