Comments Locked

20 Comments

Back to Article

  • Vatharian - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Why, why manufacturers won't let the U.2 die? We are already past SATA Express, and now this. I get it, it's one of the most popular connectors to connect SAS backplanes, and most of HBAs and RAID controllers do use it, but please, let it die in desktop space. If anything SFF8087 should remain, as SFF-8639 (U.2) is much flimsier and easier to break.

    Also, we already have far superior standard just behind the corner, in the form of OCuLink.
  • peterfares - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Why not have it there though? X299 is a prosumer platform, they may want to use U.2 drives.
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    x399 laughs at X299 being called "prosumer" 44pci-e lanes vs 64 pci-e lanes, bootable nvme raid support.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    I'm a "prosumer" who built both X299 and X399 boxes and couldn't care less about those things. Compiler want MOAR CORRRREEEESSSSSS
  • drajitshnew - Friday, December 1, 2017 - link

    Why call it a prosumer product when it doesn't have ANY m2/u2 connected to the processor?
  • andychow - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Doubtful it will disappear. With Optane coming out with only a U.2 connector on the SSD format, it rather insured that U.2 will grow in demand.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    The 750 was also like that but didn't spur demand for U.2. The add-in cards are just fine.
  • Dr. Swag - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Could you guys do some better vrm testing? X299 vrms have been a hot topic (pun intended) due to Skylake X drawing a lot of power when OCed and because of the addition of up to 18 cores. Some vrms get quite toasty under load so if you guys had good vrm temp measurements and perhaps even measurements on voltage ripple and stuff coming out of the vrm that would be awesome.
  • vgray35@hotmail.com - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    And let's not forget measurement of VRM power efficiency to compare the quality of VRMs across motherboards!
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Just but Threadripper and forget about those problems.
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    *buy
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Threadripper has all the same problems. Huge socket == small area for VRM, and 180W TDP. At least in my testing TR 1950X consumes well over 250W when running at 3.9 GHz.
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Why would you buy a handycapped X299 when AMD's X399 platform is better in every possible way?
  • mkaibear - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Ah, still spreading your usual fear, uncertainty and doubt I see.

    I'll reply the same way I did before;

    https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1904?vs=19...

    That's why (note not identical parts because it's a 12 core TR vs an 8 core i7 - but they are as close as I can get in terms of costs). If I went the other way and went with a 10 core i9 vs the 16 core TR then we see roughly the same pattern of behaviour.

    Threadripper wins in the multithreaded tests so long as the workload suits it but for the many benchmarks it's per-core speed which is more important than number of cores.

    In essence, if your work requires fast cores and quite a few threads then you're better off with the i7 or i9, if it utilizes loads of threads but speed is less important then you're better off with the TR.

    So; given that there are obvious use cases for both processors I'm afraid I can't agree that "Threadripper X399 is better in every possible way".

    I note you didn't bother to reply before, but it'll be interesting to see if you manage to string a coherent sentence together this time.
  • mkaibear - Friday, December 1, 2017 - link

    ...hey look at that, he doesn't bother to reply. What a shock...
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Because you have a workload Threadripper isn't as good at? Building the compiler my 7980XE box is ~40% faster than my 1950X box. TR has much better price/performance but that's not an end-all, be-all metric.
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Even better when the 1950X is $800 right now.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Agreed; at that price the 1950X invalidates the 1920X even more than it used to. (Saving $200 on a CPU when the rest of the system costs ~1.5k seems like a waste)
  • BenJeremy - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    More VROC nonsense. Officially, you are not supposed to be able to buy the VROC upgrade key - vendors are supposed to provide you with a means to get one. Until you PAY MORE ($126 for VROCSTANMOD), you will be stuck with a hobbled system that cannot create bootable RAID-0 arrays unless you use Optane SSDs.

    Meanwhile, X399/ThreadRipper offers bootable RAID-0 for your NVMe array for FREE and it's been demonstrated at higher speeds than Intel's promised with VROC.
  • Edward190 - Saturday, December 2, 2017 - link


    https://www.cartoonhdappz.com/

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now