# AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, SMT on vs SMT off, vs Intel 9900K



## W1zzard (Jul 22, 2019)

By community request, we present our findings on how the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X performs with SMT disabled. This approach has potential, especially for gaming, because it ensures more physical hardware units are available for each thread, and could also benefit the processor's power management.

*Show full review*


----------



## TheRagnarok (Jul 22, 2019)

Thanks! Glad to see this although I went with the 3700X.
Still good to know.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 22, 2019)

Just saw Hardware Unboxed video on the same topic with 36 games and essentially in some of them you get performance, in some you lose. The majority is within 2-3%.
And in the end, they all kinda average out at 1% difference. Which is negligible.
Basically it depends on the game, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter...


----------



## KarymidoN (Jul 22, 2019)

Zen is trully impressive on some aplications, SMT is really making a difference in some work aplications, its really clear now that if you do anything other than pure game on your PC, AMD is the clear choice, Intel must adjust prices.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jul 22, 2019)

Guess this idea useful information, and Zen's tiny overhead is impressive.  Seems people who just want to play games should simply opt for a smaller core count CPU to begin with.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

> With SMT disabled, the IPC of the "Zen 2" core seems to go up by roughly 2 percent. This directly impacts performance of software that don't need too many cores, namely games. We theorize this could be due to two distinct things happening with the processor. For one, with the SMT off its shoulders, the power-management of the processor is left to spread its power-budget and Precision Boost headroom across fewer logical processors, so each of the cores runs at higher boost frequencies, positively impacting per-core performance. Secondly, to a smaller extent, performance is also benefited by the on-core schedulers not having to juggle resources between two logical processors.



Just nitpicking here, but it's the performance that goes up by ~2%. Because if it's the former, it's the same IPC combined with slightly higher clock speeds


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 22, 2019)

Anyone else noticed how the real "winner" here gaming wise appears to be the i5 9400F? 5% slower than zen2, 9% slower than 9700k/9900k, costs 140€....... Really impressed with these charts. Media seems to ignore this little chip, but damn it has a great perf vs price ratio. 

Glad you included it in your tests! Thanks


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 22, 2019)

Did I read the graphs wrong or is it showing the 9900k being less power hungry?


----------



## Metroid (Jul 22, 2019)

Thanks for the test, smt off is only good if you are sure you will play a game that benefits from it for a long time, beginning to end, around 20 hours or more. So you dont need to go all the time into bios and change it. Few games benefit, nowadays many game engines have added smt in its code to benefit from it. Few games have the inverse, their 1% lows are much deeper if smt is off. Few people on reddit are planning a list of games that benefit from having smt off.

in 2008 when hyper-threading was released, smt off was a must, it was a huge performance impact leaving it enabled on games, you had to turn it off, 5 to 25% or so. Windows and game devs have improved the use of smt a lot.



Manu_PT said:


> Anyone else noticed how the real "winner" here gaming wise appears to be the i5 9400F? 5% slower than zen2, 9% slower than 9700k/9900k, costs 140€....... Really impressed with these charts. Media seems to ignore this little chip, but damn it has a great perf vs price ratio.
> 
> Glad you included it in your tests! Thanks



Since its release, the 9400f is still the best cost benefit modern cpu.


----------



## catulitechup (Jul 22, 2019)

very good tests 

maybe add same tests between 9700K / 3700X and 9600K / 3600X will be good

sadly amd dont offer cpus without ht and lower price example: 3600X without HT around 150us maybe awesome


----------



## Khilos (Jul 22, 2019)

If your trying to squeeze the most performance out of the 3900x, you can overclock each CCX in Ryzen Master individually rather than an all-core OC. You'll get 5 to 10% more performance versus the all-core overlock or the PBO/AOC combo. Typically CCX 0 and CCX 1 overclock to 4.5 GHz and CCX 2 and CCX 3 overclock to 4.2 / 4.3 GHz.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jul 22, 2019)

catulitechup said:


> very good tests
> 
> maybe add same tests between 9700K / 3700X and 9600K / 3600X will be good
> 
> sadly amd dont offer cpus without ht and lower price example: 3600X without HT around 150us maybe awesome


To be fair AMD doesn't charge extra for SMT on their CPUs, so turning it off technically doesn't cost you anything.  It's only relative to Intel's higher cost for an HT option that it looks like it should be cheaper.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Anyone else noticed how the real "winner" here gaming wise appears to be the i5 9400F? 5% slower than zen2, 9% slower than 9700k/9900k, costs 140€....... Really impressed with these charts. Media seems to ignore this little chip, but damn it has a great perf vs price ratio.
> 
> Glad you included it in your tests! Thanks


Actually I would say the real winner is the PC gamer as the Intel i5-8400/9400F and AMD Ryzen 2600 both give you over 100FPS in virtually every game while costing $140 or less.  Everything else is basically fan boys (with some enthusiasts) arguing over how much extra juice they can squeeze out of their lemon to either fit their specific niche and/or justify their ego & purchase.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Actually I would say the real winner is the PC gamer as the Intel i5-8400/9400F and AMD Ryzen 2600 both give you over 100FPS in virtually every game while costing $140 or less.  Everything else is basically fan boys (with some enthusiasts) arguing over how much extra juice they can squeeze out of their lemon to either fit their specific niche and/or justify their ego & purchase.


Well, there are those that do stuff besides gaming on their rigs


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

Not worth turning it off unless low-thread software (or games) is being used most if not all the time.
AMD's SMT implementation is simply amazing (and is rumored to get even better with Zen 3 ... possibly 3-4 thread/core)


----------



## IceShroom (Jul 22, 2019)

@W1zzard can you drop 720p benchmark, as i haven't seen a monitor with that resulation and replace that with 768p.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> Well, there are those that do stuff besides gaming on their rigs



very true but the the topic was gaming


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Not worth turning it off unless low-thread software (or games) is being used most if not all the time.
> AMD's SMT implementation is simply amazing (and is rumored to get even better with Zen 3 ... possibly 3-4 thread/core)


I doubt they can pull that off. That many cores would need a hell of an instruction decoder. Plus, the more cores (physical or logical) the sooner you become bandwidth constrained.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> I doubt they can pull that off. That many cores would need a hell of an instruction decoder. Plus, the more cores (physical or logical) the sooner you become bandwidth constrained.


Threadripper has sufficient bandwidth.

TR 4000 series... 32 cores - 128 threads ( 4 chiplets + quad channel IO die) - Aimed at professionals.
Possible ? Of course !
The question is... will they actually do it ?

Mainstream (AM4) very likely won't need that, and will stay as the "gamer" CPU, with less but faster cores, and max 2T/c


----------



## A.Stables (Jul 22, 2019)

Smells funny


----------



## Metroid (Jul 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> @W1zzard can you drop 720p benchmark, as i haven't seen a monitor with that resulation and replace that with 768p.



720p like 1080p, 480p, 1440p is standard.


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Jul 22, 2019)

@W1zzard Could you add the 1% low to the charts? The analysis would be more interesting with this information.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 22, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Just saw Hardware Unboxed video on the same topic with 36 games and essentially in some of them you get performance, in some you lose. The majority is within 2-3%.
> And in the end, they all kinda average out at 1% difference. Which is negligible.
> Basically it depends on the game, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter...


That review has exactly the same results as the @W1zzard 's one as in the 1080P tests the difference is less than 1% on average. Good to see something so repeatable and clear.


----------



## Xaled (Jul 22, 2019)

When multithreading really counts, an SMT acts as half a core, in Rendering/baking tests 12cores/24 threads is AVG. %50 fasters than 12cores. That's really impressive imo.


----------



## guser (Jul 22, 2019)

well , just cant belive that *7nm* amd cpu loose intel *14nm* cpu??!!!
 intel win.

hope techpower put same test then, when intel release comet lake and of coz 1when intels 10nm intel ice lake is out.

again, excellent test and,tx!


----------



## Xaled (Jul 22, 2019)

guser said:


> well , just cant belive that *7nm* amd cpu loose intel *14nm* cpu??!!!
> intel win.
> 
> hope techpower put same test then, when intel release comet lake and of coz 1when intels 10nm intel ice lake is out.
> ...


Yes you can't believe it because its not true


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

Overclocking potential with it disabled would have been a great value add to this article. 

Thanks for the testing as is!


----------



## IceShroom (Jul 22, 2019)

Metroid said:


> 720p like 1080p, 480p, 1440p is standard.


But not seen any monitor with that resulation. My 20 Inches monitor is 768p, all 20 and 19 Inches monitor I have seen is 768p and people game on that resulation, not 720p. I game on my monitor on 768p not 720p.


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Jul 22, 2019)

Xaled said:


> Yes you can't believe it because its not true



Yes, win in some games, lose in others... also, differences below 5% are within the error margin. 

I think that keeping the same architecture by half a decade has had some advantages for blue side: stability and great optimization.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> But not seen any monitor with that resulation. My 20 Inches monitor is 768p, all 20 and 19 Inches monitor I have seen is 768p and people game on that resulation, not 720p. I game on my monitor on 768p not 720p.



Video industry standard is different than monitor resolution standard. For example 1600p, 1200p, 1024p and 768p were the most used monitor resolutions. None of them are standard but I understand your point.


----------



## Xaled (Jul 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> But not seen any monitor with that resulation. My 20 Inches monitor is 768p, all 20 and 19 Inches monitor I have seen is 768p and people game on that resulation, not 720p. I game on my monitor on 768p not 720p.


I could agree that in games like CS:GO which is being played by 450.000 avg (according to steam) 768p is widely being used. 
https://csgopedia.com/csgo-pro-setups/ (on Mobile watch in landscape mode; rotate screen to get each players specs)


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 22, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Since its release, the 9400f is still the best cost benefit modern cpu.



See this is what I mean, I didn´t see media gaving attention to this little chip! I´m very surprised by these results and impressed by the 9400F. 10% slower than 9900k in gaming? Damn. 9400F + gtx 1660ti seems a killer combo right now for gaming


----------



## Xaled (Jul 22, 2019)

Why would someone recommend an İntel/Nvidia setup in an AMD SMT On/Off thread?!


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> But not seen any monitor with that resulation. My 20 Inches monitor is 768p, all 20 and 19 Inches monitor I have seen is 768p and people game on that resulation, not 720p. I game on my monitor on 768p not 720p.


It's more about removing the GPU from the equation then posting results on a resolution that may be slightly more popular.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

Xaled said:


> Why would someone recommend an İntel/Nvidia setup in an AMD SMT On/Off thread?!


why would anyone care?


dirtyferret said:


> It's more about removing the GPU from the equation then posting results on a resolution that may be slightly more popular.


this. Though I disagree with using an artificially low resolution to exaggerate a difference which doesnt scale up.


----------



## DwaSokoly (Jul 22, 2019)

Sorry if my question is silly but:
Is it possible to switch on/off SMT on the fly, without restarting or going to BIOS?

I'm asking because if answer is yes, then maybe it's possible to make some ghost program with information (small database) about Game, CPU and SMT option (on/off) and using this option when or before every game is started? Or if it's possible to made such option in BIOS? Question maybe to AMD or BIOS makers.

In this case you could have always best option choosen for every game and the average of games performance would be even 2-3% higher.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

DwaSokoly said:


> Is it possible to switch on/off SMT on the fly, without restarting or going to BIOS?


AFAIK, no.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 22, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> very true but the the topic was gaming



Add in background tasks and you've lost 5% more. I kept checking and rechecking benchmarks on a gaming PC I built that had all of their crap installed (for gaming only). It literally lost 5% in multithreaded tests. I guess if you don't use anything at all, but discord and other shit adds up.

6 cores are basically yesteryear. 6 cores without SMT are dead to me.


----------



## Tomorrow (Jul 22, 2019)

There should be no performance difference between disabling SMT vs assigning cores 0-11 to a specific process with project lasso. So i don't think there is any need to disable SMT.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> Add in background tasks and you've lost 5% more. I kept checking and rechecking benchmarks on a gaming PC I built that had all of their crap installed (for gaming only). It literally lost 5% in multithreaded tests. I guess if you don't use anything at all, but discord and other shit adds up.
> 
> 6 cores are basically yesteryear. 6 cores without SMT are dead to me.



When you built said gaming PC and it delivered 95FPS instead of 100FPS, did the PC collapse onto itself in sheer embarrassment causing a mini-implosion...cause that would be cool.   

P.S. I feel the same way about guys whose neck tie color matches their dress shirt color as you do about 6 cores without SMT...I feel your pain.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Xaled said:


> When multithreading really counts, an SMT acts as half a core, in Rendering/baking tests 12cores/24 threads is AVG. %50 fasters than 12cores. That's really impressive imo.


That's not accurate. It can act anything in between half a core (worst case scenario, completely bandwidth starved) and a full core (best case scenario, in-place, computing intensive tasks).


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> That's not accurate. It can act anything in between half a core (worst case scenario, completely bandwidth starved) and a full core (best case scenario, in-place, computing intensive tasks).


Can you link to testing that shows HT/SMT with 100%/2x gains over not HT loads?


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Can you link to testing that shows HT/SMT with 100%/2x gains over not HT loads?


Nope.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

I didn't think that point was true... it was always somewhere around that 50% mark give or take many percentage points depending on the testing. I've never seen it hit 2x/100% more before... figured perhaps you have since you said as much.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I didn't think that point was true... it was always somewhere around that 50% mark give or take many percentage points depending on the testing. I've never seen it hit 2x/100% more before... figured perhaps you have since you said as much.


No, I said that based on how HT works. As I told you, you'd get that under a specific kind of workload (let's not kid ourselves, we're still talking some missing hardware here, not a full core), but I don't know of benchmarks that measure that.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> No, I said that based on how HT works. As I told you, you'd get that under a specific kind of workload (let's not kid ourselves, we're still talking some missing hardware here, not a full core), but I don't know of benchmarks that measure that.


And I'm simply saying that doesn't happen (2x/100%)... Over the last 10-15 years I have been doing this, not one test I have seen puts it at that value. If you run into one, LMK so I can update the 'internal database'.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> And I'm simply saying that doesn't happen (2x/100%)... Over the last 10-15 years I have been doing this, not one test I have seen puts it at that value. If you run into one, LMK so I can update the 'internal database'.


Now that you mentioned it, I could try and write one (God knows when I'll find the time). My PC doesn't have HT, but I think my laptop does.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2019)

ok... GL with that. But theory and application in the real world are clearly different. Hit me up when you can make that or run across a real world 2x result.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 22, 2019)

In other news Game Mode in Ryzen Master still serves a purpose. Even after AMD said Windows 10 v1903 was now optimized for all Zen processors with faster clock ramping and improved topology awareness.

Positive result:






Negative Result:













						Game Mode Might Boost Performance On AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Processors - Legit Reviews
					






					www.legitreviews.com


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> In other news Game Mode in Ryzen Master still serves a purpose. Even after AMD said Windows 10 v1903 was now optimized for all Zen processors with faster clock ramping and improved topology awareness.
> 
> Positive result:
> 
> ...


I hope that was sarcastic, because that link says:


> When we ran other game titles with ‘Game Mode’ enabled on the 3900X we found that performance dropped. We only ran Rainbow Six: Siege, Far Cry 5 and Metro Exodus in our CPU test suite and of those titles only Metro Exodus showed a performance improvement with Game Mode enabled. It is likely that 99% of game titles run better in ‘Creator Mode’ and we hope that is the case.


----------



## deu (Jul 22, 2019)

Awaiting my 3900X delivery, so good to see that gaming performance can improve further since I game and create. To the people wanting to remove the 720p form tests; eventhough they dont say anything about a realistic scenario they can be used to gain insight into where the limitations of the CPU is. The unfortunate thing is that alot of 'less informed' people take these benchmarks as a direction of general performance. 

+1 to the vote for '1%' and 'minimum FPS' : It would be nice to see in game tests since they can say more about how the game is actually running and the user experience. But thanks for a extensive and qualitative and quantitive study to give a nuanced understanding of a nuanced subject!


----------



## waltc (Jul 22, 2019)

Very nice review and testing!  AMD for the win, and they deserve it.  Intel's been sitting on its rump milking for far too many years--ever the monopolist is Intel.

Interesting thing is that pretty much all these game engines are highly optimized for Intel architectures--so much so that it isn't possible that they be more optimized for Intel than they already are...  I'm looking forward to see Ryzen 3k series-optimized game engines, too!  Probably won't have long to wait before the first ones arrive, I'd imagine.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 22, 2019)

@W1zzard Could you explain the power consumption tests?  My understanding is that 9900k uses considerably more power (than even 8700k) and that 3900X uses considerably less.  In fact, in your tests a 9900k system draws the same as a i5-9600k or i3-9100f.  I am just not understanding how this is possible.




Spoiler: Yours


















Spoiler: Tom's













Spoiler: Anand


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jul 22, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> @W1zzard Could you explain the power consumption tests?  My understanding is that 9900k uses considerably more power (than even 8700k) and that 3900X uses considerably less.  In fact, in your tests a 9900k system draws the same as a i5-9600k or i3-9100f.  I am just not understanding how this is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The reason for the difference is that Wizz uses full system power vs the CPU package power that everyone else uses.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 22, 2019)

Nuckles56 said:


> The reason for the difference is that Wizz uses full system power vs the CPU package power that everyone else uses.



It may explain some of it but it still doesn't make complete sense.


----------



## r9 (Jul 23, 2019)

catulitechup said:


> very good tests
> 
> maybe add same tests between 9700K / 3700X and 9600K / 3600X will be good
> 
> sadly amd dont offer cpus without ht and lower price example: 3600X without HT around 150us maybe awesome


Neither does Intel. You are looking at this all wrong. Intel charges more for having it not less for not  AMD gives it free.


----------



## Camm (Jul 23, 2019)

Back when I ran a 1950X, I disabled SMT as I found the same thing.

It'll be interesting to see with the 3950X how this plays out, a full 8 core CCX should see less complex hopping.


----------



## Crackong (Jul 23, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> @W1zzard Could you explain the power consumption tests?  My understanding is that 9900k uses considerably more power (than even 8700k) and that 3900X uses considerably less.  In fact, in your tests a 9900k system draws the same as a i5-9600k or i3-9100f.  I am just not understanding how this is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And somehow 2600x uses more power than 2700x in gaming.
1600x also uses more power than 1800x and 1700x in gaming.

That's really strange.


----------



## SystemMechanic (Jul 23, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Anyone else noticed how the real "winner" here gaming wise appears to be the i5 9400F? 5% slower than zen2, 9% slower than 9700k/9900k, costs 140€....... Really impressed with these charts. Media seems to ignore this little chip, but damn it has a great perf vs price ratio.
> 
> Glad you included it in your tests! Thanks


Can you even open a game and some internet tabs on an i5 ??


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 23, 2019)

Excellent review W1zzard 
Wow

3.6GHz 9900K is rock solid IPC gaming CPU!

Never thought 3.6GHz 9900K would stand up to 12 cores 3.8GHz 3900X.... Dam

Next review will be 3950X vs 9900KS.... Most likely 

9900K must be really tweaked in the power department quite impressive good old 14nm++.

Definitely looking forward for my CPU swop-out this fall.... 8700K to 9900KS

Here I thought the 9900KS was built to wipe the floor of the 3800X... 

9900KS is for us guys with 300 series boards last hurrah. 

Bring out those 16 cores 3950X and 4GHz 9900KS reviews


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 23, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Never thought 3.6GHz 9900K would stand up to 12 cores 3.8GHz 3900X.... Dam


Probably the 5 GHz Boost helps it along in games. Imagine what the 3900X would do with a 5 GHz Boost.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 23, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Probably the 5 GHz Boost helps it along in games. Imagine what the 3900X would do with a 5 GHz Boost.


Melt iron?


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 23, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Probably the 5 GHz Boost helps it along in games. Imagine what the 3900X would do with a 5 GHz Boost.



3.6GHz 9900K is stock. Turbo is 7 cores 4.7GHz with 1 core 5GHz only. 

4GHz 9900KS is with a 5GHz Turbo all 8 cores.

Yeah I would love to see an OC review of the same testing 9900K @5.1GHz

Love too see what happens when 3900X is @5GHz?


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 23, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Melt iron?


Or create mini *black holes *inside that package


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 23, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> My understanding is that 9900k uses considerably more power


Not at stock, the CPU will throttle from highest turbo speeds after around 30 seconds.


----------



## InVasMani (Jul 23, 2019)

Wonder what happens if you just keep SMT enabled and use MSConfig to limit it to Ryzen Cores. Like what if you limit the SMT to 1 thread per CCX or just use the SMT threads for only one CCX and leave the other untouched? Middle ground compromise perhaps?


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 23, 2019)

SystemMechanic said:


> Can you even open a game and some internet tabs on an i5 ??



Internet tabs?? You mean with 4gb ram? Nop. With 16gb ram you re fine. Debunked alteady by steven burke from GamersNexus. Tabs wont use your cpu, same with discord, spotify, itunes etc. You do renders while playing game? Hell yeah, your i5 will struggle big time, so will your r5 3600. Next.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 23, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Or create mini *black holes *inside that package


I've heard a singularity is created...


----------



## BorgOvermind (Jul 23, 2019)

Hope to see Ryz9 in plenty of notebooks.


----------



## bug (Jul 23, 2019)

BorgOvermind said:


> Hope to see Ryz9 in plenty of notebooks.


If that doesn't happens soon, it's going to have some tough competition: https://www.notebookcheck.net/10th-...n-par-with-an-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X.427965.0.html

Already desktop Zen has pretty poor idle power draw. If that cannot be curbed easily, it's bad news for battery life.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 23, 2019)

catulitechup said:


> very good tests
> 
> maybe add same tests between 9700K / 3700X and 9600K / 3600X will be good
> 
> sadly amd dont offer cpus without ht and lower price example: 3600X without HT around 150us maybe awesome


2600 costs 127 Euro including VAT at the moment.
I also doubt including mainboard into equaton would make it look better for intel.



Xaled said:


> Why would someone recommend an İntel/Nvidia setup in an AMD SMT On/Off thread?!


Damage control.
Since 3000 release AMD outsells Intel on mindfactory 3.5 to 1.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 23, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Damage control.
> Since 3000 release AMD outsells Intel on mindfactory 3.5 to 1.



Fantastic!!!  Now they just need to outsell Intel for the next several years to make a dent in the 80/20 market share lead Intel has (even on STEAM)


_According to data from Mercury Research, two generations of Ryzen increased AMD’s x86 desktop unit market share from 12.2% to 17.1% between the first quarters of 2018 and 2019. Its x86 notebook unit market share rose from 8% to 13.1% during the same period. Its market share rose as its rival Intel suffered supply shortages, which encouraged customers to switch to AMD’s CPUs. 






						AMD Gains PC CPU Market Share from Intel with Ryzen - Market Realist
					

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has come a long way in the PC processor space.




					articles2.marketrealist.com
				



_


----------



## geon2k2 (Jul 23, 2019)

My take from this is that with any gpu lower than 2080ti there are like 12 cpus which offer virtually indistinguishable performance (<5% difference), so either R5 3600 or i5 9400 will suffice.

I'm looking at the 1440p results and I assume that the lower gpu at 1080p matches 2080 ti at 1440p)


----------



## r9 (Jul 23, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Anyone else noticed how the real "winner" here gaming wise appears to be the i5 9400F? 5% slower than zen2, 9% slower than 9700k/9900k, costs 140€....... Really impressed with these charts. Media seems to ignore this little chip, but damn it has a great perf vs price ratio.
> 
> Glad you included it in your tests! Thanks


Talking about winners Microcenter was selling Ryzen 1600 for $80.


----------



## waltc (Jul 23, 2019)

r9 said:


> Talking about winners Microcenter was selling Ryzen 1600 for $80.



Absolutely!  Before jumping to x570 Aorus Master and the 3600X, I came out of an R5 1600 x370/x470 chipset mobo (one board for each chipset, 2 boards, total)--that little cpu did a permanent 800MHz OC ROOB, from 3.2GHz stock clock to *3.8GHz *by simply changing the multiplier to 38...and on both motherboards, too!  Even the _max stock boost _was only 3.6Ghz...!  Couldn't do 3.9GHz with any degree of stability no matter what I did with voltage--but I saw no reason to complain!  Sweet!  *$80 is a great deal, *but recall that it's Ryzen 1, so no need to buy an x570 mboard as they are incompatible with Ryzen 1--I'm very curious as to _why that is so--academically speaking--probably something to do with boost & voltage differences, although Ryzen Zen+ was just like Zen in that regard--but I didn't own Zen + so I'm not positive about it.  _  On a budget?  *How can you beat this?*        Now the 3600X is in another category altogether, imo.   @ 3.8GHz stock, the 3600X begins in frequency just where my 1600 left off at its max OC--but cost the same as a 1600X, or a 2600X cost at introduction!        ANd of course the 3600X includes IPC improvements well over 15% in many situations!  And the 3600X includes doubled L3--which really does make a difference in gaming.  I get the 4.4Ghz boost regularly and reliably with the 3600X under air (stock cooler)--but *it cost considerably more than this sale of R1600 for $80.  *


----------



## bug (Jul 23, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Damage control.
> Since 3000 release AMD outsells Intel on mindfactory 3.5 to 1.


Wow! A new product outselling something that has been in the market for a year or so? (And ) I'm guessing Intel should just call quits now.


----------



## anachron (Jul 23, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Internet tabs?? You mean with 4gb ram? Nop. With 16gb ram you re fine. Debunked alteady by steven burke from GamersNexus. Tabs wont use your cpu, same with discord, spotify, itunes etc. You do renders while playing game? Hell yeah, your i5 will struggle big time, so will your r5 3600. Next.



From my own experience thats wrong. Playing a music video on youtube use between 5 to 10% of my i5 8600k and it can go up to 25% when loading a new video. So when playing AC Odyssey (1440p ultra), my cpu is at 100% some time, and if a new video is loaded on Youtube during this times, my FPS will take a hit for a few seconds (i'm talking from 65+ down to 30-40). The Tobii Eye tracking drivers (yes it does work in AC) also use a few percent of cpu btw. I guess more core/hyperthreading would have a beneficial effect in this kind of cases.

The only things related to the subject that i found from GamersNexus is about benchmark with multiple programs at once being unreliable, not that it doesn't affect the CPU if it's already used at full capacity.


----------



## Zotz (Jul 24, 2019)

bug said:


> Wow! A new product outselling something that has been in the market for a year or so? (And ) I'm guessing Intel should just call quits now.


The comparisons are against an older Intel product precisely because there aren't any new ones!  And it doesn't look like there will be, for a long time to come.

Thanks to TPU for this excellent article and all the work it required.  It addresses exactly the questions that I and no doubt many others have on SMT On/Off.


----------



## Crackong (Jul 24, 2019)

bug said:


> Wow! A new product outselling something that has been in the market for a year or so? (And ) I'm guessing Intel should just call quits now.



Because Intel does not have new SKUs available, 9900ks still nowhere to be found.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 24, 2019)

Crackong said:


> Because Intel does not have new SKUs available, 9900ks still nowhere to be found.



i9-9900KS is out October 

Built to be the fastest 8 cores CPU on Earth. Thus (Special Edition) 

Love how the 9 months old 8 cores 3.6GHz 9900K stands up to the 12 cores 3.8GHz 3900X. Quite impressive! 

Can't imagine 4GHz 9900KS (Super Binned) going to do... 

9900KS is the last upgrade for Intel 300 series boards. Just drop in and have a faster than 3800X CPU. 

If you're an AMD fan get the 3900X or 3950X 16 cores monster. 

So excited for my CPU swop out 8700K to 9900KS


----------



## Crackong (Jul 24, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> i9-9900KS is out October
> 
> Built to be the fastest 8 cores CPU on Earth. Thus (Special Edition)
> 
> ...




I can imagine, same / slightly less than a 5GHz 9900k.
And it creates time paradox if not water-cooled.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 24, 2019)

Crackong said:


> I can imagine, same / slightly less than a 5GHz 9900k.
> And it creates time paradox if not water-cooled.



You ment slightly more!
9900KS is Super Binned.

Stock vs stock 
Stock cooler 9900K vs 9900KS
9900K 3.6GHz vs 9900KS 4GHz 

Stock factory Turbo 
9900K 7-cores 4.7GHz 1-core 5GHz 
9900KS 5GHz all cores 

EK, Swiftech or equivalent etc etc 
Max OC 9900K 5.1GHz
Max OC 9900KS 5.3GHz

Around 200MHz OC top end so yeah slightly more! Thanks too Super high yielding factory binned CPU.

Basically a cheaper alternative to siliconLottery yes.

I'm super excited about it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> I'm super excited about it


we couldnt tell. 

You share that same sentiment with that failing multi card thing....what is it called..... oh yeah... nvlink!


----------



## Crackong (Jul 24, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Stock vs stock
> Stock cooler 9900K vs 9900KS
> 9900K 3.6GHz vs 9900KS 4GHz



hmmm....
You must be living in an alternate universe, where Intel 9th-gen k SKUs have stock coolers.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 24, 2019)

Crackong said:


> hmmm....
> You must be living in an alternate universe, where Intel 9th-gen k SKUs have stock coolers.



Any Passive AIR or Prefilled RAD not custom built loops is pretty much basic cooling solutions. Anything that does 200w to 400w

Or are you talking about the cooling throw in the box of Ryzen 3000? You point is?? 

I'm glad Intel ditched BS free Air cooling that everyone garbaged anyways. Saved the environment.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 24, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Love how the 9 months old 8 cores 3.6GHz 9900K stands up to the 12 cores 3.8GHz 3900X. Quite impressive!



if only that statement told the whole truth.

that data would make interesting reading, if they were reviewed with their "stock clocks", not sure you would agree with the results mind.

given that zen2 has the ipc lead and with more mhz and cores it would be very one sided.


----------



## bug (Jul 24, 2019)

vega22 said:


> if only that statement told the whole truth.
> 
> that data would make interesting reading, if they were reviewed with their "stock clocks", not sure you would agree with the results mind.
> 
> given that zen2 has the ipc lead and with more mhz and cores it would be very one sided.


Zen2 doesn't have the IPC lead. Look here: https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/
Zen2 pulls a little ahead in rendering, Intel pulls ahead in most games. They're just trading blows.
That's the only dark cloud on Zen's clear sky: if Intel underdelivers and Ice Lake only gives 10% better IPC, that still puts Zen back into catching up mode. And then there's this: https://www.notebookcheck.net/10th-...n-par-with-an-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X.427965.0.html

Of course, you can buy Zen2 today while Ice Lake is, by all accounts, one year away so whatever happens, AMD has time to reap their rewards.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 24, 2019)

bug said:


> Zen2 doesn't have the IPC lead. Look here: https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/
> Zen2 pulls a little ahead in rendering, Intel pulls ahead in most games. They're just trading blows.
> That's the only dark cloud on Zen's clear sky: if Intel underdelivers and Ice Lake only gives 10% better IPC, that still puts Zen back into catching up mode. And then there's this: https://www.notebookcheck.net/10th-...n-par-with-an-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X.427965.0.html
> 
> Of course, you can buy Zen2 today while Ice Lake is, by all accounts, one year away so whatever happens, AMD has time to reap their rewards.



you realise the link shows zen2 having higher ipc, right?

like, it shows exactly the point i was making 

at the same speeds, in single threaded workloads, amd scores higher.

now if all the chips were to be locked to their "default" clocks (3.6 and 3.8ghz) that would move that lead even more in their favour.

then to talk about ice lake....how long have you been riding intel dick dude? are you paid in cash or hardware?

i mean if you want to, we can. we can talk about how by the time intel finally gets 10nm chips into the shops amd will be ready to move to 5nm.but by that point there will by tsunami all over the world. down to people throwing themselves out of sky scrappers when intels stock price plummets faster than their, soon to be pancaked, bodies xD


----------



## bug (Jul 24, 2019)

vega22 said:


> you realise the link shows zen2 having higher ipc, right?


Only through tinted glasses. All CPUs are configured with 8 threads so every benchmarks is actually comparing IPC. Of course, you choose to look only at Cinebench, the one benchmark that AMD always does well in, there's nothing I can do about that.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 24, 2019)

bug said:


> Only through tinted glasses. All CPUs are configured with 8 threads so every benchmarks is actually comparing IPC. Of course, you choose to look only at Cinebench, the one benchmark that AMD always does well in, there's nothing I can do about that.



Their extra cores are why they have done well in the multi threaded test. Their increased IPC is why they now lead in the single threaded test too.

Talk about rose tinted glasses?

How are older CPU configured with 8 threads?

How do those threads help in a single threaded test anyway?

Keep trying to twist those facts to suit your agenda.....


----------



## r9 (Jul 24, 2019)

waltc said:


> Absolutely!  Before jumping to x570 Aorus Master and the 3600X, I came out of an R5 1600 x370/x470 chipset mobo (one board for each chipset, 2 boards, total)--that little cpu did a permanent 800MHz OC ROOB, from 3.2GHz stock clock to *3.8GHz *by simply changing the multiplier to 38...and on both motherboards, too!  Even the _max stock boost _was only 3.6Ghz...!  Couldn't do 3.9GHz with any degree of stability no matter what I did with voltage--but I saw no reason to complain!  Sweet!  *$80 is a great deal, *but recall that it's Ryzen 1, so no need to buy an x570 mboard as they are incompatible with Ryzen 1--I'm very curious as to _why that is so--academically speaking--probably something to do with boost & voltage differences, although Ryzen Zen+ was just like Zen in that regard--but I didn't own Zen + so I'm not positive about it.  _  On a budget?  *How can you beat this?*        Now the 3600X is in another category altogether, imo.   @ 3.8GHz stock, the 3600X begins in frequency just where my 1600 left off at its max OC--but cost the same as a 1600X, or a 2600X cost at introduction!        ANd of course the 3600X includes IPC improvements well over 15% in many situations!  And the 3600X includes doubled L3--which really does make a difference in gaming.  I get the 4.4Ghz boost regularly and reliably with the 3600X under air (stock cooler)--but *it cost considerably more than this sale of R1600 for $80.  *


Mine is sitting perfectly stable at 3.9GHz on a stock cooler. It was running at 4GHz but not 100% stable and I'm pretty certain with small effort on my side that CPU can do 4GHz especially with an after market cooler.


----------



## jaggerwild (Jul 25, 2019)

Always turns into a pissing match, I must say I do not follow the crowd (nore do I care). On the power consumption, it looked to me as the 9900K does way better(of course less cores). So you save with an AMD Ryzen, but then the power consumption and cooling must bring it up as you want to overclock it. Wow the 9900K is only $485 US, I must be missing something. Aside from "Intel is Evil and must die".........which does seem to be the crowd mentality.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 26, 2019)

r9 said:


> Mine is sitting perfectly stable at 3.9GHz on a stock cooler. It was running at 4GHz but not 100% stable and I'm pretty certain with small effort on my side that CPU can do 4GHz especially with an after market cooler.



4GHz OC is not imperative for a 6 cores... 

4GHz is stock base speed for 8086K with factory 5GHz Turbo and SL Pre-Delidded 5.3GHz options. That's impressive! 

8086K is still the world's fastest 6 cores CPU. (Intel Fastest production 6 cores CPU and Intel first 5GHz Turbo) 

Just for the world's records.


----------



## phill (Jul 26, 2019)

Just wanted to say thank you to @W1zzard for a great review and just makes me think along the lines of, you could buy an Intel CPU but why would you?  For 90% if not more for most people, is there any reason to worry about 5% difference at 1080P or at best 1% at 1440P and 4k??  I seriously can't think so..

If you buy AMD with all the cores, then throw some of them at the WCG for TPU and help us that way if you would like to   It'll use a little less power per core than Intel but could make a massive difference to someone's life at some point 

I seriously can't wait to be able to grab one of these CPUs at some point...  I already have a few Intel CPUs and a pair of 1700X's, I look forward to trying out the new 3 Series for definite considering the extra performance they are giving certainly over the 1st and 2nd series of Zen.  Utterly wonderful  
Now if I can get away from triple 1080P panels, I'll be even happier


----------



## r9 (Jul 26, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> 4GHz OC is not imperative for a 6 cores...
> 
> 4GHz is stock base speed for 8086K with factory 5GHz Turbo and SL Pre-Delidded 5.3GHz options. That's impressive!
> 
> ...



You missed to point buddy.
We are talking about $80 CPU.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 29, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Fantastic!!! Now they just need to outsell Intel for the next several years to make a dent in the 80/20 market share lead Intel has (even on STEAM)


That's not how market share works (and Steam is not a reliable indicator of the market share, AMD's "jebaited" guy have demonstrated it).
DIY is just a minor part of the market (quite below 20% last time I've checked)


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 29, 2019)

medi01 said:


> That's not how market share works (and Steam is not a reliable indicator of the market share, AMD's "jebaited" guy have demonstrated it).
> DIY is just a minor part of the market (quite below 20% last time I've checked)



That's not how reading works!  When I said even on Steam that means overall market share as well as on Steam.  Learning to comprehend what you read is a gift you can only give yourself.


----------



## 64K (Jul 29, 2019)

medi01 said:


> That's not how market share works (and Steam is not a reliable indicator of the market share, AMD's "jebaited" guy have demonstrated it).
> DIY is just a minor part of the market (quite below 20% last time I've checked)



You can google it and get plenty of results that bear out the 80/20 split. What's hurting AMD the most is doing so poorly in the Server Market imo

AMD is gaining some market share and they deserve to but the battle with getting PC manufacturers to use more of their CPUs in pre-builts is a difficult task.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 30, 2019)

vega22 said:


> you realise the link shows zen2 having higher ipc, right?
> 
> like, it shows exactly the point i was making
> 
> ...



Can't wait to get my hands on my awesome 9900KS CPU upgrade. 

AMD always playing catch up, Intel will remain King of IPC for 2019 with the world's fastest 6&8 cores CPUs. 

The fastest production Coffeelake/Coffeelake Refresh CPUs 

8086K & 9900KS 
Rock Solid 4GHz base IPC single thread king. 

3900X is a dam good try though....AMD will remain King of multi-cores performance with the R9 3900X/3950X for now. Bravo


----------



## vega22 (Jul 31, 2019)

64K said:


> You can google it and get plenty of results that bear out the 80/20 split. What's hurting AMD the most is doing so poorly in the Server Market imo
> 
> AMD is gaining some market share and they deserve to but the battle with getting PC manufacturers to use more of their CPUs in pre-builts is a difficult task.



From what I was reading about sales across Europe, just in the self build market, it more like 60:40 in amd's favour. Now part of that might be zen 2 performance or zen 1 prices and part of it might be intel shortages. But speaking to people I know in the UK retail trade and and is out selling intel more like 4:1 not 3:2. Either way they need to make hay while the sun shines.

As for the server side, if Google really is about to jump ship I imagine that many others will follow suit.


----------

