While this is true, the i9 18-core part is the first they've launched after AMD made their big move with their new 8 and 16 core parts.

It's possible that Intel might have to claw back Xeon pricing accordingly to defend their market share.

Yes, I have Xeons in my WS. The reason why many people ended up buying Xeons for the desktop is core count -- i7 had 6, then 8 cores until recently, so a 10-18 core workstation could only be built with Xeons. The other difference is ECC, which most of the people don't necessarily want (let's not talk about whether they need it or not).

If a developer/pro/etc. need 18 cores, most of the time they'll be OK with a top-end i7 -- I think. Therefore it is fair to compare Xeons with i7s, they're not the same but yes, they have overlapping target audience when it comes to desktops.

> If a developer/pro/etc. need 18 cores, most of the time they'll be OK with a top-end i7 -- I think.

Not if they need ECC RAM - and if you've got enough professional stuff to fill 128GB of RAM, you really, really need ECC RAM.

Especially if you're routinely moving terabytes between the workstation and NAS.

Ryzen 7: eight cores, ECC support, unbeatable pricing.

(No 128 GB RAM but you're not getting that with a desktop i7 either. Oh and the new HEDT platform that also has "i7"s… not all chips will support quad channel RAM!)

In context, I'm not sure I understand your point.

for all we know at this point the new intel lines are rebranded xeons (plus a few consumer features), the hastily put together response to AMD seems to suggest this.

relevant for people who don't know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE

the funnier version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xah84cJwdxE

http://i.imgur.com/EZ6LyI1.png

http://i.imgur.com/tbwNbdh.png

EDIT: by mistake I originally linked this video I had in my clipboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scez5dqtAc