You're willing to waste £3.5k on a pc, but you think MY suggestion is a bad deal? Mmmmk
veronica workstation !!!
- Thread starter AbdulqaderKhaznadar259
- Start date
- Status
AbdulqaderKhaznadar259
Member
watch your mouth dude and why you are upset? did I get the money from you?
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
You’re literally missing out on double the performance for the same cost, it’s pointless. You’re literally buying a 5 year old system.
Two AMD Epyc processors crush four Intel Xeons in tests
Tests by ServeTheHome found that a server running two AMD Epyc processors can outperform a four-socket Intel system that costs considerably more.
www.networkworld.com
Last edited:
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
Calm down, these are family friendly fora.
You posted your build on here and that clearly invited responses. All the responses you've had, and a few are from people that I know are hugely knowledgeable and experienced and who know what they are talking about, have urged you to cancel an unnecessarily expensive and unsuitable build.
It's your money of course and PCS will happily build whatever you want, but if you didn't want the expert people on here to tell you that you're wasting your money then it would have been wiser to say nothing.
Course they can. They're not even on sub 10nm dies yet. Moore's Law is not quite dead just yet and AMD are on, I believe, 7nm already.
What's more you need to read up on all of the CPU issues such as SPECTRE that Intel cannot fix because it's in the microcode of their CPU's.
That is just one of many security issues that they've faced and almost as many either cannot be mitigated at all, can only be mitigated partially or can be mitigated/mitigated partially but at the cost of around 30-50% performance (for SPECTRE the only 100% mitigation is to disable hyperthreading).
And that is before you start to get onto all the various issues they've had with their management chips and vulnerabilities.
Then of course, there is the fact that, as Spydertracks correctly points out, the core in that CPU hasn't changed for almost half a decade.
But ultimately no one here cares if you want to waste your money - as you rightly point out, it's your money after all, but you really are wasting a ton of it.
That is just one of many security issues that they've faced and almost as many either cannot be mitigated at all, can only be mitigated partially or can be mitigated/mitigated partially but at the cost of around 30-50% performance (for SPECTRE the only 100% mitigation is to disable hyperthreading).
And that is before you start to get onto all the various issues they've had with their management chips and vulnerabilities.
Then of course, there is the fact that, as Spydertracks correctly points out, the core in that CPU hasn't changed for almost half a decade.
But ultimately no one here cares if you want to waste your money - as you rightly point out, it's your money after all, but you really are wasting a ton of it.
Perhaps a more balanced/considered evaluation/critique? I’m no expert when it comes to workstation-class CPUS by a long shot 🥴. But the one review I found, did see some merits in it : https://uk.pcmag.com/chipsets-processors/125622/intel-xeon-w-2295
While also pointing that there are much better alternatives : “An enthusiast-class Intel Core X-Series or AMD Ryzen Threadripper are your most obvious choices for a CPU to serve as its brains. A third option, reviewed here, is a workstation-class CPU like the Intel Xeon W-2295. This $1,333 chip is very similar to the Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition, but it adds niche security and system stability features that some professional software applications might require. Unless these features are essential, however, we recommend that builders of high-end desktop (HEDT) PCs choose the Ryzen Threadripper 3960Xor 3970X instead.”
Although, it’s obvious this is way too wasteful and excessive for the intended use (Video Editing).
While also pointing that there are much better alternatives : “An enthusiast-class Intel Core X-Series or AMD Ryzen Threadripper are your most obvious choices for a CPU to serve as its brains. A third option, reviewed here, is a workstation-class CPU like the Intel Xeon W-2295. This $1,333 chip is very similar to the Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition, but it adds niche security and system stability features that some professional software applications might require. Unless these features are essential, however, we recommend that builders of high-end desktop (HEDT) PCs choose the Ryzen Threadripper 3960Xor 3970X instead.”
Although, it’s obvious this is way too wasteful and excessive for the intended use (Video Editing).
Last edited:
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
You need to be cautious with all online reviews. Ask yourself where their funding comes from. The main advantage of these fora is that none of us are paid, all of us are volunteers, and many have considerable knowledge and experience.
Nobody on here cares if you want to waste your money or buy an unsuitable build, they're just trying to help you get the best performance for your money.
Via Tapatalk
Nobody on here cares if you want to waste your money or buy an unsuitable build, they're just trying to help you get the best performance for your money.
Via Tapatalk
I wasn’t suggesting any of the moderators or experienced contributors were being any less than totally helpful. I was just saying that sometimes people can be educated in slightly less dismissive and sarcastic a manner. And I completely agree that online reviews often have an agenda.
Also, I did agree in my post that: “it’s obvious this is way too wasteful and excessive for the intended use (Video Editing).”
Also, I did agree in my post that: “it’s obvious this is way too wasteful and excessive for the intended use (Video Editing).”
Last edited:
Take a look through my posts - I can be quite bruising and have called mods (and others) out when I've believed that they've overstepped the mark.
I see nothing in this thread that is particularly bad - OP posted a ridiculous build at a ridiculous amount of money - presumably expecting gasps of "wow!"
When told - repeatedly - that it was really bad value for money, they became quite defensive and refused to listen, not to mention making aberrant clams about CPU's and e.g. how many transistors can be put onto a die.
The truth is that in the search for ever faster CPU's, Intel took some shortcuts. These ultimaely lead to much, much, better performance increases than they would otherwise have been able to eke out of their silicon but down the line it became clear that they were also the cause of huge security vulnerabilities.
They compounded it by initially denying there was any issue but as time went on, it became very clear that not only were the issues actually worse than originally thought, but that there was no really effective mitigations because the problem is embedded in the microcode of the CPU's and that cannot be changed once produced.
The only safe ways to work around some (some, not all) of these issues is to disable hyperthreading in their CPU's - so you buy an already expensive CPU based on a die that hasn't really changed in half a decade and then, the only way you can improve its security profile is by reducing its performance by at least 40%...
And, as I said above, SPECTRE was just the start. On top of that there have been major issues in their management engines/chipsets.
Microsoft did the same thing back in the 90's. Windows NT and really, 2000, were pre-internet (certainly as we know it now) and hadn't ever really been considered for a wild west environment that was full of ne'er-do-wells. They put a lot of really bad code in that never did basic checks (buffer overruns, unprotected memory, the list goes on).
Even as late as 2003 and Windows XP - remember this is an OS that never even had a firewall until SP3!
But, unlike Intel (seemingly), they did change their practices. Security first was a huge deal for them when the were coding Vista (which, if you had a system capable of running it, rather than the minimum spec's that were frankly a lie, wasn't a half bad OS) and by Windows 7 it formed a major part of their thinking.
Intel, it would appear, have been happy to keep churning out flawed CPU's and management engines.
You will also be able to find posts from me where I've said to avoid Intel Pro network cards - because of these issues.
It was heartbreaking to see AMD sit on their laurels the way they did after they were the first to bring out 64-bit CPU's to the masses (I had an Athlon 64 and it was an amazing CPU) and allow Intel to retake their crown. It's good to see they are making a resounding recovery and then some.
Now...it is, ultimately, everyone's personal choice about what they spend their own money on, but it's like seeing a car for sale for £3,500 but choosing one that isn't quite as good in every way and paying double for it. I don't think many people would agree that that makes much sense.
At the end of the day, if the OP is happy, no one here really cares.
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
And for that reason I'm going to lock this thread. If the OP wishes to ask for more help and/or advice please start a new thread.
- Status