Intel Announces 9th Gen Core CPUs

Re:Intel Announces 9th Gen Core CPUs by vbezhenar on Monday October 08, 2018 @04:36PM (#18171069)

Not easy pick for me. Intel has 16% performance advantage. Pricing is bad, but they charge because they can. If I wanted to buy best CPU, I probably would have spend 1.5x more. If I wanted to save money, it's another story.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel Announces 9th Gen Core CPUs by dragontamer on Monday October 08, 2018 @04:40PM (#18171110)

The upper-end of Intel's offerings start to get into AMD's Threadripper price range.

AMD is offering a 16-core / 32-thread 4.4GHz monster for $899, and a 32-core / 64-thread for $1799.

If you wanted the best under $5000 (total cost of a computer), it seems like AMD Threadripper is the best. If you wanted the best below $1000, it seems like AMD Ryzen is the best.

Only if you are single-thread bound (5GHz clocks!!), AVX2 or AVX512 bound, or PEXT / PDEP bound (Stockfish 9) should you consider Intel. But otherwise, AMD is offering more performance at all price points up to the EPYC 7601 (~$3000 CPU: 32-core/64 threads / 8-memory controllers / 64 PCIe lanes direct to CPU, support for dual-socket).

--------

With that being said, I'm definitely interested in Intel's Xeon Silver platform. If Intel pushed dual-socket out better, then they would be cheaper AND faster. IMO, its a bit weird that Intel isn't taking advantage of their dual-socket solutions to counter AMD Threadripper (I mean... Threadripper really is just a dual-socket or quad-socket NUMA chip combined into a single socket).

As it is, Xeon Silver is hard to find and seems to be ticking up in price unfortunately. But their nominal prices are actually quite good, although their clocks are kinda low. But Xeon Silver really seems like Intel's price/performance champ (even if its still a bit more expensive than Threadripper or EPYC).

[ Parent | on HN ]