I don't think so, TR will not have all the futures of EPYC, like i7 and XEON, it's more like who has bigger and for such a small company like AMD (relative) they made stronger High End CPU that is Called the TreadRipper for a reason. I think this 32C TR could boost ~3.6GHz @255W easy and up to 3.8GHz via OC. remember that they are separate 8 core Dies, they are not "limited" like in Intel.
These CPUs aren't meant for gamers. So, whether they suit your everyday tasks depends solely on what your everyday tasks are. If you compile, render, encode, etc. every day, then why wouldn't this or the full TR suit your purposes?
But what distinct advantage would a 32c Epyc have over an overclockable 32c TR? As stated before, 64 PCIe lanes is still plenty for most server tasks (most enterprise hardware uses x8 lanes). You still get plenty of memory channels. I find it really hard to believe you'd be able to get to 3.8GHz under extended use without a very expensive cooling system. If AMD released a 32c TR, the only reason you'd get an Epyc would be to get a dual-socket motherboard or very niche cases where you actually need 128 PCIe lanes. As for the Intel side, Xeons tend to have a lot more advantages over their i7 counterparts. They usually have more cache, more PCIe lanes (where i7s don't tend to have enough), better RAID support, ECC RAM support, etc. AMD really blurred the lines between each product tier, which is great for anyone who wants lower-tier stuff, but it makes you question why you should ever buy the more expensive models. I completely agree, but the fact of the matter is, a lot of people [want to] buy these with the intent of primarily running tasks that a quad core (with or without HT/SMT) would accomplish smoothly. A lot of people have this mentality that more is better. Of course, this isn't universal - there are plenty of people who would buy these platforms (or the Xeons with 32+ threads made years ago) and have a practical or sensible reason for their purchase. But when I see people who glom over the idea of more cores on TR, I really don't feel they are aware of the big picture. Just an opinion - if the average hobbyist wants to spend all this cash to cater to their impatience or ego, go ahead. But as of right now, I think it would be a mistake on AMD's part to add more cores to their TR product line. For future generations, my opinion is likely to change.
4.2GHz cant be the correct all core boost. Der8auer needed to modify a MSI X299 Gaming pro carbon to keep his 7900X 10 core from burning the VRM at 4500MHz A 18 core at 4200MHz must be at least the same power as the 10 core at 4500MHz so i dont see that happening as a daily driver.
I don't think that's the default boost, but they may have used enhanced turbo, or manually overclocked. Considering that the 1950X can do 4 GHz on all cores, a 7980XE doing 4.2 isn't that far-fetched, but the thermals would be pretty crazy. I'm guessing some specialized setup was used here, and possibly delidded.
Yeah, that's why I suggested enhanced turbo. My 4790K runs at 4.4 GHz on all cores if I turn on enhanced turbo (by default, it's 4.2 GHz on all cores, 4.4 GHz on one core).
So when will AMD get out of its budget brand image? With ZERO performance lead in all of the market they're in excluding consoles, this seems very unlikely.
All-core boost is 3,4 GHz (same as Xeon Gold 6150) TDP 165 Watt, Xeon gold 6154 has a all-core boost of 3,7 GHz with a TDP of 205 Watt. Remember that the XOEN's are from the middle of the wafer and that the i9's are the crappy left-overs. At 4,2 GHz the i9-7980XE will probably use around 380+ Watt. LN2 works great.
What a beast. 7940x should destroy the 1950x in everything as well when the much lesser 7900x can hold its own against them. And yeah, no compromising content consumption performance as well like the Threadrippers and their awfully high latency and reliance and that sad "Game Mode."
It isn't just about performance though, its about price vs performance and on that front AMD have done better than Intel, a LOT better. Edit: Sorry just noticed some have already pointed this out, but anyhow it's good for it to be mentioned again
Wow, the Core i9-7940X: (3.1GHz, 4.4GHz burst) 14 cores/28 threads, $1,399 should be able to beat a $ 999 Threadripper 1950x. Well not in Cinebench 15 Multi-core: i9-7940x 2849 vs. 3151 Threadripper 1950x or Let's see if it can beat a $1100 AMD CPU i9-7940x 2849 vs. 4208 EPYC 7401p When you're lucky you can cool it with an air-cooler (no problem with AMD). For VGA gaming (640x480) with a Titan Xp buy an intel i7-7700k for serious work AMD is hard to beat these days.
Well, humans aren't robots. If everybody always got only what they needed, nothing more, we wouldn't have cool things like sports cars at all. Nobody but James Bond absolutely needs one of those. Like you said, if somebody feels good by having an unnecessarily huge CPU, more power to them (literally). IPC hasn't developed too spectacularly of late (universally speaking, not comparing AMD's old failures to Ryzen) and the clocks aren't exactly racing toward 10GHz, so increasing the core count seems like the viable way to go for now. Software will follow eventually.
Problem with boost levels is, yeah they great in benchmarks where they are only pushed for a very limited amount of time but real wold where heat, power level and voltage levels come into effect that 4.2GHz will drop off sharply over extended periods.
I see what you're saying, but I can't say I totally agree. There's a difference between unnecessary and excessive. For example, if you've got money to burn and want the coolest gaming rig, you'll get a SLI or Crossfire config, 3 giant monitors, and a surround sound speaker system. Such a setup is unnecessary, but it isn't excessive, because you can enjoy it to the fullest extent. You are able to take advantage of the hardware you bought without really trying. You don't need any of it, but nothing is going to waste. If you buy a Corvette C7, that's not just unnecessary, it's excessive. Most people who buy such a car do not take it on a track; it is their daily driver and they just want something brash and with big numbers. Unless you're on the German autobahn, you'll never be able to come close to the car's potential speed. In a daily commute, all you're doing is wasting a lot of fuel, by getting to the next red stoplight a second or 2 faster than everyone else. If you just want something loud and sounds powerful, get a cheap Mustang and cut off the muffler. If you want something that accelerates quick with no intent on breaking speed limits, get an electric car or a truck. If you want something very well-rounded, get a BMW or a Volvo. Each of these cars will give a similar (if not better) user experience while either costing less or being more practical. Even on a track, the tires don't have enough grip to keep up with its power; power the user can't take advantage of. A Threadripper with 32+ threads is really no different. There are people who can and will take advantage of it, but most people really won't. In the hands of the everyday user, most of the CPU for most of its life will not have it's true potential tapped into, and before you know it, its already obsolete. The user pays a higher premium for all this hardware and the additional electricity it uses, when the user could have otherwise bought something more practical and spent that money on something that's actually fun or useful to him/her. Again - if people really want to blow away their money on such a thing, not my problem. But I prefer people to make wise decisions. As long as we're stuck with silicon transistors, I'm sure you're right. I personally feel there's an alternative, but neither Intel or AMD are going to want to do it because of the risks involved: I feel a CPU could have 3 sets of cores. One set would have a very high frequency and a short pipeline (like an overclocked Bulldozer), one set would have a very low frequency and a long pipeline (something that doesn't really exist), and one set would sit in the middle (like Kaby Lake). Each core could have unique attributes that would best suit them too, such as HT only being used on the long-pipeline cores, and the short-pipeline cores could use smaller caches so they're not bottlenecked.
I'm not sure i trust these benchmarks. The i9 7980xe is such a lower frequency processor, that how much "better" it seems to be in many of these tests vs the 1950x which is at a much higher base frequency just doesn't add up, for 2 additional cores. They could be correct, i'm not outright saying they are incorrect, i'm just cautious about these results. 1950X 16c/32t @ 3.4Ghz/4.0 Boost 7980XE 18c/34t @ 2.6Ghz/3.4Ghz Boost lol, your post, just...lol Someone doesn't understand how to, well, understand logic, due to fanboy blindness. If you actually look at the information, and actually understand it, then nothing you'd be saying makes sense. Stop trolling, or stop fanboying, whichever one you are definitely, 100% doing, stop it. Seriously, stop trolling, stop flame baiting. If your only purpose to join these forums is to troll and flamebait, i can guarantee you, you will not last long here.
That's not the 7980XE's frequency specs: https://ark.intel.com/products/1266...-series-Processor-24_75M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz With the turbo that high, the single-threaded performance is no surprise. Meanwhile, it's not just 2 additional cores, but 4 additional threads. That's substantial, where I'd say it's ranking seems just about where it should be. For $1000 extra, it sure as hell ought to be better than the 1950X...
I think he was referring to the all-core boost, which is 3.4 GHz. If the chip is running at 4.2 GHz on all cores then it's either running in enhanced turbo (where all cores boost to the max turbo, regardless of the TDP) or it's overclocked. It is definitely not the default configuration.
That is 100% the 7980 XE's frequencies. As you decided it wasn't, because i did not provide the 4.2Ghz nonsense frequencies when we're talking about using the full processor, i also did not provide the 4.2Ghz XFR frequency of the 1950x. It is, again: 1950X 16c/32t @ 3.4Ghz/4.0 Boost (though this 4.0Ghz boost i will say i'm not certain about due to the all-core frequency not being very well defined, so therefore i am not 100% sure if all cores will get boosted to 4.0Ghz if cooling is adequate. I have tried to look this up, but it's not the easiest thing to find information about) 7980XE 18c/36t @ 2.6Ghz/3.4Ghz Boost As to the threads, we already know that AMDs multi-threading is better then Intels, and, we already know that multi-threading doesn't provide much of a performance improvement compared to cores. So no, it's really not substantial. however, i never said it didn't have an additional 4 threads, i very clearly when stated the processor differences, showed 18c/34t. Though i was thinking about it incorrectly, and should have put in 18c/36t, but i was not intending to say it did not have those additional threads. Though i would not say it has an "additonal" 4 threads, because realistically, it's an additional 2 cores, with an additional 2 threads beyond the threads provided just by the cores themselves, which would mean a total of 4 threads. Again, the benchmarks being seen here are (or should be, to my knowledge) be using all 18c/36t, which means the max boost will be 3.4Ghz, not the 4.2Ghz nonsense that Intel states on their website. The graph above clearly shows that. And again, this is why i say these benchmarks do not look correct. I'm not saying the 7980xe won't beat out the 1950x, it's possible. But the IPC difference between AMD and Intel is not much. So considering the low frequency of the 7950x base, and the low all-core boost of 3.4Ghz being what the 1950x's base frequency is, 2 additonal cores does not make sense for the scores we are seeing. It seems more likely that it's a 7980xe being overclocked and then being pitted against the 1950x.
