/g/-approved high end desktop

>>61989234
"Worth getting" for what purpose? Threadripper is superior for everything you'd want 10+ cores for.

>>61989275
scientific computing and general multitasking (i.e. watching 8 porn videos at once)

>>61989300
Well, if you're willing to spend $800+ on a CPU and $200+ on a motherboard, then it probably is worth it.

>>61989381
I can spend 2.5-3k on the entire build
Any downsides to threadripper? I saw a few weeks ago someone said it was dead on release

>>61989399
It only turbos to 4.0GHz, so the single-threaded performance is a little weaker than Intel's HEDT. And it requires fast RAM due to how infinity fabric works. And there's some minor weirdness in performance because of the CCX's as opposed to monolithic design, which means you might have to toggle the NUMA setting in BIOS for some programs to achieve the best performance.

>>61989584
so what you're saying is that intel just wekrz?
If money was not a factor, would you choose i9 over threadripper?
which one is more likely to last longer?

>>61989990
>If money was not a factor, would you choose i9 over threadripper?
The threadripper has 16 cores. The best i9 out at the moment has 10 and Intel uses shitty TIM so it has terrible thermals. TR is better, and it isn't even a competition. And if anything the situation will get better for TR in the future, with more programs being compiled with CCX-based design in mind.

Obviously the situation will change once the 16 and 18 core i9s come out, but even then you'll be dealing with much worse thermals if you buy intel, and TR will likely be better in sustained use due to the relatively low baseclocks Intel's HCC chips have.

>>61989584
It XFR's to 4.2 GHz.

Can someone give me a sample TR build?
No vega pls, 1080ti

>>61992707
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/BNRvJV

>>61995479
pretty sure this is satire, but if not, why two ram modules?