AMD trolls Intel with offer to trade in Core i7 CPU for Threadripper

[Evernessince]

I'd still take the 7900X over the 1950X.

I game a lot, and you'll note there are zero gaming references in your post.

...and Intel overclocks very well.

/facepalm

First, Intel is giving out 8086Ks, not 7900Xs.

Second, if you are getting a processor for gaming you'd get an 8700K. Zero reason to get a 7900X.

Third, overclocks are already taken into consideration in all benchmarks. If Intel didn't overclock well they'd have an even bigger problem.

 

[Danny101]

The i7-8086K cpu is a gamers cpu. No gamer will make the trade for the Threadripper. A developer or content creator might though.

 

[EEatGDL]

I wouldn't trade any Intel quad core for the 1950x, not even my i5-2500K. No need for a slow, power-sucking white elephant heating up my house. I don't do things that require 16 cores, nor do I live for "bragging rights"; epeen is for the young and foolish. All the thousands of young fools who claimed they would buy one upon release, most of them never did, they just talk crap in forums about how great they supposedly are, without a actually knowing anything about them or what things they are good for. I pity the poor "gamers" who bought them and were sorely disappointed, once they got over their orgy of braggadocio. So keep talking, you only expose your self as a poser without a clue. For certain uses, they may be cheaper than equivalent Intel parts, but they'll never be better at those tasks. Intel should never have let AMD goad them into this core war BS to start with. Let the uninformed beat their heads against TR while the rest of us laugh at your macho posturing. If I actually had a need for that many cores and couldn't afford Intel, I would consider buying one. Now all the posers can lie about how they'll be buying the new 32 core version.

The Intel bias is strong in this one. You aren't trading a quad-core for a 16 core, you're trading a 6 power-hungry cores [out of the box] for 16 cores that consume a tad more out of the box. Power consumption goes higher on the quadratic of the voltage, and for 6 cores at 5 GHz you have high frequency + high voltage.

This is a very idealistic case, so bare with me, is just for illustration purposes: you have two identical cores, one operating @3.4 GHz with 1.2 V and the second @5 GHz with 1.6 V. A still used formula for power consumption is C * V^2 * f, where the capacitance would be the same for two identical cores. Core B would consume ~78% more just because of voltage, times 1.47 due to frequency; core B consuming ~162% more than core A in total. 16 cores-A would consume (cores * V^2 * f, where capacitance isn't a factor because is the same constant for both cases) 2% more power than 6 cores-B. Now break the idealism here with the manufacturing differences between companies and you get a bigger difference, yet the big picture remains. And don't come with the quad-core argument since that discussion is not in place; this is about a 1950X vs 8086K (a 6 core, high frequency SKU) discussion.

 

[GeforcerFX]

I'd still take the 7900X over the 1950X.

I game a lot, and you'll note there are zero gaming references in your post.

...and Intel overclocks very well.

You don't buy either for gaming, if your buying one for work you buy the best processor for work and either one can game just fine. If you want to overclock a 7900x god speed and good luck, the cooling and power requirements for those chips once you start pushing the clocks is pure insanity. If you had light work and more gaming focused usage then the normal core i7 and AMD r7 lines serve those markets.

 

[Evernessince]

The i7-8086K cpu is a gamers cpu. No gamer will make the trade for the Threadripper. A developer or content creator might though.

No gamer would make the trade? You are telling me no one is going to trade $400 CPU for a $750 one? You could sell the 1950X and buy an 8700K with the motherboard and RAM. You'd have to be crazy not to make that deal.

 

[hood6558]

No gamer would make the trade? You are telling me no one is going to trade $400 CPU for a $750 one? You could sell the 1950X and buy an 8700K with the motherboard and RAM. You'd have to be crazy not to make that deal.

Not arguing with you, it sounds good on paper. But the reality of it is, nobody will pay the full $750 for a secondhand part, even if it is brand new. Why risk fraud, and have no big company to back up a DOA part. So maybe you get $650. Or maybe the street TR price has dropped to $500 by the time you get yours, because TR2 will be out soon, and nobody will want the first gen. And you still have to find a buyer, and the buyer will need the money for a board and RAM, another $700 to $1300.

 

[Evernessince]

Not arguing with you, it sounds good on paper. But the reality of it is, nobody will pay the full $750 for a secondhand part, even if it is brand new. Why risk fraud, and have no big company to back up a DOA part. So maybe you get $650. Or maybe the street TR price has dropped to $500 by the time you get yours, because TR2 will be out soon, and nobody will want the first gen. And you still have to find a buyer, and the buyer will need the money for a board and RAM, another $700 to $1300.

Dude, you are preaching to the wrong person. My job is to acquire and test parts for my company and I can say for a fact that if someone is selling TR 1950X for a decent amount below MSRP, it will sell instantly. First, every online marketplace has a 30 day money back guarantee. Buying local? Test it out before payment. It isn't hard to validate the persons claims either, after all they will have an email from AMD stating they won and they will get an invoice with their 1950X.

Finding a buyer isn't the hard part, companies are clamoring for these high core count processors right now. I can't even test and validate them fast enough TBH.

 

[Danny101]

No gamer would make the trade? You are telling me no one is going to trade $400 CPU for a $750 one? You could sell the 1950X and buy an 8700K with the motherboard and RAM. You'd have to be crazy not to make that deal.

I see what you're saying provided the person who gets the 8086k wants to bother with the trade, Odds are they won't.

 

[Danny101]

It's funny to see community reaction to a changing landscape. Intel still has gaming and nothing else, and that's even subjective. My computer is used for much more than simply gaming on it. AMD right now provides good gaming performance, excellent productivity, and dominates price/performance. While the race is close today Intel won't be competitive next year at all. People need to stop rooting for brands and start buying the best values.

Programming is at a crossroads where the developers must target more cores or API's must better divvy out to the cores more efficiently. Also, at a certain framerate, more processing power won't deliver any better experience and would just be wasted money.

 

[hood6558]

It's funny to see community reaction to a changing landscape. Intel still has gaming and nothing else, and that's even subjective. My computer is used for much more than simply gaming on it. AMD right now provides good gaming performance, excellent productivity, and dominates price/performance. While the race is close today Intel won't be competitive next year at all. People need to stop rooting for brands and start buying the best values.

Every value can't be easily expressed in dollars. One of the big reasons I insist on Intel builds is because of their 80/20 market domination. It means, more or less, that 4 times the resources will be used to support Intel hardware, compared to AMD's. Software, drivers, validation, patches, firmware updates, etc. will all come more frequently, and have more people working on them. In every aspect, even on the retail level, when it's 80% of your income, people will naturally spend more time, money, and effort, and insist on everything working right. This tendency also results in the opposite effect for AMD hardware - much less time, money and effort spent on correcting bugs, testing compatibility, and updating software/drivers/firmware (because all that costs real cash). The result being, for the extra money it costs, you get a much better experience, peace of mind, confidence in your machine, and if problems arise, spend less time waiting for someone to figure out where they screwed it up, and fix it. AMD is great, for when you need a certain price/performance to fit a budget, but for the above reasons, I prefer Intel. But if my Devil's Canyon system crapped out, to replace it I would probably have to build a Ryzen 5 system, because I'm nearly broke.

 

[Knot Schure]

You don't buy either for gaming, if your buying one for work you buy the best processor for work and either one can game just fine. If you want to overclock a 7900x god speed and good luck, the cooling and power requirements for those chips once you start pushing the clocks is pure insanity. If you had light work and more gaming focused usage then the normal core i7 and AMD r7 lines serve those markets.

Neither my AX1500i, nor my 480mm all copper rad will give a toss.

 

[Knot Schure]

/facepalm

First, Intel is giving out 8086Ks, not 7900Xs.

Second, if you are getting a processor for gaming you'd get an 8700K. Zero reason to get a 7900X.

Third, overclocks are already taken into consideration in all benchmarks. If Intel didn't overclock well they'd have an even bigger problem.

I did not say they were giving out 7900Xs. But post / text was comparing the two, to which I referred. Try reading more.

And I do not say I'd take the 7900X lightly, my E5 2690 v4 is already a 14c/28t CPU, and that was tooo many cores for gaming (some games won't launch without disabling cores etc), but the increase in cores over the typical 4 - 8 cores is noticeable. I've never felt a smoother system.

I imagine the 7900X to be the same fluid experience, but with a much higher (and sustainable) snappy overclock.

 

[Evernessince]

Every value can't be easily expressed in dollars. One of the big reasons I insist on Intel builds is because of their 80/20 market domination. It means, more or less, that 4 times the resources will be used to support Intel hardware, compared to AMD's. Software, drivers, validation, patches, firmware updates, etc. will all come more frequently, and have more people working on them. In every aspect, even on the retail level, when it's 80% of your income, people will naturally spend more time, money, and effort, and insist on everything working right. This tendency also results in the opposite effect for AMD hardware - much less time, money and effort spent on correcting bugs, testing compatibility, and updating software/drivers/firmware (because all that costs real cash). The result being, for the extra money it costs, you get a much better experience, peace of mind, confidence in your machine, and if problems arise, spend less time waiting for someone to figure out where they screwed it up, and fix it. AMD is great, for when you need a certain price/performance to fit a budget, but for the above reasons, I prefer Intel. But if my Devil's Canyon system crapped out, to replace it I would probably have to build a Ryzen 5 system, because I'm nearly broke.

Marketshare isn't a measure of support.

"This tendency also results in the opposite effect for AMD hardware - much less time, money and effort spent on correcting bugs, testing compatibility, and updating software/drivers/firmware (because all that costs real cash)."

This makes zero sense in the perspective of 2018, where we have found multiple major security flaws in Intel processors.

Not to mention, in the cpu arena, drivers don't need updating. If you have to update your CPU driver it's because you did something seriously wrong, this isn't graphics cards.

I see Intel putting much more money towards marketing than support. Heck, they can't even spare pennies to use solder on their HEDT processors. What exactly makes you think they are using your money for your benefit?

 

[Evernessince]

I did not say they were giving out 7900Xs. But post / text was comparing the two, to which I referred. Try reading more.

And I do not say I'd take the 7900X lightly, my E5 2690 v4 is already a 14c/28t CPU, and that was tooo many cores for gaming (some games won't launch without disabling cores etc), but the increase in cores over the typical 4 - 8 cores is noticeable. I've never felt a smoother system.

I imagine the 7900X to be the same fluid experience, but with a much higher (and sustainable) snappy overclock.

Once again, Intel is not giving out 7900Xs. I could care less about you going off topic and comparing a processor this article isn't about.

This article is about trading an 8086K for a 1950X, get on topic or get out.

 

[Knot Schure]

Once again, Intel is not giving out 7900Xs. I could care less about you going off topic and comparing a processor this article isn't about.

This article is about trading an 8086K for a 1950X, get on topic or get out.

Wow, conversing with you is really like reading poetry to a dog...

A T N O T I M E did I say 'Intel was giving out 7900X's.

If you go through the comments, the major post here was a comparison of 7900X performance to 1950X, to which I was responding, as I mentioned earlier [I did not say they were giving out 7900Xs. But post / text was comparing the two, to which I referred.] - try reading more.

If talking CPUs in this thread is off-topic to you, then I despair. But don't worry - I shan't ever respond to you ever again, in the vain hope this feeds trolls less. So please, do, or say as you will.

 

[Evernessince]

Wow, conversing with you is really like reading poetry to a dog...

A T N O T I M E did I say 'Intel was giving out 7900X's.

If you go through the comments, the major post here was a comparison of 7900X performance to 1950X, to which I was responding, as I mentioned earlier [I did not say they were giving out 7900Xs. But post / text was comparing the two, to which I referred.] - try reading more.

If talking CPUs in this thread is off-topic to you, then I despair. But don't worry - I shan't ever respond to you ever again, in the vain hope this feeds trolls less. So please, do, or say as you will.

"I'd still take the 7900X over the 1950X.

I game a lot, and you'll note there are zero gaming references in your post."

That was your original comment. First, no one cares if you'd use a HEDT $900 CPU for gaming. Your personal preference is irrelevant.

And note, getting a 7900X was never an option in either AMD's or Intel's promotion. The only reason for your comment was derail the conversation and state that you'd rather have an expensive HEDT processor for gaming even though it's not even being offered as part of the promotion and there are better Intel options.

You aren't getting a 7900X, this article doesn't even reference it, and suggesting it for gaming is frankly worthless.

10/10 off topic.

 

[Danny101]

I'd still take the 7900X over the 1950X.

I game a lot, and you'll note there are zero gaming references in your post.

...and Intel overclocks very well.

I still think you would be better off with the 8700 or 8086 because with more cores the more heat is a factor and the less speed the processor can clock. Games run better at higher clocks and fewer cores. The 1950x beats the 7900x in all the metrics that matter and runs cooler. When and if AMD can get Ryzen 7 3rd Generation 7nm CPU's to 5Ghz, then lookout Intel. Of course Intel has gotten there with 14nm CPU's, so who knows. Exciting times indeed.

 

[Knot Schure]

I still think you would be better off with the 8700 or 8086 because with more cores the more heat is a factor and the less speed the processor can clock. Games run better at higher clocks and fewer cores. The 1950x beats the 7900x in all the metrics that matter and runs cooler. When and if AMD can get Ryzen 7 3rd Generation 7nm CPU's to 5Ghz, then lookout Intel. Of course Intel has gotten there with 14nm CPU's, so who knows. Exciting times indeed.

Danny - for most, yes.

I've got seven GPUs in my rig, and thus I need a few more cores. All converted to single-slot with waterblocks, its goes like this 2x1080Ti, 1x1080, 4x1070s. Yes its a seven-slot m/b. Only the 1080Ti's are used for gaming in SLI. But I wonder about 6 cores being enough for that. (is there even a seven-slot m/b for this proc?)

My heart of hearts tells me 10 cores should be about right. The quad I have is not up to the job I can say though. The 14c is, but is outpaced by my friends 6700K in single GPU scores by about 25% (the Xeon being a locked proc limits the fight for me).

This rig is not without its problems, PCIe root errors galore, sometimes it doesn't boot without changing PCIe gen to v2. But it was fun to put together. It really was. I'll post a picture of it one day when tidy - the Linus 7-slot terminal didn't fit with the 1080Tis (I didn't check the PCBs were of a different size), so its an upside down 7 using 5 ports, with a dual for the Ti's. I think I may fit two more 1080s in that rig, so the 7-slot terminal all fits as planned, and then build a new gaming only rig in a new machine with the 1080Ti's. (And for that I'm eyeing Intel's 10nm, when the cows come home, I do not wish to buy another 14nm chip.)

All the above in a P5 case. Did someone say GPU sag? Have to sort that out too. But too busy werkin...

When I'm on the road (like now), it works for the World Community Grid.

 

[Danny101]

Danny - for most, yes.

I've got seven GPUs in my rig, and thus I need a few more cores. All converted to single-slot with waterblocks, its goes like this 2x1080Ti, 1x1080, 4x1070s. Yes its a seven-slot m/b. Only the 1080Ti's are used for gaming in SLI. But I wonder about 6 cores being enough for that. (is there even a seven-slot m/b for this proc?)

My heart of hearts tells me 10 cores should be about right. The quad I have is not up to the job I can say though. The 14c is, but is outpaced by my friends 6700K in single GPU scores by about 25% (the Xeon being a locked proc limits the fight for me).

This rig is not without its problems, PCIe root errors galore, sometimes it doesn't boot without changing PCIe gen to v2. But it was fun to put together. It really was. I'll post a picture of it one day when tidy - the Linus 7-slot terminal didn't fit with the 1080Tis (I didn't check the PCBs were of a different size), so its an upside down 7 using 5 ports, with a dual for the Ti's. I think I may fit two more 1080s in that rig, so the 7-slot terminal all fits as planned, and then build a new gaming only rig in a new machine with the 1080Ti's. (And for that I'm eyeing Intel's 10nm, when the cows come home, I do not wish to buy another 14nm chip.)

All the above in a P5 case. Did someone say GPU sag? Have to sort that out too. But too busy werkin...

When I'm on the road (like now), it works for the World Community Grid.

Good Lord, Batman. I now see what you're aiming for. The issue I get is lag in open world games like Fallout. I've had an issue with Fallout 3 and New Vegas from early days of Phenom II x4 3.0 GHz, plenty of graphics to now with Ryzen 3 + Radeon RX 570. Finally, I determine that it's the hard drive. All this time, it was the speed of data delivery.

 

[Knot Schure]

Good Lord, Batman. I now see what you're aiming for. The issue I get is lag in open world games like Fallout. I've had an issue with Fallout 3 and New Vegas from early days of Phenom II x4 3.0 GHz, plenty of graphics to now with Ryzen 3 + Radeon RX 570. Finally, I determine that it's the hard drive. All this time, it was the speed of data delivery.

Glad to hear you resolved it in the end. Not every problem gets a solution...