notb There will be no "unlocking". And even if it happened, Intel wouldn't have to react.



You can't be serious.

We're still talking about a very tiny niche.

The reason why Intel seems to have given up on X299 is... they don't care. AMD can have the "PC Enthusiast" segment.



Now... the workstation segment is something entirely different. It will be interesting to see how Intel reacts with workstation-oriented Xeons.

BTW: does Threadripper have security features from Ryzen PRO? Because if not, ECC might not be enough to make it successful in business.

jabbadap Even if they are real cores, you can't use them with x399. Platform lacks memory channels needed for them(Every ryzen chip inside threadripper needs two memory channels).

Yes, I can be serious and I really don't like your tone towards me. Always unpleasant so how about you lighten up a bit eh? No need for unpleasantness regardless of who's technical point is right or wrong.I think Intel will care about the gaming market, even a niche one as it's all about prestige and image, which helps to bring in the sales. Intel won't invest big money on bringing out a new platform they "don't care about", that's just silly. More likely they're not sure how to react to the Threadripper threat which is why we have these anomalies with Skylake-X and the next generation will be much better.I've since read the review below linked to by Fluffmeister above which shows AMD caning Intel in productivity performance, so Intel very much has something to worry about there. This appears to be an official review too, so likely the others will be similar. Personally, I just wish that Ryzen's IPC was better than Intel's, which would then deliver an all-round killer product. The way things are going, that might actually happen one day.How can you say for certain that AMD won't allow their CPUs to be unlocked? On what authority are you basing that on, or is that just your opinion? I'm saying maybe/hopefully and that's the best we can do at the moment.Ok that's a fair point. So EPYC must have twice the memory channels then?