Yeah, wanted to bite my tongue, but somehow I blurted : Intel, cool story bro! I'll admit, it's only for overclocking now , but besides that, no compelling reason to buy Intel anymore.

anticupidon:

Yeah, wanted to bite my tongue, but somehow I blurted : Intel, cool story bro! I'll admit, it's only for overclocking now , but besides that, no compelling reason to buy Intel anymore.

If you need PCIe lanes for NVMe RAID, Thunderbolt, etc., Threadripper 3960X starts at $1400, compared to i9-10900X for $600. If 3950X was a Threadripper like the 2950X it would have been great.

Monstieur:

i9-10900X for $600

$600 pfff... what a ripoff. 1920X costs $279... https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x/p/N82E16819113448?Description=1920x&cm_re=1920x-_-19-113-448-_-Product 1900X is just $160 .... that's still 8 cores which are way more than enough for a file/media server ! https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x/p/N82E16819113457 All the PCIe lanes and SATA channels... for peanuts. Intel still doesn't make any sense, doesn't matter how much fanboys like you try to justify it.

wavetrex:

$600 pfff... what a ripoff. 1920X costs $279... https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x/p/N82E16819113448?Description=1920x&cm_re=1920x-_-19-113-448-_-Product 1900X is just $160 .... that's still 8 cores which are way more than enough for a file/media server ! https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x/p/N82E16819113457 All the PCIe lanes and SATA channels... for peanuts. Intel still doesn't make any sense, doesn't matter how much fanboys like you try to justify it.

I like competition - but, as an aside, I have to say that my gaming performance is just fine using an intel cpu from...7 years ago? Modern PC's and ocmputers in general just do not need high performance.

The i7-980X in my backup PC only started feeling the squeeze this year. That's an almost decade old CPU, and even then, I imagine it still has a year or two left in it before I'll replace it as my backup with my current i9. Most people here are enthusiasts, so they're almost aways into the latest and greatest, but in the foreseeable future, the so-called average user will be just fine with any CPU that's been released in the last 5 years.

Monstieur:

If you need PCIe lanes for NVMe RAID, Thunderbolt, etc., Threadripper 3960X starts at $1400, compared to i9-10900X for $600. If 3950X was a Threadripper like the 2950X it would have been great.

Let's see If one needs PCIe lanes, the AMD platform offers PCI-E 4.0 on AM4, and this can be done using an Ryzen 3X00 cpu, starting from 250 € and some X570 have Thunderbolt implemented. Don't know why you mentioned Threadripper, and that price level.

wavetrex:

$600 pfff... what a ripoff. 1920X costs $279... https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x/p/N82E16819113448?Description=1920x&cm_re=1920x-_-19-113-448-_-Product 1900X is just $160 .... that's still 8 cores which are way more than enough for a file/media server ! https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x/p/N82E16819113457 All the PCIe lanes and SATA channels... for peanuts. Intel still doesn't make any sense, doesn't matter how much fanboys like you try to justify it.

Despite i agree on get an AMD TR gen 3*** over Intel right now, your argument are quite invalid: - those TR you take as exemple are from old gen and work on old chipset. Intel is new CPU on old chipset i agree, but i would not chose TR 1*** or 2*** in this case to have seen them in action. -Then the price is just the price to clean up the stock (source AMD btw)... if you compare it you should add as an exemple Xeon 12c/24t that i have get for 250 Euro for the same reason... It doesn't reflect the reality of the market (normal price were 2618$ for one). -Talking price the new TR is expensive and the Intel CPU too, same story with the motherboard and the memory... BUT the new TR system (CPU + motherboard) is more modern. On other hand if i would have a X299 i would have go to this intel CPU as an upgrade and so would enjoy this OC bios upgrade, but coming from old Xeon i have get a simple Ryzen matisse on X570 to change my main computer, because i need to work less and will use it more for fun and i don't need TR (this to not use the argument "yeah but you are an Intel fanboy" right now both computer are AMD lol ). You don't need to change everything each time a brand is better than another (exept if you have plenty of money but again it's for fun and not vital).

Loobyluggs:

I like competition - but, as an aside, I have to say that my gaming performance is just fine using an intel cpu from...7 years ago? Modern PC's and ocmputers in general just do not need high performance.

If you're gaming at 60Hz nope they don't. But if you are working it can be a pain in the ass to work with a 7 years old cpu. They are becoming really slow in a lot of workload.

I have to say when I went from Sandybridge to Skylake the machine did feel more snappy in general use, but that is 5 years worth of IPC increase. I guess in another couple of years I might go again and perhaps from 4 to 6 or 8 cores, but there is no real pressure at the moment for that. Montitors and graphics card improvements are always looked forward to more here.

mackintosh:

The i7-980X in my backup PC only started feeling the squeeze this year. That's an almost decade old CPU, and even then, I imagine it still has a year or two left in it before I'll replace it as my backup with my current i9. Most people here are enthusiasts, so they're almost aways into the latest and greatest, but in the foreseeable future, the so-called average user will be just fine with any CPU that's been released in the last 5 years.

I agree with you on the bold part. For the latter, I'm still not sure... the "coming of multi core support" is announced for a few years now, Intel now offers them as well... maybe in a few years, we shall see how they finally arrive and get made use of widely. I made the mistake and bought a hexacore CPU 5 years back, now it's IPC is probably starting to show it's weakness, six cores or not. But generally, 1080p60 still doesn't need a fast or core galore CPU indeed. And let's not even talk about work environments where office still runs fine on a quad core w/o hyperthreading.

MonstroMart:

If you're gaming at 60Hz nope they don't. But if you are working it can be a pain in the ass to work with a 7 years old cpu. They are becoming really slow in a lot of workload.

Perhaps, but I use C4d, Maya, Modo, UE4, VS - no worries, and when I game, I can game at beyond 60fps, thanks in no part to the CPU, but the GPU (1070gtx) - no probs. Multi-core/parrellel is the way to go, and the guys @ team blue and team red (and team green!) have pretty much moved the goalposts into this area. Sandybridge and a few years prior to this with the 8800gtx, have made the chip design more about creating a generalised computation, than a niche one. CPU's were mainly about high-clock and a single core running as fast as possible, but we all know this has changed, but we are now at the point where CPU speed is really not that important any longer, regardless of the interest I personally have to see clock speeds pushed beyond imagination...

mackintosh:

The i7-980X in my backup PC only started feeling the squeeze this year. That's an almost decade old CPU, and even then, I imagine it still has a year or two left in it before I'll replace it as my backup with my current i9. Most people here are enthusiasts, so they're almost aways into the latest and greatest, but in the foreseeable future, the so-called average user will be just fine with any CPU that's been released in the last 5 years.

The squeeze you are feeling is probably the performance toll security patches. Even where microcode patches are not installed, there are still software fixes in Windows 10. My Xeon X5650 looses as much as 30% of its performance to Windows 10. I seriously wonder if - despite the bad publicity - if these flaws are being used to bring about obsolescence in older Intel CPUs? A conspiracy theorist might go as far as suggesting this was deliberate.

Geek:

The squeeze you are feeling is probably the performance toll security patches. Even where microcode patches are not installed, there are still software fixes in Windows 10. My Xeon X5650 looses as much as 30% of its performance to Windows 10.

shouldn't lose more than 1% with retpoline active.

i do not think they ever patched first gen i7. i had a 990x, replaced last year with a 2700x and to the general use it did not feel a super big change. anyway i see how those two cpu Intel Core i9-10920X 12/24 3.5 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.3 GHz 16.50 MB 165W $689 Intel Core i9-10900X 10/20 3.7 GHz 4.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 13.75 MB 165W $590 make sense if you are on x299 or you want to stay on intel and you do not want 8 cores only. They are around the 9900ks price and should perform better in multi thread work load and maybe gaming can do the exact same.

Lots of Mud slinging!!!