So Intel has 18 cores for $2000 USD ($111/core) and AMD 24 cores for $1700 USD ($71/core). The AMD 32 core would be $84/core...let the benchmarks roll! PS: The single configuration processors are even more interesting at $62.5/core for the 32 core model! Also, if EPYC 16 core is just $700, ThreadRiper is going to rip intel!

For clarify... ThreadRipper and Intel Skylake-SP (LGA2066) are " prosumer" lineup. not professional as the Xeon and Epyc. This Intel 18 cores ( who is not near to be released ) is not in the Xeon professional line but Skylake-SP. The AMD 24 cores ( so far ) is on the 1P socket EPYC "professional" server/workstation lineup. Chipset, motherboard, security ( encryption on memory ) etc will likely not be the same. ( note quite sure you can OC on Epyc lineup ). Now the 16cores TR should be around thoses prices, so yes, 750-800$ vs 2000$ for the 18cores Skylake-SP.. thas an impressive difference in price for 2 cores left. And i suspect we could see a CPU for goes against the 18 cores in future, maybe ( well not before every CPU on EPYC an TR are launched )

Skylake-SP is NOT LGA 2066. It is LGA 3647 and is going to go up to around $10,000 for the top CPU. Skylake-SP is the new Xeon platform, which consolidates the E5 and E7 lines. From what i can tell, the AMD chips are going to be a great value by comparison.

Yeah but intel's cores are clocked 1ghz higher so far at least.

We take all competitors seriously, and while AMD is trying to re-enter the server market segment, Intel continues to deliver 20+ years of uninterrupted data center innovations while maintaining broad ecosystem investments. Our Xeon CPU architecture is proven and battle tested, delivering outstanding performance on a wide range of workloads and specifically designed to maximize data center performance, capabilities, reliability, and manageability. With our next-generation Xeon Scalable processors, we expect to continue offering the highest core and system performance versus AMD. AMD’s approach of stitching together 4 desktop die in a processor is expected to lead to inconsistent performance and other deployment complexities in the data center.

Wow, I know I've commented how linear AMD's products are but I wasn't expecting it to be this linear. Epyc is basically just doubling up on everything from Threadripper, except you probably can't OC. Meanwhile, Threadripper is pretty much doubled-up on Ryzen, except it offers more PCIe lanes. Not that I'm complaining - the infinity fabric ought to really take advantage of all this memory bandwidth, though I'm sure latencies will be atrocious. Despite the cheesy name, Epyc is pretty accurate. EDIT: There's a quote from an Intel spokesperson who said: Gee, a bit hypocritical, eh? The Core2 Quad (and likely it's Xeon equivalent) did this very thing they're criticizing and Intel insisted it was fine. I also don't see how Epyc's design is a whole lot different than this: anandtech [dot] com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon-e5-v4-review/2 It seems the greatest difference is Epyc has 4 separate dies whereas the Xeon is just one giant die.

I'm guessing from this then that AMD could've released more of the available PCIe links on the Ryzen die...

Wow, I know I've commented how linear AMD's products are but I wasn't expecting it to be this linear. Epyc is basically just doubling up on everything from Threadripper, except you probably can't OC. Meanwhile, Threadripper is pretty much doubled-up on Ryzen, except it offers more PCIe lanes. Not that I'm complaining - the infinity fabric ought to really take advantage of all this memory bandwidth, though I'm sure latencies will be atrocious. Despite the cheesy name, Epyc is pretty accurate. EDIT: There's a quote from an Intel spokesperson who said: Gee, a bit hypocritical, eh? The Core2 Quad (and likely it's Xeon equivalent) did this very thing they're criticizing and Intel insisted it was fine. I also don't see how Epyc's design is a whole lot different than this: anandtech [dot] com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon-e5-v4-review/2 It seems the greatest difference is Epyc has 4 separate dies whereas the Xeon is just one giant die.

Wow, I know I've commented how linear AMD's products are but I wasn't expecting it to be this linear. Epyc is basically just doubling up on everything from Threadripper, except you probably can't OC. Meanwhile, Threadripper is pretty much doubled-up on Ryzen, except it offers more PCIe lanes. Not that I'm complaining - the infinity fabric ought to really take advantage of all this memory bandwidth, though I'm sure latencies will be atrocious. Despite the cheesy name, Epyc is pretty accurate. EDIT: There's a quote from an Intel spokesperson who said: Gee, a bit hypocritical, eh? The Core2 Quad (and likely it's Xeon equivalent) did this very thing they're criticizing and Intel insisted it was fine. I also don't see how Epyc's design is a whole lot different than this: anandtech [dot] com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon-e5-v4-review/2 It seems the greatest difference is Epyc has 4 separate dies whereas the Xeon is just one giant die.

At worst, it should perform like a dual-socket system (well, quad, and 8-socket in dual-socket systems) which don't tend to have a problem in server environments, so i'm not sure what intel is smoking.

Judging from first impressions, also seems like these new CPU's are on the B2 stepping of Zen.

how do you figure?

Puzzled? e.g., TR 16c=pcie3 64 lanes, Epyc 32c = 128 lanes, so Ryzen should have 32 lanes, but only has 20 usable and 4 for the chipset. Where are the lost 8 lanes? Is amd saving them for the apu graphics?