I don't and haven't followed the Intel roadmap very closely. Just dip in from time to time to see what's up. But what I remember is that every new generation of Intel chipset and every new generation of Intel CPU forces you to change sockets. There doesn't seem be a scenario where you can just plug in the next generation cpu and update the BIOS in your motherboard like has been possible with AMD for ten years. I am very happy that the new AM4 socket again is following that method for next generation AMD chips. I know that Ryzen 2 and Ryzen 3 will just work with a new BIOS. No need for me to upgrade my motherboard just to get the latest cpu.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

I want my CAD machine to be "future proof".

In the past, i'd always buy a couple of rungs down from the current high-end.The motherboard hardware & BIOS were well established, the performance was within range of the absolute high-end, but only 2/3 or less of the price. After a few years, i'd replace the CPU with what was the top of the line as the next generation were released and the one I had, had become old.

However these days it's just not worth it- the improvements year by year are mostly incremental- going from a 486 to a K7 was a massive jump in performance, going from the K7 to a Core 2 was a massive jump in performance, going from the Core 2 to an i7 was a massive jump in performance.
However even now, going from my 6-7 year old i7 to the very latest & greatest is a big jump in performance, but it's nothing like the gains in the past. Ryzen is a massive jump over Bulldozer, but it still lags behind the current Intel CPUs.

Where in the past i'd upgrade the CPU of a current system, then buy a new system after that, I generally keep my (just below the current high-end system) for a year or 3 longer, and just buy another near high-end system. These days upgradeability is being able to add more storage, or pull out & add a better video card. The gains from upgrading the current CPU to the best that socket can support are bugger all these days (not like going from a 486 to a 486 DX4 100).

If what you're buying is for work, and you want to make it last as long as possible and give the best possible return for the money spent, then it makes sense to get the fastest possible CPU, based on the current well established socket.
If Solidworks is the programme you use, then that rules out any AMD CPU as IPC and clock rate are what is important for that programme. 4 cores/8 threads are all that it can make use of, so spending money on any more than that would be a waste- give it the cores and threads it can use, and the highest IPC & clock rates possible. Then in 4-7 years when the slight IPC improvements finally add up to something significant, you buy your next new system & the current one becomes your old backup system. Of course if in the meantime Solidworks fixes up their software to actually make use of all the cores & threads it can then it would make sense to get what will then be the well established & de-bugged & tweaked Ryzen, Threadripper or even Epyc based system.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

So after watching some review videos, and reading a few reviews, Threadripper for single core apps (like Seti) is no faster than the Intel I9. But having more cores and threads than the I9, means you can run more tasks at the same time. It is those projects that have multi-threaded apps that the Threadripper will leave the I9 eating dust.

---

... and still I fear, and still I dare not laugh at the Mad Man!

Queen - The Prophet's Song

It is those projects that have multi-threaded apps that the Threadripper will leave the I9 eating dust.

Unless you get an i9 with a similar number of cores and threads, in which case it will leave the Threadripper in the dust due to it's higher IPC, higher clock rate and lower power consumption.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I hate to say it but I think AMD is going to be the way to go. More PCIe lanes, cheaper price, ability to change out equipment. All this for a dedicated cruncher.

But if this is going to be a work PC, then you probably would need to review what you plan on doing with it and select the best equipment for your needs.

---

I hate to say it but I think AMD is going to be the way to go. More PCIe lanes, cheaper price, ability to change out equipment. All this for a dedicated cruncher.

But if this is going to be a work PC, then you probably would need to review what you plan on doing with it and select the best equipment for your needs.

For crunching AMD is the way to go at present.
For Al's work, the programme he's using doesn't take full advantage of much more than 16 threads, so clock speed and IPC (Instructions Per Clock) are more important. Intel is still King when it comes to that. And they still use less power.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I hate to say it but I think AMD is going to be the way to go. More PCIe lanes, cheaper price, ability to change out equipment. All this for a dedicated cruncher.

But if this is going to be a work PC, then you probably would need to review what you plan on doing with it and select the best equipment for your needs.

For crunching AMD is the way to go at present.
For Al's work, the programme he's using doesn't take full advantage of much more than 16 threads, so clock speed and IPC (Instructions Per Clock) are more important. Intel is still King when it comes to that. And they still use less power.

I agree with your analysis with regard to getting the fastest IPC Intel platform that is available now for SolidWorks. But as you suggest, you might be constraining yourself mightily if SolidWorks changes the program next year or next release to use more threads/cores. Or you change software packages entirely because your shop changes the type or amount of work you take on board and that program can use more cores or threads.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Unless you get an i9 with a similar number of cores and threads, in which case it will leave the Threadripper in the dust due to it's higher IPC, higher clock rate and lower power consumption.

Yes, but at double the cost. But if cost is not a concern and/or can be written off as a necessary business expense, then just get the announced high core count i9 with 18 cores.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Unless you get an i9 with a similar number of cores and threads, in which case it will leave the Threadripper in the dust due to it's higher IPC, higher clock rate and lower power consumption.

Yes, but at double the cost. But if cost is not a concern and/or can be written off as a necessary business expense, then just get the announced high core count i9 with 18 cores.

Yep.
The more work you can do, the faster it pays for itself, and the greater the profits.
There are times it's better to spend more upfront and save in the long run than save up front & spend more in the long run. That TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) thing- it's more than just the initial purchase.

For crunching, even though per core AMD is slower, and uses more power, the extra cores more than offset that and will result in more work overall. However, if you're running a business, if those extra cores don't produce all that extra work, that lower purchase price will cost you dearly in the long run.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Thanks for all the comments guys, and it may be too early to tell, though I know that I've heard that X299 has had some teething problems, but does anyone have any thoughts on the v 1.0 of this new platform? X99 sure could have been rolled out better, and this one looks like a copy of that experience?

---

Thanks for all the comments guys, and it may be too early to tell, though I know that I've heard that X299 has had some teething problems, but does anyone have any thoughts on the v 1.0 of this new platform? X99 sure could have been rolled out better, and this one looks like a copy of that experience?

No idea.
If you're buying something for work, then go with the established platform. If it's for play, then go for the new platform IMHO. If you really want to go with the new platform, give it at least 6 months for any issues to be discovered and addressed.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

+1

Thanks for all the comments guys, and it may be too early to tell, though I know that I've heard that X299 has had some teething problems, but does anyone have any thoughts on the v 1.0 of this new platform? X99 sure could have been rolled out better, and this one looks like a copy of that experience?

No idea.
If you're buying something for work, then go with the established platform. If it's for play, then go for the new platform IMHO. If you really want to go with the new platform, give it at least 6 months for any issues to be discovered and addressed.

+1
Which sort of flows back to the original premise of the OP. Who is willing to be a guinea pig for ANY of the new platforms? X299 or X399. Do you like living on the bleeding edge and just diving in or do you wait and test the waters to make sure it is a deep pool or is in reality a bathtub.

I have been tested with the teething problems of the new AM4 platform and Ryzen with the memory and BIOS issues. I think I will be seated on the sidelines for a good half year watching TR develop before I consider testing the waters. I don't think the platform maturity will take as long though with the learning from Ryzen and AM4.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

K, then you've helped me decide, thanks! Going with a X99-E-10G WS, the few reviews I have seen on it have pretty much all been positive. It's a WS class board that has OC'ing capabilities, even supports ECC ram and should honestly work out for me for a minimum of 2 years, probably 3, unless Solidworks gets really inspired by Threadripper and decides to go all in on the core count optimizations. But even then, I plan on staying on V 18 of Solidworks for at least 2-3 years, probably more, because I refuse to rent software, that's why I went with Solidworks instead of Autodesk products. I think the only thing I may have like that is virus software, otherwise, nope, I buy it, I use it, and whatever I do with it from then on is my business, and no one is going to shut it off on me. ;-) Will be interesting when 7 has to go away, and by that time Windows as a $ervice kicks in, my guess is about that time frame, but we'll see. Anywho, thanks again guys, I was leaning that way, even though it goes against what I have done in the past. It just makes more sense to me. Now for the CPU and memory...

---

I think I will be seated on the sidelines for a good half year watching TR develop before I consider testing the waters. I don't think the platform maturity will take as long though with the learning from Ryzen and AM4.

Nope.
They've had around 5 months of Ryzen feedback and development to help with Threadripper, although such multithreaded loads have generally been the realm of servers, so they will bring a whole new series of issues to light for general desktop use. It'll take time for compliers & programmers to adapt to make use of the extra threads, and the memory/cache access & thrashing that poor coding will cause.
Keep in mind Intel have had over 10 years of development with their present Core based architecture (and their compilers), hence their significant IPC, clock frequency and power leads. I would expect the next generation of Zen based CPUs (and motherboards) to improve significantly on the current series (which are a massive improvement over their previous architecture).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I guess you are more of the pessimist or realist than I am. I hope the underdog will have his day.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Well don't wait for me as I never buy 1.0 versions of any motherboard as I hate being a guinea pig and I won't try it on others either unless they ask to be. ;-)

A bit of a problem over here ATM is that there's still a lot of "original stock" AMD motherboards still on shelves that will work fine with a R7 CPU, but need BIOS updates to work with an R3 or R5, so when I no longer hear about that happening I'll consider building an R5 setup myself (my Athlon II X4 needs to move on).

Cheers.

Are you afraid of doing a BIOS update or just prefer a motherboard to work out the box? You can update the BIOS on the AM4 motherboards with nothing but a monitor, keyboard, mouse and power supply plugged in. Don't even have to have memory installed. Some don't even have to have any of the above plugged in except the power supply and the correctly named BIOS on a flash stick plugged in and hit the power button.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

It requires someone with a R7 to spare to do from what I've heard. ;-)

[edit] So you're saying that the mobo doesn't need a recognised CPU in it to do do that?

Cheers.

[edit] So you're saying that the mobo doesn't need a recognised CPU in it to do do that?

Depends on the motherboard.
The UEFI specification supports updating without memory or CPU. But the hardware & UEFI version on the motherboard need to support it to make it possible. I suspect it's still limited to pretty much the higher end series of motherboards.

---

Grant
Darwin NT