Double the price; not so much performance though ... Skylake-X versus ThreadRipper

Subject: Processors | September 25, 2017 - 03:19 PM |
Tagged: skylake-x, Skylake, Intel, Core i9, 7980xe, 7960x

You cannot really talk about the new Skylake-X parts from Intel without bringing up AMD's Threadripper as that is the i9-7980XE and i9-7960X's direct competition.   From a financial standpoint, AMD is the winner, with a price tag either $700 or $1000 less than Intel's new flagship processors.  As Ryan pointed out in his review, for those whom expense is not a consideration it makes sense to chose Intel's new parts as they are slightly faster and the Xtreme Edition does offer two more cores.  For those who look at performance per dollar the obvious processor of choice is ThreadRipper; for as Ars sums up in their review AMD offers more PCIe lanes, better heat management and performance that is extremely close to Intel's best.

View Full Size

"Ultimately, the i9-7960X raises the same question as the i9-7900X: Are you willing to pay for the best performing silicon on the market? Or is Threadripper, which offers most of the performance at a fraction of the price, good enough?"

Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:


Source: Ars Technica

Video News

September 25, 2017 | 04:46 PM - Posted by dan the grammar man (not verified)


September 25, 2017 | 06:26 PM - Posted by Anonymously Anonymous (not verified)

Bragging rights does increase mindshare, but smart people will buy what is best for their use-case and budget regardless if brand.

September 26, 2017 | 02:44 AM - Posted by Power (not verified)

Skylake-X is good but not Epyc ;-)

September 26, 2017 | 06:54 AM - Posted by Martin (not verified)

From performance perspective neither 7980XE or 7960X realle seem to be the direct competitor for 1950X. Interpolating from the known results, that should be 7940X. 2 cores less but higher clocks and more thermal headroom than 7980XE/7960X have. I would predict 7940X performing just slightly better than 1950x.

At $1399, the price difference will still definitely be there but far less effect than current 1.7x/2.0x pricier argument. Intel could do with price drop of $200-300 across the range and be VERY competitive. Price-for-performance-wise that would put 7900x against 1920x (that is a very good match) and 7920X/7940X on either side of 1950X.

September 26, 2017 | 03:33 PM - Posted by beb (not verified)

"for those whom expense is not a consideration it makes sense to chose Intel's new parts"

I just don't get it ? what do you mean ?
10-20% more performance worth 100% price increase?
basically 1000$ for 2 more cores.

you guys gotta be brain damaged or just an Intel shell.

September 27, 2017 | 01:26 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

If you have more money than sense then go with Intel ... is that easier for you to grasp or was it that you just need to insult someone?

There are business applications where that 10% improvement can mean millions of dollars of revenue.

September 28, 2017 | 01:39 AM - Posted by Jay Bob (not verified)

I honestly think there are better and more real business options for that kind of "business applications". #Intel Xeon

September 28, 2017 | 12:31 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

You might be fine @ $2000 but balk at the ~$9000 for a E7-8894 v4.  Skylake-X is an interesting cross between server and workstation, just like ThreadRipper

September 28, 2017 | 01:43 AM - Posted by beb (not verified)

"was it that you just need to insult someone?"
you are right in this, I apologize.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.