Just like zucker2k said the difference in total price is not that great. I'm also considering 7980xe, as it will be a nice cpu for VMs without compromises.Intel fans want nothing but the best, even if they have to pay 200% more than their closest competitor. Only 70% more is a bargain to them!
Nope! The $1,700 6950x was Intel's best-selling HEDT chip. 15% is a big deal for those who just can't have enough processing power in this niche space. Also if you're going to go crazy and spend upwards of $5k on a new system, $700 for 15%+ more performance is bearable.
I can't believe those clocks. Crazy!
Just like zucker2k said the difference in total price is not that great. I'm also considering 7980xe, as it will be a nice cpu for VMs without compromises.
WrongIn Central Europe Intel seems to have better distribution network than AMD (less greedy) so as a result Intel gets an advantage here. A 1950X is $1300, 7900X is $1150. Official $ prices are relevant for US, but elsewhere they don't apply. Therefore 7940X will be a good competitor as price difference will be small in overall cost.
It's also very positive that 7980XE will get released much sooner than initially thought, in 1.5 months.
No you get an epyc 32 core for 2000 usd for that.Just like zucker2k said the difference in total price is not that great. I'm also considering 7980xe, as it will be a nice cpu for VMs without compromises.
The $14K may not mean anything. The rate at which the work gets done in specific areas may be the most important factor.It's $700. To me that's a shit load of money.
As a consumer I guess I just can't logically justify this in any way. The more you pay the less you get for your money, wouldn't it be better to spend that money on other components instead? If you're already spending $5k on a computer why does $700 suddenly become not a big deal? Why would you spend more than you need to?
As a business, well I have no experience to go on. Say you need to buy 20 workstations for a team, do you not care that 20×700 = $14,000?
It just seems super odd to not care about value for money at all.
BTW, not saying anything about the 7980xe since we don't know where it'll fit in, it could well be worth the extra money for some use cases.
The sales list i have seen have all been like mindfactory.dehttps://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Prozessoren+(CPU)/INTEL+Desktop/Sockel+2011-3.html
https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Prozessoren+(CPU)/INTEL+Desktop/Sockel+2066.html
It should be pretty much most sales in the cheapest and least in the top SKU. It might be a bit different in other stores, but probably not completely opposite.
The problem is because you are the one who is not caring about the value for money.If you're already spending $5k on a computer why does $700 suddenly become not a big deal? Why would you spend more than you need to?
As a business, well I have no experience to go on. Say you need to buy 20 workstations for a team, do you not care that 20×700 = $14,000?
It just seems super odd to not care about value for money at all.
Wrong
Yes the 7900x 937€ is perhaps like 6-11% less expensive in eu than 1950x 1037€, but still 1950x is nowhere as expensive as a 7920x 1339€ and far closer to the 7900x. German prices.
Comparing to a non existing 7940x is just flat out nonsense.
What is this "central europe"?
Because in dk i cant find your price and neither for germany.
But who knows 7900x prices have taken a dive recent days it seems so it might change. But 7920x is still in another priceclass.
Ah I see that with the release of TR the AMD youth army is back in here... And my ignore list keeps growing...
No you get an epyc 32 core for 2000 usd for that.
Its faster and if you really want high end and no compromises in speed and io.
You can get an 7980x for your vm and save a few dollars in total cost but its really the poor mans non professional solution for lots of VM.
The problem is because you are the one who is not caring about the value for money.
Lets look at ALL of the numbers. I'll take your post using your exact values. Suppose a $5700 computer was 15% faster than a $5000 computer. Yes, you are correct that it cost $700 more to purchase.
But, suppose that computer is running software that costs $10000 per year (which is actually fairly cheap, specialized software often costs $20,000+ per computer per year). The amount of work that the $5000 computer does in 1 year, the $5700 computer could do in 0.87 years (15% faster works out to needing 13% less time). Thus, you only need to pay $8696 for the software to do the same amount of work. The $700 faster processor saves you $1304/year.
Even more importantly the engineers running that software have a salary + benefits that are probably close to $100,000 / year. That engineer that took 1 year to complete a study with the $5000 computer only needs 0.87 years with the $5700 computer. Again, you save $13,043 in engineer time.
That ONE TIME purchase of $700 saves the company $1304+$13,043 = $14,348 PER YEAR.
It gets bigger when you look at teams. Look at just your 20 workstation cost: 20 * $5000 workstations cost $100,000 and the software costs ~$20 * $10000 / year = $200,000 / year. But that same amount of work could be done with just 17 workstations with ~15% faster processor. Thus you need 17 * $5700 = $96,900 in computer costs. It actually is CHEAPER to buy the team the faster processors. And considering the software, you save $30,000/year. That is even if you don't consider employee costs.
No one in business that needs this type of power should ever think that a mere $700 more for a 15% boost is even worthy of consideration.
Yep the EPYC 7551P for 2100 usd. Its lower freq processors than hedt but still within the 180w tdp. Different purpose but for multiple VM looks like a clear winner to me.I had a look and for some reason I though Epyc was 2P but I was mistaken as there is a 1P version available too.
YeaaNow we need the most important spec that is missing,PRICE
How are there no compromises? If you determined that you need about 18 cores in your VM host, then there are other Intel based offerings which give youI'm also considering 7980xe, as it will be a nice cpu for VMs without compromises.
Clearly if you compile 3 times a day for 10 seconds each time, then saving yourself 4 seconds is not a case in which you need these chips. You would be much better off with a cheap chip and few cores.I'm not quite convinced that the team would be utilising the CPU to 100% at all times, which is what this argument assumes.
As a software developer I'm not literally constantly compiling software all day. It would be interesting to see some real world numbers of daily utilisation, but I suspect outside of some very specific use cases that none of this actually matters and the cheaper CPU would still be cheaper.