X399 vs X299

reyazjunior

Commendable
Sep 17, 2017
63
0
1,640
I am making a new gaming pc with the following components:
Dual Asus Poseidon GTX 1080 Ti
NZXT AiO Liquid Cooler
Corsair S340 White
G.Skill TridentZ RGB memory (4×8 GB kit)
2×Samsung 960 Pro 2 TB in Raid 1
6×Samsung 850 Pro 1 TB in Raid 5
HGST 10 TB HDD for system backup
Corsair 1200 W PSU 80+ Titanium
Asus Cerberus RGB keyboard
Asus ROG Gladius mouse
Asus ROG Centurion headset
I was struggling between AMD Threadripper 1950X(16 core, 32 Thread) or Intel Core i7-7840X (8 core, 16 Thread)
The CPU choice will mean that I can only upgrade to X399 or X299 CPU's in the future. AMD will keep the X399 chipset and TR4 socket for long, but I doubt Intel will keep the X299 chipset for long. No matter which CPU I choose, I'll go with an Asus motherboard of either chipset. Please tell CPU will be better.
I'll be gaming, editing, rendering, and developing games on this. Please give your choice.
 
Solution
Honestly, for strictly gaming, there's absolutely no need for 16 cores and 32 threads. Most games these days will only slightly benefit from having more than 4 cores, and you'll probably never see any benefit from having more than 8 cores for years, at which point the processor's per-thread performance will likely be obsolete. It's not in the best interest of game developers to make a game that performs poorly on 99% of computers, so they try to focus on making the game logic run well on the hardware people actually have, which tends to be quad-core processors. Because of that, most games will only make heavy use of a handful of threads, so the majority of cores in a 16 core processor would be sitting dormant, doing practically...

JalYt_Justin

Reputable
Jun 12, 2017
1,164
0
5,960
X399 is a much better platform. The only real choices for the X299 platform are the i9 1960X/1900X and the i7 7840X, and I think I would rather take Threadripper over all of them.

Of course, AMD is also going to be supporting the socket for like time, just like AM4, and that's good for upgrade paths in the future although I doubt you'll need it. Threadripper is just the superior option unless you genuinely need 18 cores and 36 threads (for double the price of a TR 1950X).
 
Honestly, for strictly gaming, there's absolutely no need for 16 cores and 32 threads. Most games these days will only slightly benefit from having more than 4 cores, and you'll probably never see any benefit from having more than 8 cores for years, at which point the processor's per-thread performance will likely be obsolete. It's not in the best interest of game developers to make a game that performs poorly on 99% of computers, so they try to focus on making the game logic run well on the hardware people actually have, which tends to be quad-core processors. Because of that, most games will only make heavy use of a handful of threads, so the majority of cores in a 16 core processor would be sitting dormant, doing practically nothing during nearly all games. Threadripper's 16 cores and 32 threads can be great for tasks that can actually make use of as many threads as you have available, like video encoding and rendering, but for gaming, all those extra cores won't likely offer much benefit at all.

And since the majority of current games tend to benefit more from higher per-core performance, Intel's CPUs generally come out on top, due to their higher clock rates and slightly higher IPC, at least when it comes to higher-end parts in the $300+ range. This is more relevant for screens with refresh rates higher than 60Hz though, since a CPU really only needs to have the performance to push whatever refresh rate your monitor can display, and if it can't show more than 60 frames per second, it doesn't matter as much which processor you have. I don't believe you mentioned what screen you were going to be using, but practically all current 4K monitors top out at 60hz. From a CPU performance standpoint, you would likely get slightly better gaming performance from a consumer-oriented processor, like the just-released 6 core, 12 thread 8700k on the Z370 platform, than on either X399 or X299, but you would probably not be able to have all those SSDs.

And while AMD's motherboards will likely get supported with new processors for longer, that's only useful if the gaming performance of those processors will be competitive a few years down the line, and that's simply unknown at this time. They will undoubtedly improve over what's currently available, but it's possible that Intel's processors might improve more, in which case you might be inclined to get a new motherboard anyway.
 
Solution

reyazjunior

Commendable
Sep 17, 2017
63
0
1,640
I will be using 3 Ultrawide Monitors running at 3440×1440 100Hz from Asus
Gaming is not my sole purpose
I'll be using it for a lot of other things which are both CPU and GPU intensive
See the full question to know my needs
With two high end GPUs and 3 High Refresh rate High resolution monitors, the six core i7-8700K will most probably get bottlenecked
Plus, I'm not found with consumer grade CPUs, so only workstation-class chipsets like X299 and X399 will work for me
As for upgrading, I'll do that at the end of 3 years. I'll upgrade the CPU and GPU No problem in changing the motherboard just to get better performance. I want that performance so I'll upgrade the motherboard of need arises. The PSU is already large enough. If it is not enough (please check) then tell me what wattage I need.
 
I somehow missed where you mentioned rendering and editing in the last line. By i7-7840X, did you mean the i7-7820X though? In any case, the Intel processor will likely offer slightly better performance in lightly-threaded applications, which account for the majority of software, including most of today's games. Threadripper, on the other hand, will have an advantage in tasks that make use of all of its cores, which would include many video encoders, file compression/extraction utilities, and rendering software, but games will only use as many cores as they were designed for, in which case the Intel CPU should have more than enough, along with faster per-core performance.

As for the two 1080 Tis, they may be powerful, but they still might limit your performance more often than the CPU in many games at ultra settings on three 3440x1440 screens. That adds up to nearly double the pixels of a 4K monitor, after all, so even in cases where SLI scaling works well, I wouldn't expect framerates to get much higher than what a single 1080 Ti would get on a 4K screen.
 

reyazjunior

Commendable
Sep 17, 2017
63
0
1,640
Sorry for saying the wrong CPU number. I did mean i7-7820X. If two GTX 1080 Ti's will get bottlenecked, i'll keep it down to High or Very High settings in most demanding games. Volta will come out next year, and i will upgrade in 2020. So the top of the line Volta GPU will be out by then. Simple.
The i7-7820X is 30% better at single core and quad core performance (so better gaming) but the 1950X has 70% better multi-core performance (still very good gaming but not as good as 7820X). the i7 has better clock speeds, and wins by 0.5 GHz. OC 1950X, and wattage becomes uncontrollable. i just dont know what to do. What about i create a dual system in Lian Li Pc O11? One with threadripper and 2 Quadro GP100 and one with 2 GTX 1080 ti and i7-7820X?
That seems the best answer.