The majority of people of whom these processors are marketed towards aren't going to overclock them. They(overclockers) are the minority of PC owners.I think it would be better to show the two processors alone and their overclock. In several games intel wins AMD clearly after overcloking and the conculusion does not accompany that.
I agree that they should've been separated. It made the results a little confusing to look at, honestly.I think it would be better to show OC results on a separate page altogether, much like its done over @guru3d. Including baseline and overclocks for the same chip in the same test just convolutes the graphs and makes it more cluttered than it needs to be. Most people arent going to buy a workstation CPU and OC to get a few more fps in games.
Considering that no CPU with more than 16 cores was ever designed as a gaming product, and that ANY person that needs 18 or 32 cores, isn't needing a 5% advantage in FPS, and isn't bottle-necking their CPU to game, perhaps the gaming results are irrelevant here.I think it would be better to show the two processors alone and their overclock. In several games intel wins AMD clearly after overcloking and the conculusion does not accompany that.
Do you realize you're denying the fact that both Threadripper and the 10980XE are marketed as HEDT parts?There really isn't a comparison between the Threadrippers and the Core i9-10980XE.
3950X isn't a HEDT part. It's a mainstream one, albeit very expensive. It doesn't have the extra PCIE lanes or expandability of HEDT.This is why most reviewers chose to compare the i9 to the 3950X. Much closer performance, with the 3950X being much better value.
Yeah, I never really like these "VS" articles here, as they tend to make questionable verdicts, the final numbers seem pretty arbitrary, and the matchups are sometimes less than ideal, but this seems like a particularly weird one. Just because these are the highest-end HEDT processors in each company's current lineup doesn't mean they should be compared against one another, as they are in totally different price ranges, and totally different performance ranges as far as multithreaded performance is concerned, which is what one would be buying these processors for.When comparing products head to head, it seems logical to roughly match either performance or price. The AMD is double the price of the Intel, plus its supporting cast is almost double, too.
I know funny right? They should have just eliminated the productivity tests altogether, and tested just games at 720p, because we all know everyone who buys a HEDT high core count CPUs only spent that money to play e-sport games. Why the hell else would you even buy a 32 core HEDT part? This comparison is so completely biased ...Is this for laughs? A CPU that costs almost double the other one and has a marginal fps (0.2 or .3) advantage is the better one!? Not in my book....
Do you realize you're denying the fact that both Threadripper and the 10980XE are marketed as HEDT parts?
Intel marketed the cpu as an HEDT part, therefore it gets evaluated as one. Threadripper is too, so there IS a comparison to be made between them.
The gaming results are just the bland side salad.
3950X isn't a HEDT part. It's a mainstream one, albeit very expensive. It doesn't have the extra PCIE lanes or expandability of HEDT.
It is, and should be rather embarrassing for Intel when a mainstream part outperforms their HEDT one in professional workloads...
"You had one job... ONE JOB..."
I almost spit out my coffee, thanks!"You had one job... ONE JOB..."
Comments like these are why the productivity and gaming benchmarks should be posted separately - or just drop the gaming benchmarks entirely, but NO, that's too tall of an order. WHY?Is this for laughs? A CPU that costs almost double the other one and has a marginal fps (0.2 or .3) advantage is the better one!? Not in my book....
I noticed alright... there's some real biased folks out there...Just a note on the part I bolded ... it is embarassing - not just for Intel, and I would garner that is reason why the complaints ... if the 3950x was half as fast as the 10980xe ... I doubt anyone would complain. Notice no one complained about the 9900k in gaming benchmarks ... ?
And I just finished mine for the morning, XDI almost spit out my coffee
I expect everyone to have some level of alignment one way or the other, but when one's alignment is so strong that it causes them to think and speak in unreasonable and illogical conclusions, people without such strong alignments look on and see only delusional people ...I noticed alright... there's some real biased folks out there...
I'm building a system that comes in around $6k (closer to 7 when I add cooling). How do you suggest I save $3-4k?Alienware undoubtedly has some Mega Gaming $7K rig planned with one of these CPUs in it, never mind that it will be outperformed by something costing $3-$4k less...
|AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 3.7GHz 32 Core sTRX4 Boxed Processor|
|EVGA FTW3 Ultra Gaming GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Triple-Fan 11GB GDDR6 PCIe Video Card|
|ASUS TRX40 ROG Zenith II Extreme AMD sTRX4 ATX Motherboard|
|Corsair Vengance RGB Pro 32GB 2 x 16GB DDR4-3200 PC4-25600 CL16 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit CMW32GX4M2Z3200 - Black|
|Samsung 970 Pro 1TB SSD 2-bit MLC NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 Internal Solid State Drive|
|Corsair HXi Series HX1000 1000 Watt 80 Plus Platinum Modular ATX Power Supply|
Assuming you are talking about a system intended primarily for gaming, which is what they were referring to there, I wouldn't go with a 32-core, 64-thread HEDT processor where a majority of the cores are likely to never get utilized by games within the usable life of the system. I have some doubts that games will be making heavy use of more than 8 cores with 16 threads for some years, and one can get that with a $320 Ryzen 3700X on a ~$200 X570 AM4 motherboard. Or if you feel you must have more cores, there are 12 and 16-core models on the same AM4 platform for $500 and $750 respectively, but again, I wouldn't expect those extra cores to see much use in games for quite a while. And if it did turn out that certain games showed some benefit from those 12+ core processors down the line, you could always upgrade to one then, probably at a reduced cost.I'm building a system that comes in around $6k (closer to 7 when I add cooling). How do you suggest I save $3-4k?
If someone is willing to pay that much the good recommendation for him is to get Optane SSD , This will make HUGE difference in Load times.I would not go with a $300 1TB SSD for gaming either, as it's not likely to improve game loading times noticeably over a model costing less than half as much. If I was to spend over $200 on an SSD, I would rather have one with double the capacity then one that gets slightly-higher performance, at least for a gaming build where a bunch of large games are likely to be installed.
From what i've seen Optane doesn't improve gaming loading time much more so for applications so I wouldn't go that route if the only purpose is to play games.If someone is willing to pay that much the good recommendation for him is to get Optane SSD , This will make HUGE difference in Load times.
Intel Optane 900p/905p