Disregarding brand loyalty and whatnot, there are very few situations in which AMD's Ryzen chips aren't a "no-brainer" over Intel's.
Most rational people should be getting AMD's chips and AMD Ryzen-based devices.
Most rational people should be getting AMD's chips and AMD Ryzen-based devices.
The heat/consumptions and single-core speed aspects are not negligible.
In addition (although this is definitely something for a minority of users), I suffered blocking VFIO scheduling issues with AMD (A10) while I didn't with Intel. Even Ryzen seems to be immature for VFIO (but I didn't personally test this).
The issue is a bit muddled because sites are (for some weird reason?) ignoring the most common Ryzen SKU, which is 65W (R7 1700).
That said, yes, if power consumption is no item, the Ryzens look better. If you are looking for power efficiency, go with the intel parts.
That's exactly what I was pointing at: most reviews are using the most power hungry Ryzen SKUs (95W), so of course it looks bad in comparison. Meanwhile, the price/perf leader and most sold Ryzen SKU is only 65W. This one is ahead of Intel in power efficiency.
I'm honestly looking for opinions here. I'm currently looking at the i7-7820X for a gaming/developer/GP machine. The Ryzen 1800X has only 16PCIe lanes, and a dual channel memory controller that is not as fast as Intel's. The Ryzen 1920X has what I need, but costs about $200 more, and I'm a bit concerned about performance consistency due to the NUMA architecture.
With this in mind, I'm really leaning towards the 7820x. But I keep seeing these posts saying that beyond brand loyalty, Ryzen is the way to go. Is the balanced ST/MT workstation niche really in Ryzen's court?
After compiling things on an 8 thread Haswell Xeon, and now a 16-thread Ryzen, I really want a ThreadRipper...