# AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Beats Intel Core i9-10980XE by 24% in 3DMark Physics



## btarunr (Oct 21, 2019)

AMD's upcoming Ryzen 9 3950X socket AM4 processor beats Intel's flagship 18-core processor, the Core i9-10980XE, by a staggering 24 percent at 3DMark Physics, according to a PC Perspective report citing TUM_APISAK. The 3950X is a 16-core/32-thread processor that's drop-in compatible with any motherboard that can run the Ryzen 9 3900X. The i9-10980XE is an 18-core/36-thread HEDT chip that enjoys double the memory bus width as the AMD chip, and is based on Intel's "Cascade Lake-X" silicon. The AMD processor isn't at a tangible clock-speed advantage. The 3950X has a maximum boost frequency of 4.70 GHz, while the i9-10980XE isn't much behind, at 4.60 GHz, but things differ with all-core boost. 

When paired with 16 GB of dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory, the Ryzen 9 3950X powered machine scores 32,082 points in the CPU-intensive physics tests of 3DMark. In comparison, the i9-10980XE, paired with 32 GB of quad-channel DDR4-2667 memory, scores just 25,838 points as mentioned by PC Perspective. Graphics card is irrelevant to this test. It's pertinent to note here that the 3DMark physics test scales across practically any number of CPU cores/threads, and the AMD processor could be benefiting from a higher all-core boost frequency than the Intel chip. Although AMD doesn't mention a number in its specifications, the 3950X is expected to have an all-core boost frequency that's north of 4.00 GHz, as its 12-core sibling, the 3900X, already offers 4.20 GHz all-core. In contrast, the i9-10980XE has an all-core boost frequency of 3.80 GHz. This difference in boost frequency, apparently, even negates the additional 2 cores and 4 threads that the Intel chip enjoys, in what is yet another example of AMD having caught up with Intel in the IPC game.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 21, 2019)

And the AMD CPU even used quite slow RAM, so there could be more performance to be had.


----------



## Crackong (Oct 21, 2019)

An overclocked 7980xe (=10980xe) would easily do 32000-ish and eat 300W+ in the process of doing so.


----------



## fynxer (Oct 21, 2019)

It ain't going Intel's way, years of greed is catching up to them big time. They are caught between a rock and a hard place doing the walk of shame.

They will have to drop prices even further, if you look at performance and lack of PCIe 4.0 Intel Core i9-10980XE price should be under $750 then.

Also drop the HEDT classification of the Intel Core i9-10980XE since it can not even beat AMD's top main stream cpu.

Would not want to be the Intel boss trying to explain to stockholders why they stopped innovating all these years and now are being Bulldozed big time by AMD.

It's like Intel built a wonderful fort with massive defenses at front (meaning feeding us all lots of bullsh!t) trying to convince everyone they where innovating every year with a 5% performance bump. BUT in reality by not doing actual innovating made them extremely vulnerable, you could say they left the backside of the fort defenseless and the door wide open without any guards for any competitor to enter and take over their market.

So satisfying seeing Intel getting REKT by AMD after knowing they stiffed us all these years.


----------



## bogami (Oct 21, 2019)

I think it is a commercial prank and the hardware is also very different .  Waiting for real review oc tests. The R9 3900x also boasted a lot. and then shove very disappointing in the OC field .


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

fynxer said:


> It ain't going Intel's way, years of greed is catching up to them big time. They are caught between a rock and a hard place doing the walk of shame.
> 
> They will have to drop prices even further, if you look at performance and lack of PCIe 4.0 Intel Core i9-10980XE price should be under $750 then.
> 
> ...


I don't think Intel will drop price. I'm 100% sure Intel will come up with some sort of douche advertisement like "The best for gaming" or compatibility and reliability in comparison to AMD (which is horse crap BTW) and move on. If the price drops eventually it will not be worth noticing. Also lets see what will be the availability of the new Intel processor. I remember the shortage in delivering 9000 series few months. Lets hope Intel can avoid this with the new gen processors.



bogami said:


> I think it is a commercial prank and the hardware is also very different .  Waiting for real review oc tests. The R9 3900x also boasted a lot. and then shove very disappointing in the OC field .


OC is an added value so the product shouldn't be judged but the OC potential but what it brings to the table with performance, price and features.


----------



## fynxer (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I don't think Intel will drop price. I'm 100% sure Intel will come up with some sort of douche advertisement like "The best for gaming" or compatibility and reliability in comparison to AMD (which is horse crap BTW) and move on. If the price drops eventually it will not be worth noticing. Also lets see what will be the availability of the new Intel processor. I remember the shortage in delivering 9000 series few months. Lets hope Intel can avoid this with the new gen processors.



They will try BUT if they don't sell they have to drop the price, they have no other choice since they have no new products for years in main stream or Intel's so called HEDT segment that can beat AMD.

Also who will buy Intel when AMD's (HEDT for REAL) Threadripper will ripp Intel's HEDT line up a new (a)hole and at the same time sending it down to the little league even under AMD's main stream.

There is only so many Intel morons in the world (and they are getting less every day) that eat Inte's bullsh!t and pay more for less.

Classic David (AMD) and Goliath (Intel) fight, only now David has nukes in it's arsenal coming at Goliath in full force.


----------



## MDDB (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I don't think Intel will drop price.



You mean drop prices even further? Because these next gen HEDT 10 series cores are already *half the price* of the previous gen (https://www.anandtech.com/show/14925/intel-cascade-lakex-for-hedt-18-cores-for-under-1000). So it's not like Intel hasn't dropped their prices already.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 21, 2019)

Remember people, take it all with a grain of salt until actual reviews have been done


----------



## notb (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> OC is an added value so the product shouldn't be judged but the OC potential but what it brings to the table with performance, price and features.


Since these are enthusiast CPUs and most people will OC, I don't think taking that into account is such a bad idea.
Ryzen's factory setting are near the limit. Intel has a big OC margin. That's it.
Intel could always launch a variant with high factory settings and call it 10980XES (because why not ).

And I have to say... how opinions change...
I bet that if I mined TPU long enough, I'd find your comment saying that, for example, Vega 64 just needs a bit of tuning or underwolting and becomes quite competitive to Nvidia .
Because you know... it's pretty crap out of the box.


----------



## fynxer (Oct 21, 2019)

MDDB said:


> You mean drop prices even further? Because these next gen HEDT 10 series cores are already *half the price* of the previous gen (https://www.anandtech.com/show/14925/intel-cascade-lakex-for-hedt-18-cores-for-under-1000). So it's not like Intel hasn't dropped their prices already.



BUT SERIOUSLY, lowering half of Intel's massive overprice is not amazing by any measure.

GET REAL, WAKE UP, if AMD can do 16 core main stream CPU at ONLY $750 that beat Intel's 18 core TOP HEDT CPU THEN YOU MUST KNOW that Intel's HEDT prices where astronomical so half of Intel's astronomical prices is not low enuf.

In this business it is performance per dollar that matters if you are to compete, no matter what your previous astronomical price was, Intel can not bullsh!t people any more except for a few last hold outs that still got their heads so far up Intel's (a)ss that they don't realize that Intel's half is still too expensive.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Oct 21, 2019)

Crackong said:


> An overclocked 7980xe (=10980xe) would easily do 32000-ish and eat 300W+ in the process of doing so.



You're far too generous on power consumption lol. 




Most people are going to OC this star? Good luck with that.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> Since these are enthusiast CPUs and most people will OC, I don't think taking that into account is such a bad idea.
> Ryzen's factory setting are near the limit. Intel has a big OC margin. That's it.
> Intel could always launch a variant with high factory settings and call it 10980XES (because why not ).
> 
> ...



I agree that OC potential adds value, but Im not at all against CPU's or hardware in general coming out of a factory running at its max.
Infact I prefer the latter because right now so many people buy a product from Intel and not getting the full potential out of it while with AMD they pretty much are.

Also Vega 64 was not that bad, just the pricing is a bit meh, Vega 56 was the better purchase.
Just like how just about everything currently from Nvidia and the 5700 (xt) are priced meh (actually meh is an understatement, prices are ridiculous)


----------



## notb (Oct 21, 2019)

fynxer said:


> BUT SERIOUSLY, lowering half of Intel's massive overprice is not amazing by any measure.
> 
> GET REAL, WAKE UP, if AMD can do main stream CPU that beat Intel's TOP HEDT at ONLY $750 THEN YOU MUST KNOW that Intel's HEDT prices are astronomical so half of Intel's astronomical prices is not low enuf.


But you're criticizing current Intel HEDT prices or the previous ones?
Previous (2x higher) were fine. No competition let them do that. And it's not like they really wanted to sell many of these CPUs.

Current pricing vs AMD seems OK as well. Intel has always been more expensive. There's no reason why they would offer the same performance/price ratio.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

MDDB said:


> You mean drop prices even further? Because these next gen HEDT 10 series cores are already *half the price* of the previous gen (https://www.anandtech.com/show/14925/intel-cascade-lakex-for-hedt-18-cores-for-under-1000). So it's not like Intel hasn't dropped their prices already.


How can something be half the price and further price drop if it is not even released? That's crazy. If you compare to previous gen is not a price drop but different pricing for a product.



notb said:


> Since these are enthusiast CPUs and most people will OC, I don't think taking that into account is such a bad idea.
> Ryzen's factory setting are near the limit. Intel has a big OC margin. That's it.
> Intel could always launch a variant with high factory settings and call it 10980XES (because why not ).
> 
> ...


Didn't intel do that with 9900KS? It is the same product but pricier. AMD on the other hand go all the way with frequency to the point where it is stable and reliable and leave it there. You may think that OC potential is something great. I think it isn't for most of the people and for enthusiasts sure. Besides AMD could have lowered the clocks and let people OC by themselves but would that add to the value of the CPU? Of course it wouldn't. You don't know if 10 gen will OC well though.

Undervolting is not OC'ing. Being competitive doesn't mean OC potential. And please find those comments I dare you. Vega 64 was competitive with NV straight out of the box. You need to be more specific though because what you are saying is misleading.


----------



## Jism (Oct 21, 2019)

You buy a CPU for it's performance. AMD offers that same great performance for less then Intel's offerings. The time of change is here now. AMD always bin the underdog since the A64, now it's turned tables.

OC'ing is still there with AMD CPU's, you need a bit of expertise on what your doing and you still need better cooling compared to stock. That way you can extract the best out of PBO or DIY with a all core overclock (or various CCX's for that matter).


----------



## Crackong (Oct 21, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> You're far too generous on power consumption lol. View attachment 134643
> 
> Most people are going to OC this star? Good luck with that.



Oops my bad, should be 400W+++


----------



## fynxer (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> But you're criticizing current Intel HEDT prices or the previous ones?
> Previous (2x higher) were fine. No competition let them do that. And it's not like they really wanted to sell many of these CPUs.
> 
> Current pricing vs AMD seems OK as well. Intel has always been more expensive. There's no reason why they would offer the same performance/price ratio.



Sorry for saying this but OMG, you really don't realize that if Intel does not sell they will HAVE TO lower prices to match performance per dollar.

You really think they can run a cpu product line up and say, hey, it does not matter if it is not selling, let's just put the cpu's in a warehouse and let them collect dust.

*Intel DOES NOT HAVE THE UPPER HAND ANYMORE, so they do not have the luxury to be more expensive.

Just for a real world check, Intel has already LOWERED THEIR PRICE TWICE in main stream. WHY would they lower price twice if they have no problem with being more expensive.

I would be so bold to say that Intel are already planing for a third price cut in the main stream segment.*

AMD top main stream cpu with PCIe 4.0 (PLEASE observe i am stating MAIN STREAM) is more powerful than Intel's (so called HEDT) top cpu. So you are telling me you would PAY MORE for Intel HEDT 18 core with PCIe 3.0 when you can get an AMD 16 core with PCIe 4.0 that performs better for far less.

Get real man.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

fynxer said:


> Sorry for saying this but OMG, you really don't realize that if Intel does not sell they will HAVE TO lower prices to match performance per dollar.
> 
> You really think they can run a cpu product line up and say, hey, it does not matter if it is not selling, let's just put the cpu's in a warehouse and let them collect dust.
> 
> ...


Apparently he doesn't understand that. He is one of those people that will say: "Intel was always expensive and "competitive", why change that? Intel will always be more expensive because that's the way it always has been. It doesnt matter the new lineup sucks. It will still cost twice that much because it is Intel. "


----------



## Totally (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> Since these are enthusiast CPUs and most people will OC, I don't think taking that into account is such a bad idea.
> Ryzen's factory setting are near the limit. Intel has a big OC margin. That's it.
> Intel could always launch a variant with high factory settings and call it 10980XES (because why not ).
> 
> ...



But that's seems to me that it's 'crap out of the out box' for different reasons. Those were two being turned in for evaluation one would be rushed, and unfinished. The other prepared long ago but half-assed, with the bare minimum effort.


----------



## darksf (Oct 21, 2019)

bogami said:


> I think it is a commercial prank and the hardware is also very different .  Waiting for real review oc tests. The R9 3900x also boasted a lot. and then shove very disappointing in the OC field .



Yeah like there is a sense to pay premium so you could take 10% extra performance by overclocking the special Intel K series and think your stick grew 3 times bigger  
Concept of overclocking was to take dirt cheap crap and make it work like a premium not to take a premium and squeeze 10% more performance.

Anyway you are obviously sold on the corporate vision of what overclocking should be.

The most important metric is always the price performance one the rest is small boys comparing their sticks.


----------



## MDDB (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> How can something be half the price and further price drop if it is not even released? That's crazy. If you compare to previous gen is not a price drop but different pricing for a product.


But, is it really a different product? Or does it just have a different number on it?


----------



## notb (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Apparently he doesn't understand that. He is one of those people that will say: "Intel was always expensive and "competitive", why change that? Intel will always be more expensive because that's the way it always has been. It doesnt matter the new lineup sucks. It will still cost twice that much because it is Intel. "


Intel was always more expensive. And they easily outselled AMD anyway. Because there's more to products than just performance and price. And there's more to business than just getting few years of sales and review praise.

Intel was more expensive back in Athlon days when AMD offered similar performance and occasionally more modern products.
Back then we also had people saying "there's no reason to buy Intel anymore" and "it's the end of Intel".
Less than a decade later most PC users forgot what AMD is or thought they went out of business.

For me this Zen situation isn't that much different.
They'll hit a wall at maybe 20% market share and then what?



fynxer said:


> Sorry for saying this but OMG, you really don't realize that if Intel does not sell they will HAVE TO lower prices to match performance per dollar.


No they don't.

They can ask more for many reasons: better positioning, better marketing, better OEM agreements, better brand. It doesn't matter.
People will rather pay $200 for an Intel CPU than $180 for identical AMD CPU.
That's it.


> You really think they can run a cpu product line up and say, hey, it does not matter if it is not selling, let's just put the cpu's in a warehouse and let them collect dust.


Intel still comfortably outsells AMD, so I don't know what you're talking about.


> Just for a real world check, Intel has already LOWERED THEIR PRICE TWICE in main stream. WHY would they lower price twice if they have no problem with being more expensive.


Because the gap was too large.

I mean... seriously... do I have to paste a supply-demand graph or what?
What exactly do you struggle to understand? I'll try to focus on that part.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

MDDB said:


> But, is it really a different product? Or does it just have a different number on it?


You tell me it hasn't been released yet. I'm not gonna suggest/assume anything like that.



notb said:


> Intel was always more expensive. And they easily outselled AMD anyway. Because there's more to products than just performance and price. And there's more to business than just getting few years of sales and review praise.
> 
> Intel was more expensive back in Athlon days when AMD offered similar performance and occasionally more modern products.
> Back then we also had people saying "there's no reason to buy Intel anymore" and "it's the end of Intel".
> ...



Not wasn't always more expensive. You need to compare products not just price taken from air You just don't remember. Maybe you had forgotten what AMD is but not all people so please speak for yourself only.
Your arguments have no value or meaning. For you, Intel was always expensive and it should stay that way, because why would it change? You don't understand this and I'm not going to explain it.

Hit a wall with 20%? Ignorance is bliss and yours is beyond believe. It is way different. You will see soon


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 21, 2019)

24%
twenty-four %
TWENTYFOUR PERCENT!

sorry just had to say it ... hard to believe...


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> They'll hit a wall at maybe 20% market share and then what?


Even if you're correct (which I'm skeptical,) that's a lot of money in the server market.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Oct 21, 2019)

The numbers is way to low for 10980 XE, my 7980 XE at 4.5Ghz are doing 34k CPU score.

and the benchmark cant use more than 16 core.


----------



## notb (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Not wasn't always more expensive.


I'm pretty sure it was.
And in the Athlon days the gap was absurdly huge. Much larger than today.


> You just don't remember.


I remember very well because that was the last (and only) time I bought an AMD CPU. And the last time I overclocked. It was fantastic value.


> Maybe you had forgotten what AMD is but not all people so please speak for yourself only.


I can sense your AMD-coloured heart is in pain, but you have to focus and get yourself together! Everything is going to be all right!
In the earlier comment I sad "most", not everyone. I'm pretty sure you remembered and your AMD altar at home gave you hope. 

Find 10 friends who aren't PC geeks (normal people: they mostly use smartphones, maybe a laptop at work etc). Maybe your parents, neighbours, hairdresser?
Ask them about Intel and AMD. You'll see I'm right - even after 2.5 years of Ryzen praise in the PC community.


> Your arguments have no value or meaning. For you, Intel was always expensive and it should stay that way, because why would it change? You don't understand this and I'm not going to explain it.


I only said that Intel doesn't have to offer the same (or better) performance/price as AMD. That's it. You went berserk.


> Hit a wall with 20%? Ignorance is bliss and yours is beyond believe. It is way different. You will see soon


OK. I'll remind you this comment when their market share starts to drop. You have my word.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And the AMD CPU even used quite slow RAM, so there could be more performance to be had.


The key here is that a none HEDT chip from AMD beat up a high end HEDT chip from Intel. 
So with that said, I wonder how much more faster the new Threadripper HEDT chips are going to be? 
AMD is on the right track.....................


----------



## notb (Oct 21, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Even if you're correct (which I'm skeptical,) that's a lot of money in the server market.


Of course. I never said it isn't.
But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.

From consumers' point of view an 80-20 market will be fine (Intel won't be able to ask too much).
And from AMD's point of view: they'll be able to achieve that with limited offer - focusing on datacenters and consoles / gaming desktops.
They won't have to spend a lot on developing their mobile lineup or trying other niches (which Intel has to do, hence: Optane, IoT, drones etc)


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

3DMark................ Fire Strike............ base? Extreme? Ultra? Looks like base.

Anyway, here is a 16c/32t 7960x at 4.4 GHz all c/t DDR4 3600...33.3K.






That score for the Intel seems low, honestly. Those all core boost speeds must be really low for the AMD part to beat it out by "24%" and have two more cores/four more threads. I wouldn't think a few hundred MHz could trump 2c/4t more... but AMD's SMT efficiency is better. I just find it interesting that at the same/similar clocks, the 3950x (barely) loses here with a generation old CPU. Sure, memory can play a role, but it isn't making up the ~4% difference between the two platforms between the 7960x and 3950x.

(and for the record, I am only talking about performance here, not price. We get it... it's cheaper... but I'm calling out the odd performance data on the Intel part).

EDIT: And I don't think anyone gives a shit _in this thread_ about market share and whatever ya'll are droning on about...


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> Of course. I never said it isn't.
> But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
> And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.
> 
> ...


I agree, but that entirely depends on how long it takes Intel to shift gears.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> I'm pretty sure it was.
> And in the Athlon days the gap was absurdly huge. Much larger than today.


I guess we remember different things. And you should be more specific with the Athlon. There had been quite line-up for few years and I bet you didnt look through all of the products.


notb said:


> I can sense your AMD-coloured heart is in pain, but you have to focus and get yourself together! Everything is going to be all right!
> In the earlier comment I sad "most", not everyone. I'm pretty sure you remembered and your AMD altar at home gave you hope.
> 
> Find 10 friends who aren't PC geeks (normal people: they mostly use smartphones, maybe a laptop at work etc). Maybe your parents, neighbours, hairdresser?
> Ask them about Intel and AMD. You'll see I'm right - even after 2.5 years of Ryzen praise in the PC community.


I understand this is a mockery towards me.  Funny, that last week I was called Intel fanboy now I've got an AMD colored heart. 
You lemmings crack me up  and you better stop while you still can.


notb said:


> OK. I'll remind you this comment when their market share starts to drop. You have my word.


For now it is growing. When you will remind me? In 2 years when Intel moves to 7nm? Next year? when? Please don't bother.


notb said:


> Of course. I never said it isn't.
> But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
> And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.


OMG this one is unbelievable. You really think AMD is not making money with Ryzens? How did you get to that conclusion? please share? So I suppose Intel is earning a lot and with the new gen even more.
Probably that's because Intel is going monolithic. Yes that must be it. AMD's chiplets are crap and cost twice as much, way more than Intel's design. So now Intel is dropping price for its processors to kill AMD with this. Yes and revenue has nothing to do with profits. Actually higher revenue means the company is not getting any profit it means the company is losing money.
Please stop this madness.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 21, 2019)

Do we need a new metric along the lines of watt/calculations?


----------



## Dragonsmonk (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> I
> 
> Intel still comfortably outsells AMD, so I don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> ...



I just looked at the sales numbers for Asia, EU & US and the numbers are saying that AMD is shipping more CPU's... so...


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 21, 2019)

Intel's CPU shortage from August last year is expected to continue.



			
				Techspot said:
			
		

> Last April, Intel warned that its CPU shortage -- which kicked off in August 2018 -- would persist until Q3, with subsequent reports signaling that the 14nm CPU drought could ease up by June. Fast forward to Q4, over a year removed from the start of Intel's supply woes, and the shortage is expected to persist for at least one or two more quarters.











						Over a year later, Intel's CPU shortage is expected to last "another quarter or two"
					

Last April, Intel warned that its CPU shortage -- which kicked off in August 2018 -- would persist until Q3, with subsequent reports signaling that the 14nm...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Oct 21, 2019)

Jism said:


> You buy a CPU for it's performance. AMD offers that same great performance for less then Intel's offerings. The time of change is here now. AMD always bin the underdog since the A64, now it's turned tables.
> 
> OC'ing is still there with AMD CPU's, you need a bit of expertise on what your doing and you still need better cooling compared to stock. That way you can extract the best out of PBO or DIY with a all core overclock (or various CCX's for that matter).


And gain a whopping, what, 2% more then the CPU will do on their own with auto settings? AMD already has their OC dialed in really well, or conversely, they have already pushed the ryzen arch as fast as it will go without LN2.


----------



## Mephis (Oct 21, 2019)

Dragonsmonk said:


> I just looked at the sales numbers for Asia, EU & US and the numbers are saying that AMD is shipping more CPU's... so...



I would love to see those numbers. Could you please provide a source or link, it is really hard to get accurate current figures without paying a ton for them.


----------



## halo9 (Oct 21, 2019)

fynxer said:


> Would not want to be the Intel boss trying to explain to stockholders why they stopped innovating all these years and now are being Bulldozed big time by AMD.



I don't think they stopped innovating at all, I think they twiddled their thumbs for so long without competition that now when they need to innovate, they have forgotten how too. I do think the fire has been lit now beneath some arses and things are starting to move again. The next few years look good for all PC users : )


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 21, 2019)

Aint nobody cares about 3d Mark physics.it's a benchmark where 2700 x beats 9700 k so you can't find a more irrelevant one if you tried.


----------



## Mephis (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> OMG this one is unbelievable. You really think AMD is not making money with Ryzens? How did you get to that conclusion? please share? So I suppose Intel is earning a lot and with the new gen even more.
> Probably that's because Intel is going monolithic. Yes that must be it. AMD's chiplets are crap and cost twice as much, way more than Intel's design. So now Intel is dropping price for its processors to kill AMD with this. Yes and revenue has nothing to do with profits. Actually higher revenue means the company is not getting any profit it means the company is losing money.
> Please stop this madness.



Yes, AMD is making a profit, but not much of one. For the 2nd quarter of 2019 (the latest quarter with released numbers), AMD had $1.53B in revenue and $59M in operating income (profit) and $35M in net income (profit).









						Press Releases
					

Browse AMD’s company-wide and financial press releases.




					ir.amd.com
				




And yes, Intel makes a ton more money than them. For the same quarter Intel made $16.5B in revenue and $4.6B in net income (profit).









						News & Events
					






					www.intc.com
				




Obviously Intel is a much larger company, my point is that Intel is in no danger of going under anytime soon. AMD can't get enough processors from TSMC to replace Intel. With the demand for TSMC's 7nm node, from other companies including Apple, they can't get enough chips to over take Intel in market share. Their goal is to get above the 25% they had in the Opteron days. And that would be impressive, considering they were in the single digits last year (in servers).


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Aint nobody cares about 3d Mark physics.it's a benchmark where 2700 x beats 9700 k so you can't find a more irrelevant one if you tried.


A 2700x SHOULD beat a 9700k in this man. 

You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> A 2700x SHOULD beat a 9700k in this man.
> 
> You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?


I expected nothing cause it's a synthetic benchmark.I expected it shouldn't make news.


----------



## notb (Oct 21, 2019)

Dragonsmonk said:


> I just looked at the sales numbers for Asia, EU & US and the numbers are saying that AMD is shipping more CPU's... so...


Yeah, and you should definitely show us the Mindfactory graph as well.

It's really not rocket science:
AMD 2019Q2 revenue: $1.53B
Intel 2019Q2 revenue: $16.5B

So you can:
a) think this over
OR
b) convince me that over 90% of Intel's revenue comes from products other than CPUs.



EarthDog said:


> A 2700x SHOULD beat a 9700k in this man.
> 
> You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?


And what did we expect in 3950X vs 10980XE? Even putting aside the fact that 10980XE's score is weirdly low.
Zen SMT implementation works very well in some tasks (much better than Intel's) and very badly in others.
This is why in so many benchmarks and apps Ryzen's actually get better marks with SMT disabled. It's very rare with Intel.

In real life this will be mixed and these CPUs should compete pretty well.
Of course Intel is HEDT, so you need expensive motherboards and so on.
3950X may work on a cheap mobo... but most people will buy an expensive X570 anyway, so it's pretty even.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

notb said:


> And what did we expect in 3950X vs 10980XE? Even putting aside the fact that 10980XE's score is weirdly low.
> Zen SMT implementation works very well in some tasks (much better than Intel's) and very badly in others.
> This is why in so many benchmarks and apps Ryzen's actually get better marks with SMT disabled. It's very rare with Intel.
> 
> ...


Odd echo in here for the most part. 

That said, both AMD and Intel, when SMT/HT is disabled, BOTH get better FPS in _some_ games. I don't know if/how that translates into productivity or other apps that don't use all cores and threads, but both exhibit this behavior similarly in some games. To that end, it won't come close to making a 9700k compete with a 2700x in this test IF disabling XMP actually improves anything here.

I just want to figure out what the all core clock is on the new Intel part and the 3950x. That should clear things up a bit.



cucker tarlson said:


> I expected nothing cause it's a synthetic benchmark.I expected it shouldn't make news.


LOL, maybe, but the point was a 2700x SHOULD walk a 9700K, contrary to your apparent surprise.


----------



## The Egg (Oct 21, 2019)

One test result from 2 unreleased processors, unknown source or testing standards.

Just remember to fill your mouth with a 40% saltwater solution and gargle the star spangled banner before reading this.


----------



## IceShroom (Oct 21, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> You're far too generous on power consumption lol. View attachment 134643
> 
> Most people are going to OC this star? Good luck with that.


And people call AMD CPUs power hungry.  
FX 9590 consumes less power at 5Ghz than this.
Edit.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> And people call AMD hot.
> FX 9590 consumes less power at 5Ghz than this.


You do realize that hot and power consumption are different things, right? For example, let's take fire... let's compare a lighter and a bonfire, both with yellow flames...which do you think would be more difficult to put out (has more energy)... even though the temps are the same?

I've had a 90C 5W IC and my 200W CPU runs cooler....while associated, don't let it fool you... the processor will still run where it is supposed to.


----------



## IceShroom (Oct 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You do realize that hot and power consumption are different things, right? For example, let's take fire... let's compare a lighter and a bonfire, both with yellow flames...which do you think would be more difficult to put out... even though the temps are the same.
> 
> I've had a 90C 5W IC and my 200W CPU runs cooler....


Opps.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Oct 21, 2019)

this is rubbing salt into my cuts , daughters car has popped its engine today and ive just 10mins ago gave my 3950x money for a deposit for another one, woe is life your flying high and something kicks us in the gutts  . ive still got hope but my 2700x is going to last me a wee bit longer.
the 3950x is looking good.


----------



## zlobby (Oct 21, 2019)

Sike!


----------



## mouacyk (Oct 21, 2019)

64MB vs 24MB cache


----------



## The Egg (Oct 21, 2019)

xtreemchaos said:


> this is rubbing salt into my cuts , daughters car has popped its engine today and ive just 10mins ago gave my 3950x money for a deposit for another one, woe is life your flying high and something kicks us in the gutts  . ive still got hope but my 2700x is going to last me a wee bit longer.
> the 3950x is looking good.


Fate has certainly dealt you a cruel hand.  Forced to survive, possibly for months, with only a mere 2700x.  That's not a life anyone should have to live.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Oct 21, 2019)

The Egg said:


> with only a mere 2700x


yep I have to be thankful for small mercys bro


----------



## freeagent (Oct 21, 2019)

Good for you, AMD. Way to get your shit together


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 21, 2019)

The 10980xe physics score is nonsense.

My 7960x at 4GHz on all cores and with *garbage* RAM at only 2400 (and with horrible timings) scores 28615 in the physics test with a ton of open background applications and an instance of Plex Media Server running.  Sorry, but a loss of 200MHz (with a gain of 2 cores) isn't going to drop the score 3000 points.









						I scored 12 345 in Fire Strike
					

Intel Core i9-7960X Processor, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




					www.3dmark.com
				




And before all the AMD zealots jump in, I'm cheering for AMD this round.  I definitely want to build a 64-core Threadripper 3000 system.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 21, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> My 7960x at 4GHz on all cores and with *garbage* RAM at only 2400 (and with horrible timings) scores 28615 in the physics test with a ton of open background applications and an instance of Plex Media Server running. Sorry, but a loss of 200MHz (with a gain of 2 cores) isn't going to drop the score 3000 points.


+1.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> The 10980xe physics score is nonsense.
> 
> My 7960x at 4GHz on all cores and with *garbage* RAM at only 2400 (and with horrible timings) scores 28615 in the physics test with a ton of open background applications and an instance of Plex Media Server running.  Sorry, but a loss of 200MHz (with a gain of 2 cores) isn't going to drop the score 3000 points.
> 
> ...


mmhmm...Mine at 4.4 GHz beat it...









						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Beats Intel Core i9-10980XE by 24% in 3DMark Physics
					

They'll hit a wall at maybe 20% market share and then what?  Even if you're correct (which I'm skeptical,) that's a lot of money in the server market.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You do realize that hot and power consumption are different things, right? For example, let's take fire... let's compare a lighter and a bonfire, both with yellow flames...which do you think would be more difficult to put out (has more energy)... even though the temps are the same?
> 
> I've had a 90C 5W IC and my 200W CPU runs cooler....while associated, don't let it fool you... the processor will still run where it is supposed to.



Not sure what you are on about tbh, power consumption = heat in the world of processors, TDP means nothing.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 21, 2019)

Hm, I take this with a grain of salt. I'm not saying its wrong, and the differences between the new and old arcs I PERSONALLY find negligible to justify upgrade. But something about this seems off.

My 7980xe only boosts to 4.2 (In the test it determined max freq was only a little over 4ghz mind you). And while im not saying the 10980xe could beat ryzen, and while I know its not an architectural wormhole of difference I Find it hard to believe that chip only managed only a few thousand point faster than my CPU at bone stock (non over clocked) with not only a 400mhz boost and ark advantage but prime testing conditions.

I had a multitude of things open and like 5 different messaging platforms.









						I scored 25 828 in Fire Strike
					

Intel Core i9-7980XE Processor, NVIDIA Titan RTX x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




					www.3dmark.com


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 21, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> Hm, I take this with a grain of salt. I'm not saying its wrong, and the differences between the new and old arcs I PERSONALLY find negligible to justify upgrade. But something about this seems off.
> 
> My 7980xe only boosts to 4.2 (In the test it determined max freq was only a little over 4ghz mind you). And while im not saying the 10980xe could beat ryzen, and while I know its not an architectural wormhole of difference I Find it hard to believe that chip only managed only a few thousand point faster than my CPU at bone stock (non over clocked) with not only a 400mhz boost and ark advantage but prime testing conditions.
> 
> ...



Where did we even get the results from the 10980xe from?


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 21, 2019)

fynxer said:


> Sorry for saying this but OMG, you really don't realize that if Intel does not sell they will HAVE TO lower prices to match performance per dollar.
> 
> You really think they can run a cpu product line up and say, hey, it does not matter if it is not selling, let's just put the cpu's in a warehouse and let them collect dust.
> 
> ...



Wait and see. The other explanation is that Intel has a LOT of wiggle room, not just in pricing but also in their long term contracts, and overall market penetration. They really don't have to go mental on the consumer side of things.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 21, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Where did we even get the results from the 10980xe from?



Forgive me for being naive, but I'm not sure if this is a play on how bad PC perspective is, or if you actually missed it in the first post.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 21, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> Forgive me for being naive, but I'm not sure if this is a play on how bad PC perspective is, or if you actually missed it in the first post.



no no, I got that, but I find it odd we have a screenshot of the 3950x run but not for the 10980XE, where is it?


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 21, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> no no, I got that, but I find it odd we have a screenshot of the 3950x run but not for the 10980XE, where is it?



idk, but that might even play into my point. I like get the Intel hate, and while I personally have nothing against AMD (having 2 generations of ryzen in my house) I find it a bit hard to believe, not that it couldn't beat the new chip, but that it is only so marginally better than my score on a loaded system.

Seems odd. Id look at it the same way if AMD lost the bench, it just doesn't make a ton of sense. With that kind of gap, I could beat the physics score doing a clean boot and overlocking a few hundred mhz and probably still keep my clocks under the 10980xe at that!


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Apparently he doesn't understand that. He is one of those people that will say: "Intel was always expensive and "competitive", why change that? Intel will always be more expensive because that's the way it always has been. It doesn't matter the new lineup sucks. It will still cost twice that much because it is Intel. "


That's because those that are not in the KNOW, which is the majority of people, see Intel CPUs as better quality CPUs over AMD. People even go back to the days of old when comparing both Intel and AMD, and claim AMD has various issues with its processors, then gives an example of something that happened back in the year 2000 LMAO. The majority of people are CLUELESS.

Though with the age of the internet, more and more people are doing there own research. Today more people recognize AMD as a high quality CPU & GPU designer, but still that past false stigma of lesser quality over Intel still rides on people's minds.

That said, just picture Intel as a stubborn child that refuses to eat its food for example, well that is Intel on there stance to even have competition.
I've read somewhere several months ago off (Seeking Alpha? I think) where many that hold Intel stock were complaining that AMD should never have been allowed to release such a processor such as ZEN, as to compete with Intel, because that prevented the Intel stock price from reaching a high potential. Anyhow my point is the arrogance of the actual company INTEL and its Stockholders is ludicrous.,  they WHINE like a bunch of freaking Babies.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Oct 21, 2019)

for me its what ever gives you the best performance for the best price on the day, ive never been into the red or blue camp or green or red but it a bit academic for me now as ive spent me money   but who knows what ill be getting for Christmas if I drop the hints to her in doors


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Not sure what you are on about tbh, power consumption = heat in the world of processors, TDP means nothing.


Maybe I'm explaining it wrong...

I don't think I mentioned anything about TDP. But 100W power used on Intel and AMD processors doesn't equal the same temperature (for many reasons). Look back in the day... FX chips, at using more watts than Intel and Intel yet the Intel's ran with a higher temperature. As I said, I had a 5W IC on a mining ASIC board run 90C... it's more than power used that equal the hot temps.

The analogy was to show the different amounts of energy for the same temperature. 

... but that isn't really what this thread is about so... I digress (PM box is open. ).


----------



## The Egg (Oct 21, 2019)

After watching/reading GN's multiple recent pieces on TDP just within the past week, it's very clear that manufacturer TDP numbers mean jack squat.


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 21, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> no no, I got that, but I find it odd we have a screenshot of the 3950x run but not for the 10980XE, where is it?



This is why several Intel HEDT high-core-count users have posted their own results in this thread.  The claimed 10980xe results are too low to be believable.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> The claimed 10980xe results are too low to be believable.


Or just wondering exactly how low its all core boost is to be that slow. 

Maybe 3.6 GHz or something? I can see 4.2-4.2GHz with two less c/t and better SMT efficiency catch up...


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Or just wondering exactly how low its all core boost is to be that slow.
> 
> Maybe 3.6 GHz or something? I can see 4.2-4.2GHz with two less c/t and better SMT efficiency catch up...



Specs for the 10980xe have already leaked.  3.8GHz all-core boost, 4.8GHz maximum Turbo Boost 3.0 clocks.  That's not slow for an HEDT chip.  Not by a long shot.  Previous generation HEDT chip base clocks are often in the high 2GHz - low 3GHz range.  This is actually quite a beastly chip.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

I've only seen the base at 3.6.. I would've hoped for a bit more than 4.8 ghz all core... but yes, improved over last gen, no doubt.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 21, 2019)

That's a lot of threads on 14nm +++x2


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I've only seen the base at 3.6.. I would've hoped for a bit more than 4.8 ghz all core... but yes, improved over last gen, no doubt.



Apparently all the rumors were wrong and the base clocks are actually only 3.0GHz, same as preceding generations!








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com
				




Which means this all makes a lot more sense now.  Oh well, almost no one buys an HEDT chip and doesn't overclock, so I don't really care about stock performance.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 21, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Who cares about the scores. What's impressive is that both CPUs perform in the same ballpark but the 3950X uses probably like what, half the power ?



Its being compares to a 3950x? 
Why not compare the AMD 3970x instead? Maybe only 2/3s the power then?


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 21, 2019)

Who cares about the scores. What's impressive is that both CPUs perform in the same ballpark but the 3950X uses probably like what, half the power ? And is available on a cheaper mainstream platform, with itself being the cheaper CPU.

Intel's top of the line HEDT offerings are struggling against AMD's mainstream CPUs. Oh boy. That's a plot twist if I ever saw one, who would have envisioned this say 3 years ago.



techguymaxc said:


> Apparently all the rumors were wrong and the base clocks are actually only 3.0GHz, same as preceding generations!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Makes sense, that 14nm+++ or whatever it is by this point isn't an bottomless well of scalability.



techguymaxc said:


> Oh well, almost no one buys an HEDT chip and doesn't overclock, so I don't really care about stock performance.



People totally buy HEDT chips and don't overclock them. Someone can buy a workstation for editing video and have no knowledge whatsoever about overclocking and such, they just got a fast CPU that they use as it is out of the box.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> Apparently all the rumors were wrong and the base clocks are actually only 3.0GHz, same as preceding generations!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops.. yes. I saw that and completely forgot it existed already at the ark.  

So I'd imagine all core boost around 3.6-3.8 ghz will Hope's of 4ghz, lol.




ShrimpBrime said:


> Why not compare the AMD 3970x instead?


because its 32c/64t compared to half that? It's also $1500 compared to $1000. The 3960x is $1000 and 24/48t. Depends on what you are trying to compare by.. core/thread count, HEDT to HEDT, price...etc.

Edit: AMDs HEDT/Threadripper product stack is crazy if the rumors are true. A 64c/128t monster for $2500 at the top.. $1000 24c/48t chip at the bottom. Wowzas! What does zen2 server line look like?!!

Edit2: read a better source..16c/32t at the bottom... no price on that.


----------



## Totally (Oct 21, 2019)

The Egg said:


> Fate has certainly dealt you a cruel hand.  Forced to survive, possibly for months, with only a mere 2700x.  That's not a life anyone should have to live.



Got one better, Just specced out a new personal rig this past weekend only thing keeping me were out of stocks. This morning, while working on a server merely following instructions shit hit the fan in the most monumental way possible, the short take involved the "big red button," Homeland Security and 20 other departments and agencies directly beneath it. Kept being told I should've have known better despite what I was told, but knowing 'it exists' was the extent of my knowledge considering how hush hush things are around here. I never laid eyes on the thing prior to that. So fucked. By the time I left for the day blacked out cars were still coming in and out. I don't even know if I'm going to have a job by the time I go to bed. Sorry didn't rant/vent.


----------



## Crackong (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> Oh well, almost no one buys an HEDT chip and doesn't overclock.



There are many HEDT users counting on reliability and do not overclock at all.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 22, 2019)

Crackong said:


> There are many HEDT users counting on reliability and do not overclock at all.



And you can count me. I dont OC my 7980xe at all. None of the forum members really attacked me when they came out. I saw some others get the rope though. I certainly didnt buy this chip for its OC potential (doesnt really have any) or its clock rate (2.6 at its base 3ish most days with most cores).

I was one of those crazy users that you know bought a high core count chip for well....its cores.

Im not going to OC and pull a KW from the wall to watch netflix.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Oct 22, 2019)

Infinity fabric beats glue.
72MB cache beats 24.75MB cache
~148W peak PBO power consumption beats an unrealistically-low 165W base consumption before boost.
$750 beats $1000.
PCIe 4.0 beats PCIe 3.0

On top of all that, have Intel closed all of the exposed side-channel attack vulnerabilities in hardware yet, or are they still recycling old architecture with microcode/software patches?

I'm sure there are still going to be plenty of benchmarks where Intel wins, either due to AVX512 vs AVX256, or simply old code that was optimised with an Intel compiler but Team Blue simply has no good cards on the table and a pretty weak hand at the moment.


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 22, 2019)

Crackong said:


> There are many HEDT users counting on reliability and do not overclock at all.



I'd like to see that number quantified.  Nonetheless, you'll see that I did not say "no HEDT user runs stock clocks" but rather, "almost no one..."  I recognize that some HEDT users do not overclock.  



Solaris17 said:


> And you can count me. I dont OC my 7980xe at all. None of the forum members really attacked me when they came out. I saw some others get the rope though. I certainly didnt buy this chip for its OC potential (doesnt really have any) or its clock rate (2.6 at its base 3ish most days with most cores).
> 
> I was one of those crazy users that you know bought a high core count chip for well....its cores.
> 
> Im not going to OC and pull a KW from the wall to watch netflix.



You're free to do with your posessions as you choose.  I choose a different path with my CPUs.

I've overclocked nearly every CPU I've owned since my first upgrade from a 486 to an AM586 way back in the mid-90's.  Earlier this year I had a 7900x that I was planning to de-lid and see how far I could push it, but an opportunity to replace it with this (already de-lidded) 7960x came up so I took it.  All-core turbo on this chip is only 3.6GHz, which is below my personal threshold for single-thread performance of at least 4GHz on modern chips.  Ideally, closer to 5GHz but I'm not pushing this chip to 5GHz on ambient cooling.  So I applied a moderate overclock to reach this desired level of performance and it is perfectly stable functioning in a system that is both a media server and video production workstation.  

Multi-threaded performance of course matters (otherwise why buy HEDT?) but single-thread performance still matters also.  For example, the decoder engine for VC1 is still single-threaded, so when someone queues up a VC1 video to play on my media server, I want to know the system can fill up the buffer fast enough to avoid stuttering/buffering.  With base clock as low as 3GHz that's not a guarantee.  Boost clock at 3.6 gets you closer, but I would rather have an over-engineered solution and not need the extra performance, than vice versa.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 22, 2019)

I ma pretty sure it's the same as with all consumers in general, the people that overclock are always the minority.


----------



## Crackong (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> I'd like to see that number quantified.  Nonetheless, you'll see that I did not say "no HEDT user runs stock clocks" but rather, "almost no one..."  I recognize that some HEDT users do not overclock.
> 
> You're free to do with your posessions as you choose.  I choose a different path with my CPUs.
> 
> ...



Homelab / Home server / UAT ENV / Stock trade machines....etc.
There are many applications for a HEDT machine which requires many horse power but reliability and stability is on top of the list.

A 7980xe delided and 4.6GHz all-core OC sounds great.
However I won't trust it for, let say, a 4 hours continuous 3D rendering task, day after day.

When Money is on the table, overclocking is just another uncertainty and should be avoided.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> You're free to do with your posessions as you choose. I choose a different path with my CPUs.



you try to make the post sound like I’m some kind of consumer peasant and then proceed to weird flex by attempting to explain to me how modifications to your CPU presumably make your usage somehow mean something more compared to mine?

Like what? are your delids and OCs supposed to impress me?









						7980xe Delid
					

Thanks to @Xx Tek Tip xX  a few months ago for pointing me in the right direction. (I was originally going to do bare die but was advised instead to just to an IHS delid.  Its been a bit but finally got around to it.  Ambient Temp: 22ºC CPU Clock: 4.5ghz all cores Test: Intel XTU 15min stress...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I ma pretty sure it's the same as with all consumers in general, the people that overclock are always the minority.



I'm not inclined to agree with you.  We are talking about a niche product intended for enthusiasts, afterall.  



Crackong said:


> Homelab / Home server / UAT ENV / Stock trade machines....etc.
> There are many applications for a HEDT machine which requires many horse power but reliability and stability is on top of the list.
> 
> A 7980xe delided and 4.6GHz all-core OC sounds great.
> ...



That's my point though, no one running a "production" workload *should* be buying HEDT, they should be buying Xeon or Epyc.

Also, there is a stark difference between a mild OC such as the one I am running, and the 4.6GHz all-core OC you cite, wouldn't you say?  Surely you don't believe that mild overclocking (from 3.6GHz to 4GHz) is at all analagous to pushing a chip to its limits.



Solaris17 said:


> you try to make the post sound like I’m some kind of consumer peasant and then proceed to weird flex by attempting to explain to me how modifications to your CPU presumably make your usage somehow mean something more compared to mine?
> 
> Like what? are your delids and OCs supposed to impress me?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why you're responding to me in this way, I'm attempting to engage in a reasoned debate in good faith.  It seems that you have taken offense by my statements of opinion, though I have offered no offense.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> I'm not sure why you're responding to me in this way, I'm attempting to engage in a reasoned debate in good faith. It seems that you have taken offense by my statements of opinion, though I have offered no offense.



doesn’t matter really. It was off topic anyway. Thread is about 10980xe score vs the Ryzen that beat it. Not the talking points of HEDT over clocking.


----------



## Crackong (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> That's my point though, no one running a "production" workload *should* be buying HEDT, they should be buying Xeon or Epyc.
> 
> Also, there is a stark difference between a mild OC such as the one I am running, and the 4.6GHz all-core OC you cite, wouldn't you say?  Surely you don't believe that mild overclocking (from 3.6GHz to 4GHz) is at all analagous to pushing a chip to its limits.



When you don't need ECC support or heavy VM applications, HEDT is the best choice.

And your "mild" overclocking pushes the power consumption of the CPU to 300W + territory.
Then you need an AIO to calm the CPU down, thus introduces another point of failure to the system.

Don't get me wrong.
OC is fun, I do it in my personal rig.

But when stuff needs to be done quick yet reliably, OC should be out of the equation.


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 22, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> doesn’t matter really. It was off topic anyway. Thread is about 10980xe score vs the Ryzen that beat it. Not the talking points of HEDT over clocking.



Overclocking HEDT processors is off-topic for a discussion about an upcoming HEDT processor?



Crackong said:


> When you don't need ECC support or heavy VM applications, HEDT is the best choice.
> 
> And your "mild" overclocking pushes the power consumption of the CPU to 300W + territory.
> Then you need an AIO to calm the CPU down, thus introduces another point of failure to the system.



Depends on voltage.  I know for a fact my 7960x at just over 1.0V doesn't use 300W for 4GHz all-core workloads in the real-world (video rendering and transcoding tasks).  I know because I have a kill-a-watt hooked up and have measured peak (and minimum) power consumption.  It's about 220W CPU power consumption for me.  Well within the cooling capabilities of my water loop, and the capability of my power supply.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 22, 2019)

Hi Solaris17 I would love to see this included when you guys do reviews on the 3960X and 3990X.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> I'm not inclined to agree with you.  We are talking about a niche product intended for enthusiasts, afterall.



Enthusiast is a word devoid of any real meaning, you can keep using it but it conveys nothing. And these are products intended for all kinds of people, like content creators who don't know how to and don't want to overclock anything.


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Enthusiast is a word devoid of any real meaning, you can keep using it but it conveys nothing. And these are products intended for all kinds of people, like content creators who don't know how to and don't want to overclock anything.



You say this based on what, exactly?  
Intel disagrees, btw:


			intel enthusiast - Google Search


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> You say this based on what, exactly?



Based on the fact that you cannot successfully attach these notions to being an "enthusiasts".

Person 1 spends 10 000$ (HEDT) on on rig to play games.
Person 2 spends 10 000$ (HEDT) on on rig to play games and does stuff like OCing.
Person 3 spends 500$ on on rig to play games.
Person 4 spends 500$ on on rig to play games and does stuff like OCing.

Which of these people are the enthusiasts and why ?



techguymaxc said:


> Intel disagrees, btw:
> 
> 
> intel enthusiast - Google Search



Not one clue what that's supposed to be.

Did you just ... google "Intel" and "enthusiast" hoping something will show up ?


----------



## techguymaxc (Oct 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Based on the fact that you cannot successfully attach these notions to being an "enthusiasts".
> 
> Person 1 spends 10 000$ (HEDT) on on rig to play games.
> Person 2 spends 10 000$ (HEDT) on on rig to play games and does stuff like OCing.
> ...



Enthusiast class products are considered premium products.  The price range will vary depending on the product category, geographic market, and competition.  None of your examples bother to define these variables so I can't answer your hypothetical.  



Vya Domus said:


> Not one clue what that's supposed to be.
> 
> Did you just ... google "Intel" and "enthusiast" hoping something will show up ?



Can't be bothered to read a list of search results, let alone click on them?

The point is, the company selling these products bothers to associate their products with the term "enthusiast".  Who are you to say they're wrong?  Clearly they're spending money marketing specific products to a distinct market segment.  They might have a slightly better idea about this than you do...


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 22, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> Enthusiast class products are considered premium products.  The price range will vary depending on the product category, geographic market, and competition.  None of your examples bother to define these variables so I can't answer your hypothetical.



I didn't ask what are enthusiast class products, don't beat around the bush. You can't answer because you don't know how, and you just threw another vague term : "premium products". Go ahead, tell me what's a premium product and what isn't, with variables and all that.



techguymaxc said:


> The point is, the company selling these products bothers to associate their products with the term "enthusiast".  Who are you to say they're wrong?  Clearly they're spending money marketing specific products to a distinct market segment.  They might have a slightly better idea about this than you do...



Makes me chuckle, as if throwing marketing claims around that don't have any real meaning would be unheard of.


----------



## usmc362 (Oct 22, 2019)

I think that crap about 3950x beating a 10980xe is just that- BULLSHIT. https://www.3dmark.com/fs/20531709


----------



## MazeFrame (Oct 23, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> Most people are going to OC this star? Good luck with that.


Dedicated 750W PSU for the CPU, a second one for the rest of the system. Easy!



usmc362 said:


> I think that crap about 3950x beating a 10980xe is just that BULLSHIT. https://www.3dmark.com/fs/20531709


To get a better understanding of what is going on, look at servers.
Why look at Rome when we have Matisse at home?
Simple: Rome got all stops pulled. Those things run full tilt vs Intels best offerings (price vs price, you buy two AMD systems for the price of one Intel).

Look at what AMD is doing in servers. Epyc 7452 vs Xeon Gold 6148 for example:
Time in seconds (lower is better):





Or any other Epyc vs Xeon (ignoring prices)
Worst case AMD outperforms best case Intel




And there is also that one use case where AMD made a 127% performance jump over themself:




Sources:








						AMD Epyc 7452: Rome-CPU mit 32 Kernen und 2,35 GHz gesichtet
					

Die Benchmark-Datenbank von Phoronix enthüllt ein erstes Modell der kommenden Epyc-CPU-Familie Rome mit Zen-2-Architektur von AMD.




					www.computerbase.de
				











						AMD Rome Second Generation EPYC Review: 2x 64-core Benchmarked
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## ratirt (Oct 23, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> Enthusiast class products are considered premium products.  The price range will vary depending on the product category, geographic market, and competition.  None of your examples bother to define these variables so I can't answer your hypothetical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Enthusiast class product? OK. You better google what enthusiast mean and who can be an enthusiast. You can be a processor, Intel or AMD or GPU etc. enthusiast and you dont have to overclock. People tend to twist meaning of words or use acronyms and later on they are lost in the meaning. I can be a car enthusiast not owning a car you know. Meaning I'm interested in this, i know a lot about it. What you are suggesting is, if somebody is an enthusiast of PC or processors, means for you he must buy premium (enthusiast processors like you said which is silly to say) processors and OC. It's like enthusiast now comes down to expensive stuff and OC only which is not right. Don't tell people to search and click on links. Saying that enthusiast must OC and buy premium (expensive processors or PC stuff) is just stupid. Somebody twisted meaning of a word, put it on the internet (like companies for marketing) and now you feed people and replicate this malarkey because it's up your alley.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 23, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Enthusiast class product? OK. You better google what enthusiast mean and who can be an enthusiast. You can be a processor, Intel or AMD or GPU etc. enthusiast and you dont have to overclock. People tend to twist meaning of words or use acronyms and later on they are lost in the meaning. I can be a car enthusiast not owning a car you know. Meaning I'm interested in this, i know a lot about it. What you are suggesting is, if somebody is an enthusiast of PC or processors, means for you he must buy premium (enthusiast processors like you said which is silly to say) processors and OC. It's like enthusiast now comes down to expensive stuff and OC only which is not right. Don't tell people to search and click on links. Saying that enthusiast must OC and buy premium (expensive processors or PC stuff) is just stupid. Somebody twisted meaning of a word, put it on the internet (like companies for marketing) and now you feed people and replicate this malarkey because it's up your alley.



For me an enthusiast is anyone into a particular product or industry that does things like what we do here and I will list them. 

1. Have theoretical conversations about products 
2. Help the uninitiated with their problems 
3. Have at least something from the current gen (NVME expansion card) 
4. Take courses or read literature on technology 
5. Get excited for new product releases (TR3, Comet Lake) 
6. Be passionate about your purchases 
7. Be informed before you buy anything 
8. Do your own testing (if you can) on products instead of watching Youtube videos and taking that as gospel
9. Have more equipment than you will ever need 
10. Be biased based on experience on what you recommend but not in a negative way.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 23, 2019)

Or, you know, just go by how it is defined in the dictionary... because, I'm not an enthusiast according to your list...

_



			noun
		
Click to expand...

_


> ...a person who is highly interested in a particular activity or subject.



...which can mean anything... But there are a few in the list that would disqualify a lot of people from being an enthusiast. Hilarious convo... only on TPU.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 23, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Or, you know, just go by how it is defined in the dictionary... because, I'm not an enthusiast according to your list...
> 
> 
> 
> ...which can mean anything... But there are a few in the list that would disqualify a lot of people from being an enthusiast. Hilarious convo... only on TPU.



If you are talking about me I class an enthusiast as anyone who has any of those points and you did help me out when I posted about the Intel 660P and you responded with Crucial and Sabrent drives.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 23, 2019)

All summed, regarding and not just electronics might be a subjective point of view , analogous to the "new toy" excitement.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 24, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> For me an enthusiast is anyone into a particular product or industry that does things like what we do here and I will list them.
> 
> 1. Have theoretical conversations about products
> 2. Help the uninitiated with their problems
> ...


Glad you have your own list of who can be an enthusiast but not all of it is true or valid. As a matter of fact I disagree with the list. I'm a Universe enthusiast. I'm interested in this but i don't go in space. (Not sure I'd go there if I could). Movie enthusiasts. I like horrors but it doesn't mean I'm making movies. Rocket enthusiast. I'm interested in rockets etc. but i don't have my own. Car enthusiast. i got few but it doesn't mean I fix them or build my own car. What you are listed is your idea maybe of what an enthusiast is or who can be an enthusiast but that doesn't go along with the book you know.



kapone32 said:


> 3. Have at least something from the current gen (NVME expansion card)


I don't have anything from the current gen does this mean I'm not an enthusiast?


kapone32 said:


> 6. Be passionate about your purchases
> 7. Be informed before you buy anything


Be informed about what you buy? What is that even mean?

I disagree with most of the stuff you wrote. An enthusiast of something, simply means you are interested in certain subject. Like computers.
Be informed about what you buy I'd rather say do your own research before you purchase stuff. Ask others for opinion about something to make sure you are correct or if you have doubts.


kapone32 said:


> 9. Have more equipment than you will ever need


That's just stupid bro 



kapone32 said:


> 10. Be biased based on experience on what you recommend but not in a negative way.


I know this is based on a "now situation" about fanboys and which side you are on. You people say it doesn't matter if you're red or green or whatever and then you write something like that 
Amazing how you want to divide the community into more groups with different point of view or preference. Honestly, I'm not sure how can you be biased based on experience an if i understand it correctly what you wanted to say.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Oct 24, 2019)

I allways thought a enthusiast is someone who persues a interest with joy and vigor but im quite quite mad


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 24, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Glad you have your own list of who can be an enthusiast but not all of it is true or valid. As a matter of fact I disagree with the list. I'm a Universe enthusiast. I'm interested in this but i don't go in space. (Not sure I'd go there if I could). Movie enthusiasts. I like horrors but it doesn't mean I'm making movies. Rocket enthusiast. I'm interested in rockets etc. but i don't have my own. Car enthusiast. i got few but it doesn't mean I fix them or build my own car. What you are listed is your idea maybe of what an enthusiast is or who can be an enthusiast but that doesn't go along with the book you know.
> 
> 
> I don't have anything from the current gen does this mean I'm not an enthusiast?
> ...



I will give you 2 examples of my bias. Many people like to bash on the Bulldozer/Piledriver series of chips. Many of them did not even own Piledriver but yet (i"m sure someone will respond) as an owner of a FX8320 I was quite happy with the upgrade from the 1090T. The other bias I have is Gigabyte and the quality of their current offerings. I have not owned a GIgabyte board that has not given me the D0 postcode and refuse to boot. I will probably never buy another Gigabyte board and on the flipside As Rock are the most bullet proof boards you can buy (in my opinion) based on my own experience.  So if someone posted a thread about which X470 board to buy I would recommend As Rock. I am not trying to divide anything I will always defend tech that I think is good based on my own experience with that tech and that is what I meant.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Oct 24, 2019)

I have a FX8350 and still love it, ive allways been one for the quirky. it did the job and has never let me down and kept me warm in winter.


----------



## Redwoodz (Oct 24, 2019)

notb said:


> Intel was always more expensive. And they easily outselled AMD anyway. Because there's more to products than just performance and price. And there's more to business than just getting few years of sales and review praise.
> 
> Intel was more expensive back in Athlon days when AMD offered similar performance and occasionally more modern products.
> Back then we also had people saying "there's no reason to buy Intel anymore" and "it's the end of Intel".
> ...




 You are in denial my friend. 10nm has failed miserably and now the hope is 7nm is going to work. Intel's supremecy was largely due to their manufacturing process was better than anyone elses,by far. No more. I dare you to buy Intel stock right now and sell AMD.


----------



## notb (Oct 25, 2019)

Redwoodz said:


> You are in denial my friend. 10nm has failed miserably and now the hope is 7nm is going to work. Intel's supremecy was largely due to their manufacturing process was better than anyone elses,by far. No more.


People on PC forums like to use the word "denial", but there's really little substance behind most of the time. Just like here.

The basic thing I said: Intel doesn't have to match AMD on performance/price to sell more. That's it.
Stop thinking so much about manufacturing process. It's just a factor. It's not relevant for customers.

Intel sold more in the Athlon days.
They sell more now despite an obvious Zen2 7nm advantage.
You can keep mocking me or you can just check the facts.

Sure, AMD makes attractive products since 2017 and that definitely hit Intel on sales and margin. But it's nowhere near the catastrophic scenarios that AMD fanboys here talk about ("no reason to buy Intel", "AMD outsell Intel 2:1" etc).


> I dare you to buy Intel stock right now and sell AMD.


Intel stock just went up because of very good Q3 results (both revenue and earnings). Not that I own any. It's not an interesting segment right now.


----------



## warrior420 (Oct 25, 2019)

I remember when TPU posted legit articles.  What the hell is this crap?


----------



## ratirt (Oct 25, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I will give you 2 examples of my bias. Many people like to bash on the Bulldozer/Piledriver series of chips. Many of them did not even own Piledriver but yet (i"m sure someone will respond) as an owner of a FX8320 I was quite happy with the upgrade from the 1090T. The other bias I have is Gigabyte and the quality of their current offerings. I have not owned a GIgabyte board that has not given me the D0 postcode and refuse to boot. I will probably never buy another Gigabyte board and on the flipside As Rock are the most bullet proof boards you can buy (in my opinion) based on my own experience. So if someone posted a thread about which X470 board to buy I would recommend As Rock. I am not trying to divide anything I will always defend tech that I think is good based on my own experience with that tech and that is what I meant.


You know. People having opinion about something connected to computer industry doesn't make them enthusiasts and also not enthusiasts. You have the right to your opinion based on legit information, your own experience or other when you draw a conclusion. Bulldozer wasn't a good product and that is why they are bashing it. If they know this from their own experience because they won the CPU or collect information and draw conclusion it doesn't matter if they say tell the truth and their conclusions are supported with arguments. AsRock for me was always a bad product. However, one day I decided to buy a motherboard (Z77 extreme 4) with 3770k processor and I was amazed of the quality. AsRock wasn't always good but i gave it a shot after the company has developed some quality over time.

I understand what you are saying. I disagree with you that if somebody doesn’t own a CPU or a graphics card is not an enthusiast in any way and shouldn't say anything about the product itself. Being an enthusiast has nothing to do with owning any PC gear in this case. If they comment (bash on as you said) on a product, they should support this with arguments, which are true. Everyone has a right to have opinions on a certain subject but you need to have arguments to support your opinion, facts that will prove you are correct with your opinion. If, on the other hand, your arguments are dismissed, have the guts to admit a failure and move on.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 25, 2019)

ratirt said:


> You know. People having opinion about something connected to computer industry doesn't make them enthusiasts and also not enthusiasts. You have the right to your opinion based on legit information, your own experience or other when you draw a conclusion. Bulldozer wasn't a good product and that is why they are bashing on it. If they know this from their own experience because they won the CPU or collect information and draw conclusion it doesn't matter if they say tell the truth and their conclusions are supported with arguments. AsRock for me was always a bad product. However, one day I decided to buy a motherboard (Z77 extreme 4) with 3770k processor and I was amazed of the quality. AsRock wasn't always good but i gave it a shot after the company has developed some quality over time.
> 
> I understand what you are saying. I disagree with you that if somebody doesn’t own a CPU or a graphics card is not an enthusiast in any way and shouldn't say anything about the product itself. Being an enthusiast has nothing to do with owning any PC gear in this case. If they comment (bash on as you said) on a product, they should support this with arguments, which are true. Everyone has a right to have opinions on a certain subject but you need to have arguments to support your opinion, facts that will prove you are correct with your opinion. If, on the other hand, your arguments are dismissed, have the guts to admit a failure and move on.



I think that at the end of the day we are on the same page but showing the exact side of each other's arguments. The reason I say that is your comment about As rock is exactly what I was saying in terms of being an enthusiast. You did not trust As rock because of experience but were pleasantly surprised by the improvement in quality when you decided to take a chance I did the exact same thing. The reason I referenced Gigabyte is that I used to trust them and now my trust has gone over to As rock. I see you as an enthusiast and not a user because of the adult way you are managing our conversation but also by the tech you have in your computer. 

I am not stating that a person should not but again we are talking about the same things. If I made a comment like Ryzen processors are garbage because "Johnny who who" says so and you knew that all I have even owned is Intel would I be a fanboy or enthusiast? If I said Ryzen processors are not as good as Intel in some things and you saw that I owned both would I be a fanboy or enthusiast?  I do want to comment that it is healthy to have an adult debate without it falling into a mud slinging contest.


----------



## Keviny Oliveira (Oct 27, 2019)

R.I.P Intel


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 27, 2019)

notb said:


> People on PC forums like to use the word "denial", but there's really little substance behind most of the time. Just like here.
> 
> The basic thing I said: Intel doesn't have to match AMD on performance/price to sell more. That's it.
> Stop thinking so much about manufacturing process. It's just a factor. It's not relevant for customers.
> ...



Your aware of Intel being fined and paying and because of why they sold more than and during p4 I hope. If not here is a refresher. Intel offered oems under tray pricing or free for some chips to a company that refused to sell and computers or that only put out the extreme budget and towers with slow memory and hard drives.

This meant say your Pentium 4 might have a 7200rpm drive with 512mb dual channel while their 939 offering got a 5400rpm with 512mb single channel likely at ddr333 vs Intel getting ddr400 or later getting ddr2 667 vs and ddr2 533. HP, Compaq, emachines where famous for this tactic. 

I've got a copaq with an a64 3500 originally it had 80gb 5400rpm drive and a single 512 stick of pc2700, when given a 7200 drive it got much faster but the average consumer didn't know.

Intel was forced to pay a billion dollars for this literal crime.


----------



## notb (Oct 27, 2019)

candle_86 said:


> Intel was forced to pay a billion dollars for this literal crime.


Nope. Intel hasn't paid the EU fine and they're likely to win in court.


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 27, 2019)

notb said:


> Nope. Intel hasn't paid the EU fine and they're likely to win in court.



Well boy someone tell and they never got that check from Intel


----------



## notb (Oct 27, 2019)

candle_86 said:


> Well boy someone tell and they never got that check from Intel


Fines are set by the executives (authorities that enforce law). That's what the EU commission did. An EU commission is made up of politicians and their job is to fine as many companies as they can.
And if a company thinks commission made a mistake (or the fine is too high), they can ask a court to rule.

Intel went to court with this case and from the start it wasn't obvious. After 10 years it's very probable that it'll be canceled or significantly lowered.

It's the same story as with traffic fines. Police' job is to fine people for traffic offenses. But they make mistakes. You can always ask a court to check.

So in short: as of today Intel isn't held responsible for anything and they don't have to pay anything.


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 27, 2019)

notb said:


> Fines are set by the executives (authorities that enforce law). That's what the EU commission did. An EU commission is made up of politicians and their job is to fine as many companies as they can.
> And if a company thinks commission made a mistake (or the fine is too high), they can ask a court to rule.
> 
> Intel went to court with this case and from the start it wasn't obvious. After 10 years it's very probable that it'll be canceled or significantly lowered.
> ...


They where in the American courts and paid heavily for it


----------



## Manoa (Oct 27, 2019)

you know you guys keep say RIP intel etc....but the true is AMD is failed: they only win becuase 7 nm > 14 nm, don't forget that is not fair to compare vs intel
just like they failed in video cards it just that they failed in video cards 2x more than in processors: 7 nm < 14 nm
you wanne say AMD is good ? compare 1:1 7 to 7 or 14 to 14 etc
remember AMD is barely winning using 7 nm vs a 14 nm, when intel make they 10 nm processor, only then you can compare it to AMD 7 nm one
only thing true about the compare is AMD more forward in creation technology, it doesn't meen that they are forward in chip architecture


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 28, 2019)

Manoa said:


> you know you guys keep say RIP intel etc....but the true is AMD is failed: they only win becuase 7 nm > 14 nm, don't forget that is not fair to compare vs intel
> just like they failed in video cards it just that they failed in video cards 2x more than in processors: 7 nm < 14 nm
> you wanne say AMD is good ? compare 1:1 7 to 7 or 14 to 14 etc
> remember AMD is barely winning using 7 nm vs a 14 nm, when intel make they 10 nm processor, only then you can compare it to AMD 7 nm one
> only thing true about the compare is AMD more forward in creation technology, it doesn't meen that they are forward in chip architecture



Really that's absolute non sense, the Intel 9k and 10k chips are the zen2 competitors,


----------



## ratirt (Oct 28, 2019)

Manoa said:


> you know you guys keep say RIP intel etc....but the true is AMD is failed: they only win becuase 7 nm > 14 nm, don't forget that is not fair to compare vs intel
> just like they failed in video cards it just that they failed in video cards 2x more than in processors: 7 nm < 14 nm
> you wanne say AMD is good ? compare 1:1 7 to 7 or 14 to 14 etc
> remember AMD is barely winning using 7 nm vs a 14 nm, when intel make they 10 nm processor, only then you can compare it to AMD 7 nm one
> only thing true about the compare is AMD more forward in creation technology, it doesn't meen that they are forward in chip architecture


AMD failed with Ryzen? Ow that is a squeaker. Care to explain a bit more? 
People compare CPU to CPU or performance to performance not node to node or cache mem to cache mem. What's not fair here and what's your point? 
As I see it AMD didn't fail actually the opposite. AMD now is giving Intel a great deal of stimulus in terms of performance and pricing. You can see this with current price drops and Intels new 9000 series processors refreshes and new 10 gen release. 
I'm surprised you said AMD has failed cause i simply can't see it. If you say that Intel has still bigger market share than AMD then dahhh. How can AMD get 50% in 2 years time when it took Intel 10 years to get where it is now? Don't expect miracles here. It will take a lot of time and effort for AMD to get back in the market and match sales with Intel. (if it ever happens that is) The fact that AMD has abetter product is obvious so get your head outta your ass please.


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 28, 2019)

ratirt said:


> AMD failed with Ryzen? Ow that is a squeaker. Care to explain a bit more?
> People compare CPU to CPU or performance to performance not node to node or cache mem to cache mem. What's not fair here and what's your point?
> As I see it AMD didn't fail actually the opposite. AMD now is giving Intel a great deal of stimulus in terms of performance and pricing. You can see this with current price drops and Intels new 9000 series processors refreshes and new 10 gen release.
> I'm surprised you said AMD has failed cause i simply can't see it. If you say that Intel has still bigger market share than AMD then dahhh. How can AMD get 50% in 2 years time when it took Intel 10 years to get where it is now? Don't expect miracles here. It will take a lot of time and effort for AMD to get back in the market and match sales with Intel. (if it ever happens that is) The fact that AMD has abetter product is obvious so get your head outta your ass please.



Same argument heard back in 2004, i swear i've heard it before, the intel fanboys come out and demand fairness. My only other response to anyone claiming its not fair is, who said life is fair, they don't like a midget play in the NBA, and i don't hear anyone shouting that aint fair.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 28, 2019)

candle_86 said:


> Same argument heard back in 2004, i swear i've heard it before, the intel fanboys come out and demand fairness. My only other response to anyone claiming its not fair is, who said life is fair, they don't like a midget play in the NBA, and i don't hear anyone shouting that aint fair.


I get what you are saying but please don't say that life ain't fair and so as this ain't fair. This is fair since you compare oranges to oranges. Life is a bit different and can't be compared to any other life but you compare CPU to CPU. Because it is a machine not a human being and it doesn't live or is alive. Keep that in mind. Compare CPU to CPU not the nodes it is being manufactured at. Do not encourage people to twist words/phrases and use them especially with life in the sentence.


----------



## notb (Oct 29, 2019)

candle_86 said:


> They where in the American courts and paid heavily for it


Honestly, I don't track all court cases in US - not even the Intel ones (they must have dozens yearly).
Can you point such a case?

I know about just two billion-level situations:
One is the EU antitrust that's still going on.
And one was an agreement between Intel and AMD.
Neither of these was a result of a court judgement.


----------



## Manoa (Oct 29, 2019)

ratirt said:


> People compare CPU to CPU or performance to performance not node to node or cache mem to cache mem. What's not fair here and what's your point?
> As I see it AMD didn't fail actually the opposite. AMD now is giving Intel a great deal of stimulus in terms of performance and pricing. You can see this with current price drops and Intels new 9000 series processors refreshes and new 10 gen release.
> I'm surprised you said AMD has failed cause i simply can't see it. If you say that Intel has still bigger market share than AMD then dahhh. How can AMD get 50% in 2 years time when it took Intel 10 years to get where it is now? Don't expect miracles here. It will take a lot of time and effort for AMD to get back in the market and match sales with Intel. (if it ever happens that is) The fact that AMD has abetter product is obvious so get your head outta your ass please.



CPU is made from silicon, performance also come from silicon, that is whay it's node to node
I don't care about fair or not and yhe sure AMD is winning even if only by a littel I don't say that it's bad
I don't realy care about market, but it's part of what I meen...
you have to understand something important: the reason that AMD is failed now is because intel is failed with 10 nm, which is they own fault
the problem of market as you say is important is this: if intel didn't failed with 10 nm, they skylake architecture would clean the florr with zen
that architecture is what ? 10 years old ? so explain to me how AMD is not a failure ?? zen is faighting (and berely winning) a 10 years old skylake cores made on a node that is twice as big

it mybe not entirely relevant but I wanne add something else to the explain, it might help understand what I meen: look at AMD video cards, failed right ?
but you say failed because the card is failed, but what if the card didn't failed and would clean the florr with 2080 ti ? that would still not be a good compare either, becuase the 14 nm is not compare to 7 nm, and the big problem of market ? is that when nvidea come out with a 7 nm version of they own - that can kill the AMD cards easy....

same CPU: right now AMD wins and I have no problem with that. the possible danger to that is when intel come up with 10 nm version of the skylake cores or whatever they have in design for 10 nm right now.... what my point ? the problem is that zen, as architecture is not superior to skylake (or haswell which is the same thing only DDR3 that's all), the diffrence is that I look at architecture not the whole CPU as you do, and in term of zen architecture, thare is nothing worth to mention: it just equal to skylake more or less in term of performance and skylake is a historic architecture


----------



## ratirt (Oct 29, 2019)

Manoa said:


> CPU is made from silicon, performance also come from silicon, that is whay it's node to node
> I don't care about fair or not and yhe sure AMD is winning even if only by a littel I don't say that it's bad
> I don't realy care about market, but it's part of what I meen...
> you have to understand something important: the reason that AMD is failed now is because intel is failed with 10 nm, which is they own fault
> ...


Dude I don't understand what you are saying really.
And this 


Manoa said:


> you have to understand something important: the reason that AMD is failed now is because intel is failed with 10 nm, which is they own fault


this statement is just crazy. AMD failed with Ryzen because Intel faild with 10nm? I have no idea what you are trying to say man.
You are delusional with what you are saying or you don't know how to express yourself correctly. AMD is far from failing and nodes has nothing to do with it. Besides 7nm is a fresh node and it is immature. It needs time to get better. Intel's 14nm+++++ (not sure how many +) can be be a bit better now but it is maxed out actually. 7nm still have room to improve and that's the difference with different node mainly.

BTW. It is not just the node it is also the architecture. You don't compare node to node for performance because the CPU as a complex design can't be compared only by one variable. 
You can have the greatest node, the smallest and you can still fail if other aspects of the CPU design are not in place.
So again
No, you don't compare node to node to determine the performance advantage of a product. You compare CPU to CPU which is a complete product which uses a node, specific architecture, instructions sets. The node itself can give better future perspective for improvement when matured. I hope this makes sens.
This isn't about Video Cards and honestly I don't understand what you are trying to say. Maybe others do ??


----------



## Manoa (Oct 29, 2019)

ok, simple: I am saying skylake core is history exist for 10 years (it's haswell with DDR4 memory), the (small) win against it (with zen) may not be a win at all: this win might be temporary only...AMD crate a new architecture that is barely faighting a history architecture that is a whole node behind.... that is what I saying and in the long term this could become a problem


----------



## ratirt (Oct 29, 2019)

Manoa said:


> ok, simple: I am saying skylake core is history exist for 10 years (it's haswell with DDR4 memory), the (small) win against it (with zen) may not be a win at all: this win might be temporary only...AMD crate a new architecture that is barely faighting a history architecture that is a whole node behind.... that is what I saying and in the long term this could become a problem


Dude. AMD Ryzen is a brand new architecture. Everything is new even the 7nm node and you compare it to a Haswell saying that Intel has an advantage? That's how I get it. Intel didn't do anything major in over 10 years. Nothing. It is basically same old architecture with some improvements. If you look at AMD it is totally something else.
You are looking at this with a crooked mind and telling everyone in this forum that the advantage for Intel is that skylake is the same processor as haswell with DDR4? if that is the case (and i kinda agree)  thi is not an advantage. Where is the spirit of innovation and technology advancement?  Intel had 10 years to perfect the design for Intel's 14nm +++++++++ node. AMD break the stagnation offering something out of the box new and innovative. It needs time to mature. Look at the gains in performance from Zen 1st gen to 2nd gen Zen and that's only within 2 years time. I think Intel didn't achieve that imrpvement for over 6 years with it's processors and you are saying AMD failed because Skylake (aka Haswell with ddr4 support) still beats it in few frames in certain games?


----------



## Manoa (Oct 29, 2019)

I know AMD zen is new architecture, and that is exactly the problem :x
I never said there is an advantage for intel
I never said zen performance is bad or that it performance gains are not good
I never say that skylake beats zen
I sure never mentioned the word "frames" in any of my messages, or "games"
I am delusional ? so far only you see things that are not there...


----------



## ratirt (Oct 29, 2019)

See things that are not there? What are you talking about?
You said


Manoa said:


> CPU is made from silicon, performance also come from silicon, that is whay it's node to node


Since when performance comes just from silicon? Listen to yourself dude what a bullshit is that?


Manoa said:


> you have to understand something important: the reason that AMD is failed now is because intel is failed with 10 nm, which is they own fault
> the problem of market as you say is important is this: if intel didn't failed with 10 nm, they skylake architecture would clean the florr with zen
> that architecture is what ? 10 years old ?* so explain to me how AMD is not a failure ?*? zen is faighting (and berely winning) a 10 years old skylake cores made on a node that is twice as big


You said AMD failed to deliver better performance than 10 year old "Haswell with DDR4 support ". You are saying AMD failed with 10 year old Intel's architecture. That is what you are saying man. What a crap is that. AMD has a new architecture and new node. It needs time to mature and get to the potential it has in the design. It is not going to happen after few months. Intel's 14nm is maxed out and 10nm is not there yet and delayed for so long.
10nm Skylake? Where is that skylake? Would have cleaned the floor? Open your eyes it is not here and the 10th gen processors being released now and what to they offer? Probably the desktop CPUs will still be 14nm. Open your eyes and look at the facts not what would have happened. 10th gen is just around the corner let's look what it will bring. From the leaks we've all seen basically nothing.
BTW we will see what the 3rd gen Ryzen will be like next year. For now this conversation is over man because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are in denial of everything I say and you deny your own words or you simply write something without knowing the meaning of it.

Who failed is you understanding the facts and what's going on. You fail to comprehend the aspects of the CPUs and technology involved in making these and what they bring to the table. Denial is all you can offer without giving any valuable information, argument or ounce of thought before you write these crap in this forum.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Oct 29, 2019)

lol im reading the posts and im 57 years of age and nearly half my life ive had guys around me bickering about whats best "amd or intel" come on guys theres more to life , do it really matter ? as long as the cpu dos the job we should all be happy.


----------



## Rroucu (Oct 31, 2019)

The BEST part of all of this is not the silly age old battle of whos best... It is that every time david whallops goliath with the rock. We pc folks WIN!

The battle has gone on for years and it only pushes the two to develop better cpus and architecture, slashing costs and giving a great boost to the gaming and power user community!

At the very least whether pro intel, or pro amd... folks need to see the big picture and that is simply that the consumer wins when amd rises every 10-15 years or so.


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 4, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And the AMD CPU even used quite slow RAM, so there could be more performance to be had.


Since when is 3200MHz slow? It's the highest JEDEC standard for DDR4, it's literally the fastest DDR4 on the market that isn't factory overclocked, and it's the highest spec RAM that the CPU officially supports.

I agree there could be more performance to be had via RAM overclocking, but the idea 3200MHz is gimping it is a bit rich.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 4, 2019)

Ubersonic said:


> Since when is 3200MHz slow? It's the highest JEDEC standard for DDR4, it's literally the fastest DDR4 on the market that isn't factory overclocked, and it's the highest spec RAM that the CPU officially supports.
> 
> I agree there could be more performance to be had via RAM overclocking, but the idea 3200MHz is gimping it is a bit rich.


It's quite slow for Zen 2. I run 3800MHz at 1:1:1 without breaking a sweat with four modules.
3200MHz is admittedly the highest "base" spec, but it's holding back the Zen 2 chips, all of which will happily run with 3600MHz or faster RAM.
And since when has anyone really cared about JEDEC spec when it comes to RAM?


----------



## notb (Nov 4, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And since when has anyone really cared about JEDEC spec when it comes to RAM?


OEMs, since forever.
This is one of the reasons why Zen falls behind in laptops and business PCs in general.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 4, 2019)

notb said:


> OEMs, since forever.
> This is one of the reasons why Zen falls behind in laptops and business PCs in general.


Well, yes, but this isn't a forum for OEMs, is it?


----------



## notb (Nov 4, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Well, yes, but this isn't a forum for OEMs, is it?


It's not a forum for OEMs, but it is a forum that discusses OEM PCs (and OEM market).
So I'd say it's quite relevant.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2019)

*Moves goal posts back........lol.

Looks at my own avatar.. giggles, moves on.


----------



## Ubersonic (Nov 4, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's quite slow for Zen 2.


It was a rhetorical question, it isn't slow by any standard.  You may as well argue that they were gimping the 3900X by not using LN2 to overclock it to 5GHz, it's just as silly an argument.



TheLostSwede said:


> I run 3800MHz at 1:1:1 without breaking a sweat with four modules.


That's cool (seriously) but most people don't, hell most 3900X owners don't even use RAM as fast as 3200MHz let alone OC to 3800MHz.


----------



## notb (Nov 5, 2019)

Ubersonic said:


> That's cool (seriously) but most people don't, hell most 3900X owners don't even use RAM as fast as 3200MHz let alone OC to 3800MHz.


I wouldn't be so sure. Most current 3900X users are the kind of people who visit forums like this one.
And it's fine as long as AMD aims at 10% market share of DIY gamers etc.

But yeah... considering they plan to go mainstream, more and more of their clients will pair Zen with RAM slower than what is usually used in reviews.

Furthermore, since some Zen CPUs are ECC certified and will be used with ECC RAM, it's worth noting that it's (AFAIK) up to DDR4-2666 for now.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 5, 2019)

Ubersonic said:


> That's cool (seriously) but most people don't, hell most 3900X owners don't even use RAM as fast as 3200MHz let alone OC to 3800MHz.



Who are these "most"? Obviously I can just go by users here and a few other forums and I would say 85-90% of people on TPU use 3600MHz or faster RAM with their Ryzen 3000 CPUs, with similar numbers elsewhere. It's not even considered fast RAM these days.


----------



## SaLaDiN666 (Nov 6, 2019)

Slower ram on Intel and Skylake-x refresh which is notoriously known for being too slow in these sets of benchmarks and anything gaming related in general.

The AMD will be quicker IRL but not that much.


----------



## madskillz (Nov 6, 2019)

not everybody that buys a HEDT chip runs it overclocked after testing, 
we all just install, overclock to limits. then set it back to stock settings and overclock it only when needed. 
its stupid to run a premium chip on a 100% OC utilization and let it burn out earlier.


----------



## Arc1t3ct (Nov 16, 2019)

I was an intel user and I'm now switching to a 3950X mini itx for my CAD workstation needs. What's interesting to me is that the upgrade path is pretty clear. The ryzen 4000 series is 6-7 months away and will be backwards compatible. How awesome is that?


----------

