The complexity of the chip is higher than the previous models, with three dies under the hood instead of one. The high end chips are closer to Threadripper than they are to the models they're replacing.
I think $750 is still a ridiculously good price, and Intel's feet are being held to the fire.
- 4 memory channels vs 2
- 64 PCIe lanes vs 16-4-4
- 64MB of L3 cache vs 32MB
- DDR4 3200 vs DDR4 2666
- The PCIe lanes are 4.0 vs 3.0
- 3.5Ghz base clock vs 3.4
- 4.7Ghz boost clock vs 4.0
- 15% better instructions per clock
- Full avx2 instead of emulating with two 128-bit units
- 105W vs 180W TDP
Ryzen 3000 specs say it can support 128GB of ram but it’s hard to find 32GB DIMMs on the market.
So if you’re trying to build a workstation with lots of ram and more than one GPU, the Ryzen boards are too limited even if you’re willing to buy a nice one.
I feel like if you're requiring 128GB of ram and/or maxing out the PCIE then you're going to have a bigger budget and ThreadRipper makes more sense.
Just a note: Two units for fused multiply-add, otherwise it's four units with two multipliers and two adders.
Threadripper 1950x comes with the same core count, more memory channels, more PCI-E lanes and more memory. You can grab one for $499 from amazon.
So you're not going to save more then a few bucks but get a slower and outdated CPU.
Note: I have a TR cooler running on my AM4 board (custom loop though so not completely comparable) and there is more than sufficient space to place it.
In turn, I misunderstood your reply to @lhoff, because in that context, I read it as a rebuttal of the idea that TR parts being expensive by suggesting an AM4 mobo + TR4 cooler as substitutes on a 1950X system.
My 4790K feels so outdated now...
I wouldn't make the assumption that AMD could sustainably sell that much silicon at that price point.