intel unobtainium cpus VS AMD cpus (with links)

So, looking to buy new, build anew or upgrade your aging gaming machine, or content creation machine?
All links safe for work!

AMD EPYC Server-segment CPU, dual cpu configs tested, price is not an object
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade
This is something more for a person wanting an encoding server with more money than sense.
The lower clockspeeds on server chips from either brand below 3ghz would not run Beamng optimally.

AMD Threadripper CPU first glance (ETA late july 2017 or early august) Price range 799~999$
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-announces-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-and-1950x.html

intel Ubobtainium i9 milk-master 7900x which gets blown away by Threadripper btw.... 999$
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-7900x-processor-review,1.html
INTEL'S CPU IS NOT EVEN SOLDERED, THEY'RE USING POOR THERMAL MATERIAL AGAIN

AMD Ryzen CPU retested with fast supported RAM, where it really gets it's foot in the door 150~399$
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-agesa-1006-performance-update-review,1.html
Contains a good guide for choosing which ram works with what motherboard and bios version!

On a serious budget? Theres a ryzen for that: 169$
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-1400-review,1.html

So while it may seem like I am biased, I am slightly, I am pro-competition, and I'm tired of being milked by intel, with a few % improvement in over two years time, from my i7 4790k. Barely any improvements, the overclocking on intel is an absolute JOKE, there's *NO* overclocking room (on many chips, though some owners get lucky, and Kaby lake has some room for oc), THIS chip won't even hold it's stock speeds with the cooler that comes with it. I had to 'delid' mine just to keep it at 72C and below @ 4.4ghz.
Don't reward intel with another sale on an i5, i7, or i9. Threadripper/Ryzen encoding (and Epyc too) and floating point performance smashes the intel by double-digit percents. If you play LOTS of beamng.drive know the Ryzen 8 core @ 4ghz beats a 6900k cpu @ 4ghz by TEN percent in physics benchmarks. At-least it's possibly to reasonably cool the AMD solution! DO NOT REWARD THE MONSTER THAT MILKS YOU FOR YOUR CASH FOR A FEW % GAIN EVERY YEAR OR TWO! Buy an AMD, and support what they're doing. So while I write this from my current intel k-series gaming rig, my next gaming machine won't be intel.

Fine print: Don't buy an APU, don't buy an FX chip (both are older AMD designs, they're stinkers), don't bother with an i5, get a Ryzen 5 1600/1600X, don't bother with an i7, get a Ryzen 7 or a Threadripper CPU.

all prices in USD, Treadripper cpu release date likely July 27th. Could be as late as 8/11/2017 (august 11th).

No, I won't chastise you too badly if you buy an intel for those extra 2~5fps over 160fps you might get with the Ryzen (just a random number of fps I've brought up), but seriously, I'd much rather have more cores at my disposal any day on any type of gaming or production machine. I just would rather folks spend wisely, it's less buyers remorse and when it comes to Beamng.drive performance and content creation, the Ryzen CPU's and up-and-coming Threadripper CPU's are a monster!

 

Okay, I don't normally speak up in these threads because I am not a fanboy of anything but I am amazed at the Intel i9 release.
It is clear Intel is using it's 800lb gorilla status to try and crush what is obviously a resurgent AMD. From my view point Intel is
scared or paranoid, or both. There is no reason creatively or logically to release an 18 core $2,000 desktop enthusiast CPU, for
anything but the most ardent dick measuring geeks out there.

I am all for competition and have preferred Intel for BeamNG. I render some very heavy duty stuff that requires big core and multithreading
numbers and if AMD can meet my needs I will support them in a heart beat. Going to research all this and am hoping AMD can be at a level
I need to accomplish what I need to get done. A 12-16 core CPU is what I'm looking at.

 

Then you definitely want a Threadripper CPU, the server EPYC series cpu made shame of the intel cpus. The Threadripper is a twin of EPYC with 'only' quad channel DDR-4 (vs 8 channel in epyc), and 64 pci-express lanes vs 128. The top dog intel chip only gets you 44 pci-express lanes, and 10 cores, vs the AMD option which gives you 16 cores and 64 pci-express lanes directly connected to the cpu. That is what I am looking at getting myself. Maybe a 12-core, don't know if I will need all 16. My 4790k is slowly showing it's age but still relevant for some time yet. I for one won't be rewarding intel, as I'm not one to reward a company for MILKING the consumers. Their 18 core cpu might not be out even in October, it might be until 2018 from various rumours, what of those anyone believes anyways. I wouldn't bother with it, you can barely even cool off the 10-core, what's the 16-core going to do.

 

Did some looking around and it seems there are still some as yet unanswered questions regarding the threadrippers, that will get answered
by AMD soon I presume. The further I look into it the more technical questions I want answered. My decision will most likely be settled by several
good benchmarks that deal with rendering applications. It is apparent though as core counts increase hyper/multithreading disparities become
less of an issue as does the overclocking. The probable 12 core I get will ultimately be decided by performance alone as the pricing range for
both Intel and AMD pieces in this category is within my range.

I am excited for this "core war" and am glad AMD is not letting Intel rest. For years I have been eagerly awaiting the eventual release of the i9's and
to have it happen this way is a major disappointment. No inventiveness, just pure horsepower that Intel could have applied to numerous previous
generations that could have been much cheaper. Perhaps I'll ditch the i9's in protest and get the i7-6950X if I do go Intel.

 

Well, the main difference between the i9's and the i7's seems to be this new mesh architecture, which is intel's answer to AMD's infinity fabric. Intel's already been putting dual-ring-bus (core to core comms) into some of the higher 8+ core processors and xeons, but this new stuff helps multi-threaded apps scale better, with less penalty as the cores stack where at saturated ring-bus would have held it back.

These Ryzen/Threadrippers were basically nothing short of being made to utterly just RENDER all the time, that's what they excel at, so I'd give it a strong preference in all honesty. If budget isn't a worry, at the very least, you aren't really losing by not going intel this time around, as the AMD chips also have more PCI-E lanes (Threadripper compared to i7 or i9). It's a bit of a clouded scene for the next few weeks until more Threadripper performance is known. Now for the waiting game. Remember, don't reward the milkers if you don't have to,

 

My sentiments exactly. The threadrippers in any case have really got me stoked about AMD again. My Athlon 64 back in the day was
very stable and fast.

Oh and thanks for the links.

 

You're joking aren't you, the devils canyon chips are good overclockers, they put out a lot of heat but are good overclockers, i dont think overclo9cking headroom is going to get better, its getting worse, Kabylake was half decent but limited by TIM.
Also they aren't designed to hold top frequency for long on the stock cooler, i dont know if even AMD can have a stock cooler that can sustain the power of turboboost (or XFR).
Overclocking is just going to slowly become worse and worse as fabrication shrinks go on, like for example Polaris from AMD is an awful overclocker due to the 14NM, 28NM chips overclock much better.

 

The review sites I mentioned had nothing but praise for the AMD coolers that were included with some editions (but not all) of the processors, and were better than some of the 30~40$ of the after-market coolers, suprisingly.
My Devil's Canyon (Haswell Refresh) chip is an absolute heat-mongering stinker. I have a 90~120$ Air cooler (biggest Phanteks cooler they make, in red), on my CPU and it could *JUST* keep it under the thermal threshold without being delidded. Delidding with liquid ultra applied *properly* dropped it to where it is now, about 72C max stressing it with crazy almost-game-crashing amounts of Beamng.drive @ 1.25v/4.4ghz all cores. I know far too many people in this same situation. The i5's are better as they run 10C cooler, without HT, but HT is becoming incredibly more useful as programs use more threads than a quad can handle. Or if you've got this game & lots of cars, or conversely something like Cities Skylines and a music player with a rather short buffer (skip skip click pop!). I was really disappointed in intel this go-around. Sure, this chip *IS* fast, fast enough for most of what I do, I don't really have to wait long for it, but thanks to AMD now I have something to upgrade to when I feel the need to.

So the lowdown is, if you've already got an intel 4xxx~6xxx series CPU, you don't stand to gain lots from an upgrade unless you're running things that can go beyond quad-core as far simultaneous multi-processing goes (like rendering/video encoding/decoding, many cars in Beamng.drive, Cities Skylines, zip files with 7zip program).
However, if you've got a 3xxx series K-model intel chip, or a 2xxx series K chip that's not the greatest overclocker (i got a PIG of a chip here), you do stand to gain on IPC, and also on FPU performance significantly (especially this is helped by fast RAM in the 2933~3200mhz range) by upgrading to Ryzen or Threadripper.

Overclocking more depends on how the chip was sent to market (was it at it's limit from the factory, or was it down-marketed due to market demand for lower SKU's when there was a shortage of them and a surplus of more expensive SKU's?), the cooling provided to it, and the chip's ASIC (now to complicate this, some chips take to water cooling better than others and hence show MORE benefit, some you might only get a little out of when adding watercooling vs aircooling).
So if you buy a CPU or video card factory clocked (or factory overclocked in the case of some video cards more commonly), you'll obviously get a lot less lucky then the guy or gal who paid a fraction of you, and bought almost the same chip with a lower clock speed (and possibly less features, cache on cpu, shaders on gpu, etc).

Many things go into the ability of a chip or series of chips to overclock (and they all are different), even things I didn't mention.
What I am saying here is, aside of the honest page of text above, buy best value for $, and you'll have a good PC for a long time with little spent. This is where Ryzen comes in, it's the best value per dollar, and in that, It's firmly recommended.

 

i feel you now, i have 1.26v@4.4 with a nictua nh-d14 that can keep temps down, but i remember my Hyper 212 Evo being anhilated at only 4.2ghz. issue for me us that i can blame most of this on my sub-par GPU (GTX 960) which helps to mask the CPU limitation in-game. I do believe it is down to thermal interface material as my old Core 2 Quad Q6600 was perfectly happy on a reasonably sized OEM cooler (albeit one designed with Pentuim 4's in mind). I want RyZEN, but i am 14, i think my parents will not be happy to know that my system has aged so quickly.

**Now here is my dilemma**
Go with AMD vega and stick with current CPU+mobo , then wait till Zen + comes out.
OR
Go Ryzen now, and still suffer on my GTX 960
OR
Wait for Zen+ to come out, potentially get a nicer motherboard, and also maybe get a higher end version of VEGA, or see when Navi comes out..

The future is bright for AMD, i really want to jump ship to AMD, but right now here and now its not a good choice, the RX4 and RX5 series are not as powerful as i like (they are only mid-range tho). like do you think an RX570 or RX580 will be a decent upgrade from a 960?

BUT***
I also had plans to wait for AMD to release the APU's for laptop, so i could potentially get a nice laptop that has decent battery life, but again the core count is not high enough for the future. and i don't really want a laptop due to limited upgrade paths. But then again a laptop would be so tempting, i am looking at the low powered stuff, the convertibles and god it would be so much better if AMD came in and shook it all up with their amazing graphics IP compared to Intel's shitty implementations that are not good compared to Apple's tablets and etc.
If AMD could engineer a small little chip that would run games, and maybe only have 2 zippy little ZEN cores (Core M competition) for a nice low price then that will be good, but unfortunately it seems everyone except from Apple has given up on tablets anyway. I was thinking of getting a Chuwi Hi 13, but the gaming performance is absent (it has an N3450, 1.1ghz quad core, these cores are not the Kabylake cores we know but Goldmont, its good and decent, for an Atom, but at 6w TDP! goodness no)

 

An RX480/580 has about the same performance as a 960, so I'd say just keep that thing one, two more years. I mean, you probably run most games great on 2k and high settings.

 

Wow, this surprises me. I own an i5-6600k, and I have it sitting at 4.4GHz, 900 MHz above stock clock. It runs nice and cool (50s-60s under max load), and I only have a Cryorig H7. Am I missing something here?