Ladies and gentlemen, we just did a full circle!You don't have to tell people what workloads people buying these CPUs ought to run.
Not a dig at you Tamz_msc.
Ladies and gentlemen, we just did a full circle!You don't have to tell people what workloads people buying these CPUs ought to run.
What is the context of your post?Ladies and gentlemen, we just did a full circle!
Not a dig at you Tamz_msc.
Just taking the first one, a 20% lead is a fair amount, but decimates is not the word I would use. Now twice the price for 20% performance increase ? If you have the money, sure, but its a poor choice IMO.Intel essentially decimates the Render/Encoding benchmarks which is exactly the type of workload you by extreme core count CPUs for.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11839/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-review/10
Just taking the first one, a 20% lead is a fair amount, but decimates is not the word I would use. Now twice the price for 20% performance increase ? If you have the money, sure, but its a poor choice IMO.
7980xe draws less power than 1950x when both are at stock. When both are overclocked, 1950x to 4.0GHz and 7980xe to 4.5GHz, it still draws less power...
Okay, guys, this is a real number. And it’s not even the highest number I measured in our testing, but it is the most apples to apples. When setting voltage to AUTO in the ASUS BIOS and running at 43x multiplier, I measured a power draw of 610 watts with Blender. After backing it down to 1.2v fixed and using Cinebench as our standard power draw test, we get 553 watts. That is 279 watts HIGHER than the 7980XE running at stock settings. Even if you assume that the 7980XE was running at its specified 180 watts TDP in those conditions (which is debatable), that puts this CPU at 459 watts of total power draw.
Again this crap. Sure the only people buying these CPUs are those who only run Ansys Fluent or pay Oracle licensing fees.Generally you wouldn't be buying these chips unless you are making money on them. If you are making money on them, a 20% performance delta will quickly pay for itself in a couple of weeks from increased productivity.
If they wouldn't make it back, then why would they pay for it?Again this crap. Sure the only people buying these CPUs are those who only run Ansys Fluent or pay Oracle licensing fees.
Apparently independent software devs and researchers using open-source stuff exist in an alternate universe.
Making money with these chips? Exactly what are these "money workloads" you speak of?
What the hell did the guy do with the Threadripper, 1.5V? Sounds kinda bogus (read = not representative) to me.
Look at what PC Perspective measured:
The i9-7980XE is at 4,3 GHz, 1.2 V.
Even though Threadripper also shoots up when OCing on raised voltage, Skylake-X seems to have much bigger "potential" in this. And note that the CB R15 test doesn't even use AVX(2) or even AVX512
Even though Threadripper also shoots up when OCing on raised voltage, Skylake-X seems to have much bigger "potential" in this. And note that the CB R15 test doesn't even use AVX(2) or even AVX512
Try to assign a monetary value to scientific research. Software devs aren't usually paid to do a given amount of work per day, they're paid on the value of the end result.If they wouldn't make it back, then why would they pay for it?
It seems like a fairly simple calculation.
If it's a hobby, then it's a hobby. Hobbies are generally expensive and there's no expectation of monetary return.
If it's business, then it's business, and it either pays for itself, or it doesn't.
What do you use Mac and IMac Pros for? Content creation mayhaps?Making money with these chips? Exactly what are these "money workloads" you speak of?
AVX 512 at 4.8Ghz? Where did you pull that one from? Oh, you forgot they achieved that on ln2.Ive heard close to double that at 4.8GHz on AVX512 loads.
So, they have to make their own determinations. Just like I said.Try to assign a monetary value to scientific research. Software devs aren't usually paid to do a given amount of work per day, they're paid on the value of the end result.
The only place where this argument works is if you're actually using licensed software. Stop making this argument as if that's the only thing that matters.
Why some members like toHe gets all his technical information from youtube videos, so obviously there will be some mistakes here and there. Don't hold it against him, some people just aren't big readers.
Why some members like to insult others for no reason. It's from overclock3d.
Doesn't say under what program it was measured but the footnote says CPU+GPU. A game? That can't be it, can it?
I don't think Intel really wants to sell the 18 core variant - The pricing is way off and its performance is not always above their own 16 core chip.
1.5v?What the hell did the guy do with the Threadripper, 1.5V? Sounds kinda bogus (read = not representative) to me.
Look at what PC Perspective measured (edit: link):
The i9-7980XE is at 4,3 GHz, 1.2 V.
Even though Threadripper also shoots up when OCing on raised voltage, Skylake-X seems to have much bigger "potential" in this. And note that the CB R15 test doesn't even use AVX(2) or even AVX512
Once the initial purchase has been made, how well a CPU like this pays for itself has almost no bearing on the actual performance offered, except in very specific instances, and those instances aren't representative of the kind of users buying these CPUs off retail and etail.So, they have to make their own determinations. Just like I said.
Is someone forcing Core X on them?