Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools

[Daniel_Cepeda]

Originally Posted by guitardom

Intel is massively dropping there prices. The 10 core for example is coming down from 1800$ or 1000$ and the 6 core is dropping to well under 400$. They are also changing their release methods for lower/higher core count/chipsets. A big amount of information was just released on the new Intel lines, including information new processors, chipsets, sockets, release cycles, and pricing. They are denying it, but they seem to be possibly just underpricing and trying force AMD to go even lower to stay appealing.

We have never been able to compare Intel/AMD core for core. They are just function to different. Core per core, Intel has always had better performance. AMD just adds more cores cranks up clocking in response. The AMD's I owned in years past, I heated my house with they ran so hot!!

There will still be reasons to stay with Intel though, such as needing Thunderbolt support and any variance of using OSX on your system (even in VM"s) will require Intel. AMD has never been able to hang on long when Intel buckles down and takes it serious. It will be interesting to see if they have anymore luck this go around.

So Intel 6 core sells for under 400 USD, while Ryzen 1700 8 cores sells for 300 USD. A no brainer to me, really...

[Daniel_Cepeda]

Originally Posted by guitardom

To get prices lowered though, things have to cut. If you are that serious of a user, less than 200$ more for 2 more cores and 40 lanes should not be an issue.

The best Ryzen only has 24 lanes. The chipset which also supplies separate PCIe lanes, which are basically the Southbridge lanes. This is actually what most peripherals connect to. Ryzen only supplies PCIe 2.0 instead of 3.0 specs like Intel. This is hitting users hard when trying to use M.2 (AMD based boards with 2 M.2 slots) or or a couple PCIe based drives, they are getting slower data transfer speeds. But Ryzen does not have Thunderbolt, so it mitigates some of the risk. Heavy gamers in SLI configs are also having issues with Ryzen due to the these.

Ryzen aren't the top of the line processors from AMD. The top chips are the "thread ripper" and "Epyc". The latter does include PCIe 3.0 lanes.

Here's some info about the Epyc taken from PC Gamer:

"The physically massive Epyc chip sports 32 cores and 64 threads, 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and eight memory channels per socket for a total of 16 DDR4 channels and 32 DIMMs in a two-socket server. That's a potential maximum of 4TB of memory, which will come in handy for places like VFX render farms where a single frame of a film can consume gigabytes of memory.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Daniel_Cepeda

Ryzen aren't the top of the line processors from AMD. The top chips are the "thread ripper" and "Epyc". The latter does include PCIe 3.0 lanes.

Here's some info about the Epyc taken from PC Gamer:

"The physically massive Epyc chip sports 32 cores and 64 threads, 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and eight memory channels per socket for a total of 16 DDR4 channels and 32 DIMMs in a two-socket server. That's a potential maximum of 4TB of memory, which will come in handy for places like VFX render farms where a single frame of a film can consume gigabytes of memory.

Again to avoid confusion, all Ryzen CPUs chips have PCIe *3* lanes off the CPU itself.

But Good point on ThreadRipper, we need to be careful talking about it especially if AMD is really going to market that under the Ryzen brand.

Epyc is Naples, the server cousin of Ryzen, the potential economic damage that Naples could do to Intel just makes it very interesting to watch.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daniel_Cepeda]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Again to avoid confusion, all Ryzen CPUs chips have PCIe *3* lanes off the CPU itself.

But Good point on ThreadRipper, we need to be careful talking about it especially if AMD is really going to market that under the Ryzen brand.

Epyc is Naples, the server cousin of Ryzen, the potential economic damage that Naples could do to Intel just makes it very interesting to watch.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know they're supposed to be different brands within the same architecture. The Epyc logo, a circle with the letters Epyc inside, is the same circle as the Ryzen logo, but with different colors. The letter font seems to be the same. We need to be careful indeed, so many new processors

Yes, my MSI B350 Tomahawk motherboard has 3 PCIe 3 slots But my point was that Intel's i9 are Threadripper/Epyc counterparts. Ryzen's counterparts are the i7's

Ryzen has already made so much damage to Intel, and we'll see with the new Threadripper and Epyc. This is just fantastic news for us users!!!
By the way, it's been leaked that the new i9 7980XE (18c/16th) will cost 1'999 USD. I'm sure the AMD counterparts will cost at least 300 USD less. So, again, fantastic news for us users ^_^

You can check Intel's new X/XE platform prices here:
https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/wp...aby-Lake-X.jpg

[Darryl Ramm]

BTW fresh coverage on Anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/show/11482/...epyc-june-20th


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darryl Ramm]

My point on naming is AMD is referring to ThreadRipper as part of the Ryzen family (was not clear to me until uh just now/Computex press coverage they are serious about that) so we (including me) need to be careful saying stuff about "Ryzen" since it includes ThreadRipper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daniel_Cepeda]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

My point on naming is AMD is referring to ThreadRipper as part of the Ryzen family (was not clear to me until uh just now/Computex press coverage they are serious about that) so we (including me) need to be careful saying stuff about "Ryzen" since it includes ThreadRipper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My bad mate, just Googled it. The Threadrippers are Ryzen 9, i9's counterparts. The Epyc is the one that's different.

You were right :)

[CME]

Yeah the way I see it the first ryzen's compete with the quad-core desktop i7's. The new threadripper series is their answer to the HPDT chips. The 6-18 core i7's and now i9's. And the Epyc are more like Xeons. Designed to also be used in multi cpu configurations.

And to me the interesting thing is the 8-core ryzen chips were already comparable to the midrange HPDT intel chips. But priced like intels quad core i7. Now intel has obviously changed their pricing strategy with the next generation of HPDT chips. But it will still be interesting the price to performance ratio. It looks like the 18-core i9 will be around $1700. I've seen rumors, and yes only rumors, that the 16-core threadripper may be closer to $1000. So if performance is close, that's a big $700 pill just to stay intel.

But yes thunderbolt is absolutely one huge thing intel still has over AMD.

[mjslakeridge]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

BTW fresh coverage on Anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/show/11482/...epyc-june-20th


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! Either the person in the photo with the threadripper has an incredibly tiny hand, or that processor is Huuuge. While I don't fully understand all of the technical jargon in the various articles on the new AMD and Intel processors, I am excited to see the rapid fire introduction of competing products.

After about 5 years of nothing new from AMD and incremental "improvements" from Intel, this is pretty exciting.

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

.....the potential economic damage that Naples could do to Intel just makes it very interesting to watch.

Don't think so, Intel is an 800 lb gorilla and AMD is a healthy but fraction of that amount chimpanzee.

Intel has so much money in the coffers compared to AMD it is ridiculous.

In the mid 90's I used to work for AMD in the Austin facility, around the time of the K6 Athalon's and trust me AMD is a little guy compared to Intel.

All Intel is doing by lowering prices is denying AMD revenue by lowering the bar, thus limiting their profitability and further development. It happens every time AMD has a decent chip(s) that can somewhat compete with Intels CPU.