If we assume that Cinebench is AMD's best workload and Intel will be faster by 10% on average in others, the 18 core i9-7980XE will be on average 22.5% faster in most workloads. 16 core i9-7960X will be 16% faster on average. 14 core i9-7940X will be 8% faster on average.
i9-7940X seems like the best if you want to meet or beat the 1950X for "only" $400 more. The 16 and 18 cores will probably run far too hot to even consider anyway, and they are only marginally faster than the 14 core. (8%/16% faster)
You're going by the assumption that Intel can maintain those turbo clocks under TDP
It can't, at least not more than 6 seconds.
Evan White
user, did you count in performance degradation from more cores on intel "morebingbus" scheme? it doesn't scale like zen 90%
Austin Nguyen
I'm not sure how I would factor that in or if it would be reflected in any current results. Metal Xeons don't seem to have any problem scaling. It's not like the old ringbus.
Colton Fisher
There are cinnebench runs on a 18 core Xeon that this is derived from, it scores 3000, naturally because it can't clock all the cores that high unless you want a housefire.
Ethan Bennett
Two possibilities: The i9-7980XE is better binned than the Xeon, or Intel is playing games with their TDP again.
Samuel Jackson
>is better binned than the Xeon haha, nice joke
Jordan Ross
Both have the same TDP and all core turbo(3.4) they're the same chips with shit like RAS capabilities and ECC turned off, oh and 4 less lanes, nobody seems to mention the xeons are 48 lanes.
Michael Taylor
Throttling would be readily apparent on any test that takes longer than a few seconds, then.
Jeremiah Wilson
And now you know why Skylake-X needs a 480mm rad and pulls 220W+ at stock
Brody Watson
Your napkin math is pointless.
LCC vs MCC die. TDP is different. You're still feeding 18 cores with 4 channel memory
Xavier Edwards
Well it does look like it's boosting to 3.4 GHz, if it has scaling issues that bad, it's not looking good. Would only be 10% faster on average at twice the price.
Anthony Edwards
Did anyone ever confirm whether Threadripper has ECC support? It was rumoured that it does.
Dylan Rogers
It does, but only UDIMMs, so 1TB limit on memory.
Henry Powell
His napkin math was only about 10% off according to >It does, but only UDIMMs, so 1TB limit on memory HAHAHAHAHAHA
>Intel: ECC? What do you want hardware raid for? Help, police, this man is trying to run a VM! >AMD: sure just don't try to make a datacenter
Xavier Butler
Scaling isn't the problem, power draw is. If the 18 core can run at sustained 3.4GHz then it would be some 15-20% faster than threadripper, but doing so it would use way more power.
Adrian Kelly
480mm rad is fucking overkill for 220w, a modest air cooler can dissipate 220w assuming you can move the heat away from the die and for skylake-x is just not possible with the TIM under the IHS
Evan Robinson
It's effectively running at 3 GHz with those results.
Sebastian Murphy
Well, your only choice is to delid and risk ruining your chip, or just get a better cooling solution even if it'll only lower temps slightly.
Carter Barnes
Chances on Intel soldering this time?
Isaiah Torres
>Delid a $2000 chip >20% failure rate for people delidding >chip actually costs $2400 average kek
Thomas Rodriguez
I doubt it, base clock is only 2.2ghz so they can keep the heat low enough to not kill it and get away with saying the damn thing isn't throttling
Zachary Lopez
BTFO
Carter Moore
It's 2.6 GHz, not that low.
Ayden Mitchell
That would be pretty amusing but would also instantly double the TDP, so probably not happening.
Landon Sanchez
must've remembered an old side or something, but still 2.6 is still pretty low. 2.6ghz would keep all the cores at near peak efficiency to keep heat down and again let intel claim there shit isn't throttling
Gabriel Cox
>it doesn't scale like zen 90% That's because Intel doesn't use [Infinity Glue]™
Oliver James
>2.6GHz >2.6% yields >26% stock drop
Cooper Brooks
That would be peak efficiency, but 2.7 is also Zen's peak efficiency, 3.4 on TR is past the 1st critical point.
That's why the 1950 non X is gonna be way more interesting to me, it'll be 10% slower but use 30% less power than a 1950X
Jaxson Walker
I bet AMD will launch them to shit on Intel's parade when they launch the 14 core and higher.
Aaron Ross
>but use 30% less power than a 1950X Would be cool. It's like a 16-core CPU at the TDP of a 7700X.
Xavier Morgan
>K*
Wyatt Thomas
I haven't seen any testing to confirm that Intel's bingmesh doesn't scale well.
Grayson Roberts
AMD hasn't launched that yet because they want people to buy the more expensive 1950X, the lower TDP cheaper models are better buys at these core counts.
Andrew Sullivan
Given what we've seen about SKL-X in general and the 7900X in particular, it seems to be the latter. We'll all see on Aug 28.
Angel Perry
Not sure what you think you're talking about, it's literally what happened.
128 GB DDR4 UDIMMs don't exist. Shit, I'm not sure if 128 GB RDIMMs (i.e., not LRDIMMs) even exist.
Angel Gray
Nobody says they won't exist, if AMD is saying TR supports 1TB with UDIMMs, there's probably something coming out in the pipeline sooner or latter.
Grayson Lewis
>2.6 shekels per successful shitpost
Anthony Lee
I honestly don't see enough people wanting 512-1024GB desktops in the next 3-4 years before DDR5 arrives for memory manufacturers to bother even trying this scheme.
Jackson Phillips
Not saying it's not possible, but going for EPYC would be a lot more cheaper.
You can get 1TB with only 64GB DImms
Bentley Miller
I bet over 12 cores it will be soldered Can't be other way
Ethan Miller
We'll see if Intel's run out of bullets in the revolver they've been using to shoot themselves in the foot with all year.
Asher Williams
I hope, but even at that you're paying way more money for similar performance.
Also solder will only help power consumption marginally, you'll still be looking at 300W housefires.
Jaxon Butler
>implying Vega isn't a 300W housefire
Dylan Allen
It is, but what's that got to do with Skylake-X being a oven?
Christian Baker
...
Oliver Nelson
It's gonna be Broadwell-E vs Ryzen again, you get 5% more performance and worse power consumption at close to double the cost. But this time you don't get ECC nor more lanes either.
Also TR is a high margin product, it'll get a slight price cut sooner or latter just to fuck with Intel.
Camden Lewis
Intel isn't looking for power saving here just performance trophy
Justin Bailey
If AMD wanted the performance trophy it can just re-purpose a EPYC SKU, cut out some RAS features, and ask supermicro to put out a few thousand motherboards for desktop, and Intel wouldn't be able to do shit.
It won't because that's just dickwaving
Connor Wright
Speaking of that, the 18 core Skylake is priced so high it literally competes with EPYC on price
The 32 core 1P EPYC is $2100, and you get all the server goodies, 3 times the I/O, double memory channels, VM encryption and actual decent motherboards.
For what reason would the Skylake-X exist?
Jayden Cooper
>For what reason would the Skylake-X exist? There's none, it's an abomination. There's not a single processor in that line up that has right to exist, or at least not at their current prices when Ryzen/TR exist. I'm really curious to see how Coffee Lake will be though.
Ayden Hernandez
If there's no major regression coffee will be pretty good.
The regression part I'm worried about is Intel's own slides where they compare a mobile 2 core to mobile 4 core, the 4 core is only 30% faster.
