I have some things to say - Core i9 & X299

> Are the recent AMD CPUs generally better for their price than Intel ones, and are there any downsides? My personal context is compiling programs, Oh boy, are you in for a nice surprise. link the Ryzen 7 3700X (323 USD) stands its ground against the i9 9900K (485 USD). The top end is not even funny, there is no consumer Intel CPU that can stand against the Ryzen 9 3900X (499 USD), the LGA 2066 workstation chips that can are double, triple the price. Or, to put it another way: at the same price the 3900X vs 9900k it is 32% faster when compiling the kernel. Passmark link shows no less than fifty percent . Right now the 3900X is in such a short supply it sells for 700-ish on eBay. This will resolve in a few months -- there's a 3950X scheduled for September with 16 cores instead of 12 cores, slightly lower base clock (3.8 vs 3.5) but slightly higher turbo clock (4.7 vs 4.6) tightening the screw on Intel. Of course, it'll have a "halo" price at 750 USD but will compete, again, with Intel workstation chips double the price (and much higher TDP as well). Intel is in deep... and they have nothing to counter with, Comet Lake-S is only scheduled for next year, this roadmap was posted just a few weeks ago: link and these are just words, there is no guarantee whatsoever they will be able to ship 10nm in mass market quantity ever . Ps. Intel's workstation (HEDT) strategy is a mess anyways -- link they essentially have nothing to offer between 485 USD and 950 USD which of course r

Like I have written in the other thread already: add to that the ECC support of Threadripper [0], 20 more PCIe lanes and no raid key shenanigans (on Intels x299 you have to pay 100$ extra for RAID 1 and 300$ for RAID 5 support with their VROC feature [1]). Unless you really need AVX 512 and better single thread performance (and 2 more cores in case of the not available 18 core part), why would you buy Intels new offering? Because you can reuse the cooler since it's compatible with x99? [0] link [1] ▶ this video

Fairly recent benchmark with cards dropping nothing from 16x to 8x : link Linus Tech Tips has a rant about how Intel is trying to segment the market by only offering more PCI-E lanes on the most-expensive CPUs despite mobo support with their new X299 platform (they've done this in the past as well): ▶ this video Basically, if you want the full 44 lanes, you have to get the top-spec processor for $1k ($1k for the cpu itself). The i9s above the 7900x don't even have details yet, since Intel is working on adapting their Xeons to their new HEDT platform to keep up with AMD. Here's the breakdown: link I've also heard speculation that they're crippling the lanes on cheaper chips because they're so worried about cannibalizing their server market. Don't expect ECC support on these either. Honestly, if any Xeon BIOSes and CPUs supported unlocked multipliers, they'd be a better deal, but I get that overclocking and max stability don't really mix. OR they could totally wow everyone and come out with some 5.0Ghz (all-core) 16-core chip that isn't overclockable any further but can run ECC. Sell THAT for $2k to workstation users and rich gamers. Make it 2P capable as well in case you need 32 cores. Maybe AMD will do it with ThreadRipper, which BTW has 64 PCI-E 3.0 lanes ( link ).

relevant for people who don't know: ▶ this video the funnier version: link link link EDIT: by mistake I originally linked this video I had in my clipboard: link

I just can't believe they chose the 18-core 2018 Intel vaporware chip [1] over this year's 16-core AMD Threadripper. Very strange decision on Apple's part. Not to mention they could've sold the iMac Pro for like $1,000 less. [1] ▶ this video