3 ms·
At this point though intel has slashed their price/core to be competitive if not better than threadripper. They don't have anything that compete in core count,
by frankc 6y ago
At this point though intel has slashed their price/core to be competitive if not better than threadripper. They don't have anything that compete in core count, but if you look at the 9980/10980 series with 18 cores, its very competitive on a price basis per core with the 24/32/64 core threadrippers. If you want max cores then you still need to go with threadripper but if 18 is enough, i don't get all the hate 10980 gets. There are certain linear algebra related workloads where the intels excel and why I would probably go with the 10980x were I to upgrade (which im probably not, 4 year old pc doing fine)
- Klinky 6y agoPractically every review for the 3960X shows it's significantly faster at productivity applications than a 10980XE. Leaving six cores on the table is significant. If you have a primarily single-threaded task, then you should just go for a 10900K.
- gruez 6y ago>They don't have anything that compete in core count, but if you look at the 9980/10980 series with 18 cores, its very competitive on a price basis per core with the 24/32/64 core threadrippers. That's not a fair comparison, considering that price per core usually goes up the more cores there are. Also, if you check pcpartpicker you'll see all the i9s with greater than 12 cores are either sold out, or well above their MRSP.