3 ms·

I didn't say there were no use cases, I said there were > very few use cases The average person is not compiling programs or dealing with Kubernetes.

nightski 4y ago
The average person is not buying a 7950 so I have no idea what you are getting at.
- nabakin 4y ago
  I get the confusion, I meant the average person buying these CPUs is not compiling programs or dealing with Kubernetes.
  - nightski 4y ago
    I don't know. Typically the 5950/7950 is not targeted towards gamers. It sacrifices single core performance for more cores. Usually it's more of a prosumer audience that actually do need those attributes.
    - nabakin 4y ago
      I've been seeing these CPUs marketed as next gen gaming CPUs but maybe I'm wrong
      - nightski 4y ago
        Yes the 5900/7900 but those have 12 cores. The higher end 5950/7950, which has a higher core count, actually perform slightly worse in games and are targeted towards a prosumer. Don't get me wrong, they still work amazingly well for games. It's just that they sacrificed some performance in those chips for the higher core count so it only makes sense they'd want to push that further. But my guess is they don't want to compete with their threadripper line. Unfortunately those come much later in the product cycle so we'll probably be waiting some time for a Zen 4 threadripper.
        willis936 4y ago
        7950X has more L3$ per CCX and higher single threaded clock, so I'm not sure why you think the 7900X would perform better in games.
zer0-c00l 4y ago
- nabakin 4y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear. 24 or 32 core CPUs are only useful for the select few who are running a lot of intensive and parallelizable computations. The majority of people buying these mainstream CPUs do not get any more use out of a 24 core CPU than a 16 core CPU and yet would be paying hundreds of dollars more. It would only make sense to have these kinds of CPUs for server-grade or otherwise specialized tasks which do not fall under the mainstream performance line of CPUs as seen and talked about here. That is why I think AMD will go no further. There is no benefit, only cost to the kind of mainstream consumers who are buying these CPUs. > aren’t even the actual use cases for a high core workstation CPU. I was talking about 16 core CPUs in general which also includes laptop CPUs. Another reason why 16 cores makes sense for a general consumer CPU is because of the power efficiency gains with efficiency cores in laptops.
  - zer0-c00l 4y ago

nightski 4y ago

The average person is not buying a 7950 so I have no idea what you are getting at.

nabakin 4y ago
I get the confusion, I meant the average person buying these CPUs is not compiling programs or dealing with Kubernetes.
- nightski 4y ago
  I don't know. Typically the 5950/7950 is not targeted towards gamers. It sacrifices single core performance for more cores. Usually it's more of a prosumer audience that actually do need those attributes.
  - nabakin 4y ago
    I've been seeing these CPUs marketed as next gen gaming CPUs but maybe I'm wrong
    - nightski 4y ago
      Yes the 5900/7900 but those have 12 cores. The higher end 5950/7950, which has a higher core count, actually perform slightly worse in games and are targeted towards a prosumer. Don't get me wrong, they still work amazingly well for games. It's just that they sacrificed some performance in those chips for the higher core count so it only makes sense they'd want to push that further. But my guess is they don't want to compete with their threadripper line. Unfortunately those come much later in the product cycle so we'll probably be waiting some time for a Zen 4 threadripper.
      - willis936 4y ago
        7950X has more L3$ per CCX and higher single threaded clock, so I'm not sure why you think the 7900X would perform better in games.

zer0-c00l 4y ago

nabakin 4y ago
Maybe I wasn't clear. 24 or 32 core CPUs are only useful for the select few who are running a lot of intensive and parallelizable computations. The majority of people buying these mainstream CPUs do not get any more use out of a 24 core CPU than a 16 core CPU and yet would be paying hundreds of dollars more. It would only make sense to have these kinds of CPUs for server-grade or otherwise specialized tasks which do not fall under the mainstream performance line of CPUs as seen and talked about here. That is why I think AMD will go no further. There is no benefit, only cost to the kind of mainstream consumers who are buying these CPUs. > aren’t even the actual use cases for a high core workstation CPU. I was talking about 16 core CPUs in general which also includes laptop CPUs. Another reason why 16 cores makes sense for a general consumer CPU is because of the power efficiency gains with efficiency cores in laptops.
- zer0-c00l 4y ago