Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When I built my PC it seemed like Intel had a pretty small single core edge but amd had twice the cores per dollar. Easy choice if you do anything but gaming imo. I really hope they catch up the GPU space soon.


Interesting enough, a lot of productivity PCs still go for Intel in the form of the 18-core i9-7980XE. AMD isn’t necessarily a shoe-in in productivity either.


“A lot of productivity PC” builds are going for $1700 Intel CPUs... really? Even if the $1700-CPU PC market was really popular, tell me: why would they choose the slower of the $1700 CPUs, other than corrupt or beurocrafic business practices?

And don’t try to argue how Intel’s $1700 18-core CPU is faster than AMD’s similarly priced 32-core CPU because Intel’s has slightly faster per-core performance. Such an argument would be absolutely absurd: the point of an 18-32 core CPU is NOT the single threaded performance :)


This guy uses it: https://youtu.be/jweQNDCe218

Don’t know about you but his builders actually benchmark the CPUs.

Dansgaming uses the 18 core i9 for his streaming box.

Not every application a person uses scales to high core counts, in such situations a CPU with good single thread performance (in addition to high core counts) would be beneficial.

Cache performance matter too. AMD’s CPUs have a split L3 cache. Some applications might not like that.


> Not every application a person uses scales to high core counts

But do you know what really scales to high core counts? Running more than one application at a time.


> Running more than one application at a time.

Depends on how much memory bandwidth and how much CPU cache your applications are using.

Wouldn’t what to trash the L3 cache and worsen the situation with a saturated memory bus.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: