On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 13:29:19 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 07/11/2017 12:58 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 11:31:03 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
I am quite surprised that Intel even created i9 actually, it
just wasn't required.
AMD Ryzen Threadripper:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
I do not trust that benchmark.
Well, this is another one with a comparison of two products with
similar price:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1950X/3936vs3932
I think the Xeons might be for overcommited server situations.
Larger caches and many threads. Sometimes people are more
interested in responsiveness (prevent starvation) and not
necessarily max speed. So if you do a lot of I/O system calls you
might want the ability to run many threads at the same time and
focus less on number crunching, perhaps?
But after looking at those numbers, I have a strange feeling
that Intel is pushing those i9's past 'safe' limits.
I think they just turn off cores that does not work and put those
chips into the lower end, and the high end is very expensive at
$2000 (so maybe low yield or just greed :-)…
