| ▲ | energy123 5 days ago |
| I can't comment on the quality question, but for memory bandwidth sensitive use cases, Intel desktop is superior. |
|
| ▲ | olavgg 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The last 15 years, servers has gone from 3x memory channels to 12x, while desktop still only have 2x memory channels.
It is by far the biggest bottleneck today. |
| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 15 years ago a server CPU had twice as many cores as a desktop CPU. Today a server CPU has about eight times as many cores. |
|
|
| ▲ | ttyyzz 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I'm not convinced, what would be the use case? |
| |
| ▲ | energy123 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Data science where you need to keep ~50GB of data in RAM and do intensive things with it (e.g. loop over it repeatedly with numba). You can't get use out of more than 4 cores because memory bandwidth is the only limitation. The data is too big for AMD's cache to be a factor. Threadripper is built for this. But I am talking about the consumer options if you are on a budget. Intel has significantly more memory bandwidth than AMD in the consumer end. I don't have the numbers on hand, but someone at /r/localllama did a comparison a while ago. | | |
|
