31–40 of 151 posts
I'm not sure how much it matters but it seems the two systems were running vastly different kernels.
The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.
And I'll still buy Intel! It's just always the safest, most reliable bet for me. (We only use Xeon systems here with ECC. We value stability and predictability.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).
Marketing aside: Is the gaming IPC that /practically/ relevant? I mean, I'm gaming on a early-2012 Sandy Bridge CPU (Xeon E3-1235 aka "cheap i7-2600"), and it feels like my late-2013 R9 290 is the limiting factor these days, not the CPU. And I am actually considering to combine my NAS and workstation/gaming rig into one "big" Ryzen 3xxx or 3rd gen TR machine and banish it into the basement. Bonus: The NAS finally get…
It's measurable sure; but it's not relevant practically no (at least, the 9900k vs. 3900x decision isn't; you will perhaps notice a little more easily the upgrade all the way back from sandy bridge... but even that...)
The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.
Does conventional wisdom matters in this case, where a bit of google search could tell you what's the best for your needs ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marketing aside: Is the gaming IPC that /practically/ relevant? I mean, I'm gaming on a early-2012 Sandy Bridge CPU (Xeon E3-1235 aka "cheap i7-2600"), and it feels like my late-2013 R9 290 is the limiting factor these days, not the CPU. And I am actually considering to combine my NAS and workstation/gaming rig into one "big" Ryzen 3xxx or 3rd gen TR machine and banish it into the basement. Bonus: The NAS finally get…
I was doubting this for a while but there are finally games now that will bottleneck a 2012 era CPU. I’m planning a Ryzen upgrade for this purpose.
As much as I hate edgy 'Gamer' names, it seems AMD's new CPU does live up to its name.
EPYC is AMD's server CPU series.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epyc&oldid=911736...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Linus techtips the 3xxx ryzen series is already neck/neck with Intel at CSGO (which is known to normally heavily favor Intel - as a csgo player this is really impressive), and appears to otherwise be competitive in other games. Intel should be very scared. Not to mention the way Intel has crippled different models of their line up just to try to push people to use a more expensive CPU - and seems to have…
To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counter-Strike series, which traces its roots back to the year 2000.
As much as I hate edgy 'Gamer' names, it seems AMD's new CPU does live up to its name.
This is not as much the launch of EPYC as is is of the new generation of them. They're just now relevant enough for those that don't just want maximum cost effectiveness but also compute density.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counter-Strike series, which traces its roots back to the year 2000.
Why is it being used as a subjective benchmark 19 years later? Haven't gamers moved on a dozen times since then?
And then they go right ahead and make 'comparisons' based on irrelevant workloads. Not saying AMD isn't faster or better price/perf but please do the benchmarks properly. Same can be said of comparison of POWER 9 vs amd/intc.