The TDP on EPYC chips is a lot higher. I think of Threadripper as mid-tier, and EPYC as the high-end. Ryzen is remarkable because you can buy new equipment with ECC, at consumer prices. I am hazy, but don't think that has been possible since the 386 era ('parity ram').

> The TDP on EPYC chips is a lot higher.

EPYC TDP ranges from "a lot lower" (35W embedded, 120W regular) up to "comparable with" (180-240W, a single 280W model) relative to Threadripper (180-250W last gen; current gen is all 280W). It's definitely not a lot higher on the Epyc side.

> I think of Threadripper as mid-tier, and EPYC as the high-end.

This oversimplifies to the point of not being a useful intuition (or is arguably even incorrect). Threadripper is a SKU with a moderate number of cores at relatively high clocks; (high-power) EPYC SKUs have a lot of very efficient cores running at lower clocks. They both have a niche, but Threadripper has unambiguously better single-core performance due to the ~20% higher clocks. And single-core IPC still matters in many applications (to oversimplify: Amdahl's law; but also, latency-sensitive applications).

AMD is more accurate in their TDP specs than Intel is, they can't really be compared.

This is not responsive to he comment you're replying to, which is comparing AMD to AMD.

My comment was corrupted by rowhammer. Not only was it misdirected, the content is also probably wrong.