3 ms·

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 rati

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.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    My overlocking is hardly extreme, it's 4.8GHz. And my cooler costs $119. Also I run this configuration as my daily driver with zero faults and in my real world use cases e.g. machine learning it is 2-5x faster than then 3950x. AVX512 is still a killer feature for Intel.
    - hn_check 6y ago
      Your results are the highest for this processor on GeekBench. "e.g. machine learning it is 2-5x faster than then 3950x. AVX512 is still a killer feature for Intel." An entry-level GPU does machine learning 2-4x+ faster than an 10980XE. CPUs aren't the right tool for that job. AVX-512 is nice, but for most workloads it is a niche optimization for an edge condition that is seldom hit. Even in AVX-512 enabled tools like Handbrake, the AVX-512 codepath is so small of an impact that the 3950X still handily beats the 10980XE. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15039/113605.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15039/113605.png In reality I think both CPUs are absurd for most users. Few actually exhaust more than a handful or cores, possibly two hands worth, in normal operations. But there is no reasonable case to be made that Intel has a better price/performance ratio. At this point, even after they've dramatically cut prices (the introduction price of the 10980XE was chopped in half courtesy of AMDs rise) they're coasting on inertia. Hopefully they pull a rabbit out of the hat.
    - smabie 6y ago
      https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequency-scaling/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequen... It turns out AVX512 doesn't give you the kind of performance speedouts you think. On those benchmarks, AVX512 is only around 8% faster than AVX2. The reality is that AMD is killing Intel at every price point. My 3950x scores 12444 (no OC) and only costs around $400. Looking up on Newegg, your 10980XE costs... wait for it.. $3000. Even with your crazy overclocking, that intel cpu is only 35% faster and 650% more expensive. How can you seriously claim that Intel is at all competitive with AMD? And speaking of ML, it's rare to find a ML workload that is expensive that doesn't involve neural networks. And for neural networks, you should be running on a GPU anyways so I'm not sure how useful this DL Boost tech is.

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.
- threeseed 6y ago
  My overlocking is hardly extreme, it's 4.8GHz. And my cooler costs $119. Also I run this configuration as my daily driver with zero faults and in my real world use cases e.g. machine learning it is 2-5x faster than then 3950x. AVX512 is still a killer feature for Intel.
  - hn_check 6y ago
    Your results are the highest for this processor on GeekBench. "e.g. machine learning it is 2-5x faster than then 3950x. AVX512 is still a killer feature for Intel." An entry-level GPU does machine learning 2-4x+ faster than an 10980XE. CPUs aren't the right tool for that job. AVX-512 is nice, but for most workloads it is a niche optimization for an edge condition that is seldom hit. Even in AVX-512 enabled tools like Handbrake, the AVX-512 codepath is so small of an impact that the 3950X still handily beats the 10980XE. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15039/113605.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15039/113605.png In reality I think both CPUs are absurd for most users. Few actually exhaust more than a handful or cores, possibly two hands worth, in normal operations. But there is no reasonable case to be made that Intel has a better price/performance ratio. At this point, even after they've dramatically cut prices (the introduction price of the 10980XE was chopped in half courtesy of AMDs rise) they're coasting on inertia. Hopefully they pull a rabbit out of the hat.
  - smabie 6y ago
    https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequency-scaling/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequen... It turns out AVX512 doesn't give you the kind of performance speedouts you think. On those benchmarks, AVX512 is only around 8% faster than AVX2. The reality is that AMD is killing Intel at every price point. My 3950x scores 12444 (no OC) and only costs around $400. Looking up on Newegg, your 10980XE costs... wait for it.. $3000. Even with your crazy overclocking, that intel cpu is only 35% faster and 650% more expensive. How can you seriously claim that Intel is at all competitive with AMD? And speaking of ML, it's rare to find a ML workload that is expensive that doesn't involve neural networks. And for neural networks, you should be running on a GPU anyways so I'm not sure how useful this DL Boost tech is.