# Core i9-10900K up to 30% Faster than i9-9900K: Intel



## btarunr (Jan 2, 2020)

Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900K desktop processor is up to 30 percent faster than the Core i9-9900K according to the company, which put out a performance guidance slide that got leaked to the web. Based on the 14 nm "Comet Lake-S" silicon and built for the new LGA1200 platform (Intel 400-series chipset motherboards); the i9-10900K is a 10-core/20-thread processor that leverages increased TDP headroom of 125 W to sustain higher clock-speeds than 9th generation "Coffee Lake Refresh," while also offering a 25% increase in processing muscle over the i9-9900K, thanks to the two additional CPU cores. 

In its performance guidance slide, Intel shows the i9-10900K scoring 30% more than the i9-9900K in SPECint_rate_base2006_IC16.0. There's also a 25% boost in floating-point performance, in SPECfp_rate_base2006_IC16.0, which roughly aligns with the additional core count, as both these tests are multi-threaded. Other noteworthy results include a 26% gain in Cinebench R15, and 10% in SYSMark 2014 SE. In tests that don't scale with cores, Intel appears to rely entirely on the increased clock-speeds and improved boosting algorithm to eke out performance gains in the low-to-mid single-digit percentages. Intel is introducing a new clock-speed boosting technology called Thermal Velocity Boost, which can dial up clock-speeds of the i9-10900K up to 5.30 GHz.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## chodaboy19 (Jan 2, 2020)

Reeks of desperation...


----------



## fancucker (Jan 2, 2020)

Cooper-Lake will arrive MCM with 48/56 cores H2 2020. As for this, Skylake at two nodes behind still manages to have greater ST than AMD's tweaked Ryzen. Zen 3 will arrive to find backported Willow Cove on 14nm++ or 10nm/7nm, Zen 4 will probably be the first to equal WC clock-for-clock in IPC. So Intel has winning cards in all battles here.


----------



## HTC (Jan 2, 2020)

> 26% gain in Cinebench R15



Intel says Cinebench isn't a "real world" benchmark.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jan 2, 2020)

Intel : its not valid benchmark because its doesnt reflect to real-word usage.
Also Intel :* include a 26% gain in Cinebench R15 *


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 2, 2020)

Intel should have added on four more cores for at least twelve cores instead of a measly two core bump.

Intel already looks be in second place compared to AMD's twelve, and sixteen core chips.


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 2, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Intel should added on four more cores for at least twelve cores instead of a measly two core bump.
> 
> Intel already looks be in second place compared to AMD's twelve, and sixteen core chips.


I bet they can't push the Skylake arch that much.


----------



## Nkd (Jan 2, 2020)

fancucker said:


> Cooper-Lake will arrive MCM with 48/56 cores H2 2020. As for this, Skylake at two nodes behind still manages to have greater ST than AMD's tweaked Ryzen. Zen 3 will arrive to find backported Willow Cove on 14nm++ or 10nm/7nm, Zen 4 will probably be the first to equal WC clock-for-clock in IPC. So Intel has winning cards in all battles here.



lol. Did you just say AMD won’t match intel IPC until zen 4? Really? They are already trading blows with them with zen 2.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

Nkd said:


> lol. Did you just say AMD won’t match intel IPC until zen 4? Really? They are already trading blows with them with zen 2.


I think they're slightly ahead,though for single thread gaming intel still beats them due to lower latency of the ring design and clocks.

This looks like same old same old core,only 10th gen locked skus will match 9th gen k-series on stock clocks and there's HT on every cpu + a 10 core.  

will probably end up really competitive against ryzen 3000/4000,imagine stock 9900k rivalling 3700x/3800x not 3900x,but intel has no new core design still.


----------



## Hyderz (Jan 2, 2020)

the 30% performance is a welcome indeed and lets see how intel price it
i think the 10900k will be priced at $549, but would rather see it at $499-$525
this is good for consumers as more options available from both amd and intel.
now what do u guys think the z490 chipset will it include pci-e 4.0 or not?


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 2, 2020)

fancucker said:


> As for this, Skylake at two nodes behind still manages to have greater ST than AMD's tweaked Ryzen.



No, it doesn't. 

It has less latency which is better for gaming yes.  But it is actaully worse in ST IPC.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 2, 2020)

chodaboy19 said:


> Reeks of desperation...


its proves Intel isnt standing around playing switch.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

GoldenX said:


> I bet they can't push the Skylake arch that much.


Not only they cant,they absolutely should stay away from the core race if they dont want to embarass themselves.
Keep the ring design and give it all it has,that is the only way they can still stay ahead.


----------



## Noztra (Jan 2, 2020)

fancucker said:


> Cooper-Lake will arrive MCM with 48/56 cores H2 2020. As for this, Skylake at two nodes behind still manages to have greater ST than AMD's tweaked Ryzen. Zen 3 will arrive to find backported Willow Cove on 14nm++ or 10nm/7nm, Zen 4 will probably be the first to equal WC clock-for-clock in IPC. So Intel has winning cards in all battles here.



Not even proper MCM. Its just 2x 28C clued together. And you know that it will be a 400/500W part that require watercooling. No enterprise is gonna buy or use it. TCO is gonna be 4 times higher than AMD’s best server CPU, while still being slower.


----------



## XL-R8R (Jan 2, 2020)

Maybe someone else has already posted this... but:







So... we should take from this, that the 10900K is actually only 5% faster...  the sad part is, the 4.8GHz clock speed of the newer part vs 4.6GHz for the 9900k..... a reduction of 5% from 4.8GHz puts you at 4.56GHz..... so with 2 extra cores, 4 extra threads and a bump in effect base clock... I would have expected more than 5%(_30%??_) improvements overall.




Intel do have some funny press announcements recently.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> Not only they cant,they absolutely should stay away from the core race if they dont want to embarass themselves.
> Keep the ring design and give it all it has,that is the only way they can still stay ahead.


Intel at some point will need to move on from the ring bus to their mesh interconnect architecture in the mobile, and desktop space.









						Mesh Interconnect Architecture  - Intel - WikiChip
					

Intel's mesh interconnect architecture is a multi-core system interconnect architecture that implements a synchronous, high-bandwidth, and scalable 2-dimensional array of half rings. Their mesh architecture has replaced the ring interconnect architecture in the server and HPC markets.




					en.wikichip.org


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2020)

Meanwhile at CES ~ *AMD CEO To Unveil "Zen 3" Microarchitecture at CES 2020*


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 2, 2020)

Noztra said:


> Not even proper MCM. Its just 2x 28C clued together.



And AMD is using better glue?  What is your point here?  This is just as valid a criticism as Intel calling Ryzen "glued together."


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Intel at some point will need to move on from the ring bus to their mesh interconnect architecture in the mobile, and desktop space.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They're likely to move on from both AFAIK. Remember the *glue* 





*XeMF: The Scalable Memory Fabric, with RAMBO CACHE*

For all the talk about Intel being a *leader*, they sure do follow AMD a lot not to mention badmouth & then copy them.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Meanwhile at CES ~ *AMD CEO To Unveil "Zen 3" Microarchitecture at CES 2020*


A preemptive move to Intel's 10-series launch? 
From what AMD has said, the CPUs will be out in H2 2020.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2020)

Hardly, except for gaming & applications which rely heavily on ST performance, I can't see any xx900k coming close to* 3950x* let alone beat it. And if you really want ST performance then buying a 10c isn't that wise of a choice, same goes for 8c or 6c arguably. Zen3 seems like yet another major push for servers, especially as 10nm Intel server chips are nowhere in sight & 7nm is possibly ~2 years away.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

3950X is an 800€ CPU. Even if 10900K follows the i9-9900K pricing, it should be a 500€ CPU and go against 3900X.
Keep in mind that 10-series according to what we know will have HT. There will not be that huge cap in productivity performance any more.

While much of the hoopla is around i9-10900K the actual Intel 10-series CPU to watch is i5-10400(F).
Similarly, AMD's Renoir APUs should be very excciting.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2020)

londiste said:


> Even if 10900K follows the 9900K pricing


I'll eat my non existent *hat* if 10900k is priced (too) close to 3900x or 9900k.


londiste said:


> Keep in mind that 10-series according to what we know will have HT


Yes & AMD will still have better SMT, 20~60% more cores & higher IPC. The gap can go down by 20~30% as compared to 9900k but then you're also paying a higher electricity bill & will likely need a new MB.

Purely in terms of value, this offers more than most Intel chips in the last decade though you will have to question why doesn't Intel use *cove at 14nm++++ instead of adding more (weak) cores. Surely their volumes will justify back-porting the design &* IIRC *the coves are node agnostic?


londiste said:


> Don't focus too much on 10900K/9900K.
> 
> Anything lower than i9 currently does not have HT. This is the main concern in every review - Intel may do OK in gaming but there is a large automatic gap in productivity/threaded performance. HT will address most of that.


Yes that's why I said better value in a really long time though I'll add Intel's *HT* isn't as good as AMD's SMT implementation.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

Don't focus too much on 10900K/9900K. 

Anything lower than i9 currently does not have HT. This is the main concern in every review - Intel may do OK in gaming but there is a large automatic gap in productivity/threaded performance. HT will address most of that.



R0H1T said:


> Purely in terms of value, this offers more than most Intel chips in the last decade though you will have to question why doesn't Intel use *cove at 14nm++++ instead of adding more (weak) cores. Surely their volumes will justify back-porting the design &* IIRC *the coves are node agnostic?


Intel's cores were not node agnostic. There are rumors (and I think Intel's people have mentioned that in several talks) about a project to make their cores node agnostic. This project should be going on for a little over a year now. Too early to actually use the cores.

When it comes to Coffee Lake vs Ice Lake, the claimed transistor counts are 217 million vs 300 million in a core. This is a considerable 38% difference.


----------



## john_ (Jan 2, 2020)

So, the next high end CPU will have NO IPC improvement over the current one. That 2-4% comes from the higher maximum Turbo speed. 

Also NO extra performance from architectural improvements in multithreding, just what we get from those extra 2 cores / 4 threads and those higher Turbo frequencies. 

That probably also means NO hardware security fixes. If there where any security fixes we could have seen some extra performance differences.

That 95W 9900K is in fact a 210W chip, if you want to get 100% of what that chip can offer. The new 10900K is in fact a 250W chip. 125W is at base frequency. 

Great. Even Pentium 4 was looking better against Athlon64.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

john_ said:


> That probably also means NO hardware security fixes. If there where any security fixes we could have seen some extra performance differences.


There are hardware security fixes. Current state of fixes as of Cascade Lake is that TAA is still there. They should have time to have that fixed as well but we will have to wait and see.








						Affected Processors: Transient Execution Attacks & Related Security...
					

Review the impact of transient execution attacks and select security issues on currently supported Intel products.




					www.intel.com
				




For some reason everyone expects security fixes in hardware to affect performance. They don't, that is the whole point - issues fixed in hardware means precisely that there is no performance difference.


----------



## JackCarver (Jan 2, 2020)

There is no clear answer which cpu is better, Intel or AMD. Before Ryzen the answer was clear Intel but now it depends on use case. For gamer I think Intel is the best choice and 10c/20t are more than enough for this use case. For Productivity I would choose AMD.


----------



## john_ (Jan 2, 2020)

londiste said:


> For some reason everyone expects security fixes in hardware to affect performance. They don't, that is the whole point - issues fixed in hardware means precisely that there is no performance difference.


No, you just think it wrong. If there are extra hardware security fixes in 10900K that are not in 9900K, then 10900K should show some difference compared to 9900K. No one says that hardware security fixes will improve performance, only that software security fixes on the 9900K have a negative impact on performance. If 10900K had hardware security fixes in place of software security fixes, the difference in performance should have been obvious, even without IPC improvements.



JackCarver said:


> There is no clear answer which cpu is better, Intel or AMD. Before Ryzen the answer was clear Intel but now it depends on use case. For gamer I think Intel is the best choice and 10c/20t are more than enough for this use case. For Productivity I would choose AMD.


It's clear as day which processor is better. With AMD you get much better multithreading performance, a more modern platform and also a platform that will have at least one more upgrade option, Ryzen 4000. Even without the 4000 series, a 16 core processor is available as an option today. This will never happen in the Intel mainstream platform. 

Intel is giving you marginal higher single core performance IF you go out and buy a high end motherboard and an expensive cooling solution to throw on the chip. And of course we have to conveniently ignore the much higher power consumption and the almost certain possibility to learn about more Intel security vulnerabilities in the near future.


----------



## phill (Jan 2, 2020)

XL-R8R said:


> Maybe someone else has already posted this... but:
> 
> View attachment 141043
> 
> ...


I was going to see whether or not anyone picked up on the 2 extra cores etc but I'm not sure why Intel would say we have a massive performance increase....  I mean how dumb??! 

Still worth a giggle I guess


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Intel's *HT* isn't as good as AMD's SMT implementation.


Gets offtopic but I wonder why is that. Have you seen any good articles about why that is the case?

Threading and frontend should not be that much different. Intel does appear to have more load/store but actual compute is the key to SMT. My bet would be on AMD's much cleaner execution stage setup. They have more execution units that are far more specific in what they do. Intel has a couple powerful ones but the management to get the stuff efficiently into these must be pretty crazy.
- Zen2 has 4 INT ALUs (with slightly varying capabilities) and 4 FP ALUs (2 FMA/FMUL and 2 FADD) plus some AGU/Load/Store stuff.
- Coffee Lake has 4 execution pipes with strange range of capabilities. One that can do everything (INT, FP, both INT/FP Vector etc), second can do a little less and remaining two are largely INT stuff.

What AMD said and went for with Bulldozer with regards to execution units sounds true here - FP is less critical than INT. The moment FP is used and used heavily, Intel's scheduler will need to make hard choices. This is simplified but while Zen can do 4 INT and 2 FP instructions (or 4 in case of 2 FMA and 2 FADD) at once, Coffee Lake has to choose whether it does 4 INT, 3 INT+1 FP or 2 INT + 2 FP.



john_ said:


> No, you just think it wrong. If there are extra hardware security fixes in 10900K that are not in 9900K, then 10900K should show some difference compared to 9900K. No one says that hardware security fixes will improve performance, only that software security fixes on the 9900K have a negative impact on performance. If 10900K had hardware security fixes in place of software security fixes, the difference in performance should have been obvious, even without IPC improvements.


If you look at the link, 9900K R0 stepping has everything but TAA and V3a already fixed in hardware. P0 stepping lacks MDS fixes.



phill said:


> I was going to see whether or not anyone picked up on the 2 extra cores etc but I'm not sure why Intel would say we have a massive performance increase....  I mean how dumb??!


Sure they did. John_ even pointed out exactly that.
25% performance increase is the baseline expectation (10 cores is 125% of 8 cores). Some of the tests rely on single/fewer cores resulting in no real performance increase.



john_ said:


> a more modern platform and also a platform that will have at least one more upgrade option, Ryzen 4000.


This is probably the first time the longer-term platform argument is not true with Ryzens. AM4 is expected to get Ryzen 4000 but AMD has not even given hints about what happens after that. They have said AM4 will last to 2020. Intel's sockets have been very predictible - 2 CPU generations per socket. Which in a weird way puts whatever socket 10-series will come out for, on par with AM4 at this point in its life cycle.


----------



## john_ (Jan 2, 2020)

phill said:


> I was going to see whether or not anyone picked up on the 2 extra cores etc but I'm not sure why Intel would say we have a massive performance increase....  I mean how dumb??!
> 
> Still worth a giggle I guess


Intel will throw that 30% in their advertisements and OEMs will also use that 30% in their advertisements. People don't have the time to investigate what that 30% is. And neither we do in everything we buy. Do we really go into technical details when buying a new refrigerator for example? We might know why CPU A is way better than CPU B. But will we go out and invest hours, days, months to learn about refrigerators? We will just do a quick google search, find a review that says that "model A is great" and go out and buy model A. The same will happen with the new Intel CPUs. Some might search for reviews, and some will end up in an Intel friendly review that will be saying them that the new Intel CPU is the best Intel CPU ever for the mainstream platform. The end. Product sold.


----------



## JackCarver (Jan 2, 2020)

> This is probably the first time the longer-term platform argument is not true with Ryzens. AM4 is expected to get Ryzen 4000 but AMD has not even given hints about what happens after that. They have said AM4 will last to 2020.


The next platform will be AM5 in 2021 with DDR5 RAM and Ryzen 5000. So with AM4 there is only one upgrade left, Ryzen 4000.



> It's clear as day which processor is better.


Not in gaming...that's what I said.



> IF you go out and buy a high end Motherboard


You get an Intel high end Mainboard for the same Price as an X570 middle end mainboard


----------



## phill (Jan 2, 2020)

john_ said:


> Intel will throw that 30% in their advertisements and OEMs will also use that 30% in their advertisements. People don't have the time to investigate what that 30% is. And neither we do in everything we buy. Do we really go into technical details when buying a new refrigerator for example? We might know why CPU A is way better than CPU B. But will we go out and invest hours, days, months to learn about refrigerators? We will just do a quick google search, find a review that says that "model A is great" and go out and buy model A. The same will happen with the new Intel CPUs. Some might search for reviews, and some will end up in an Intel friendly review that will be saying them that the new Intel CPU is the best Intel CPU ever for the mainstream platform. The end. Product sold.


I'd like to hope that they can read and see 9900k = 8 cores, 10900k = 10 cores lol   But we'll move on


----------



## john_ (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> Not in gaming...that's what I said.


Yes, even in gaming. With an AMD you lose how much? From 0%-10% in 1080p? Up to 5% in 1440p? Up to 2% in 4K? And those differences with a 2080Ti probably. 

So you go out and buy an Intel processor because reviews show you that the top Intel CPU, under the best cooling solution, on an expensive high end motherboard in a case with plenty of air flow, while paired with an RTX 2080 Ti is 5%-10% on average faster than the 3900X at 1080p? And that's while ignoring power consumption because power consumption is important only when AMD CPUs are less efficient.

What about a typical system with a mid range motherboard, mid range air cooling, probably an RTX 2070S or 5700XT at best, in a case with mediocre air flow running games at 1440p? What is the difference in games there? And can you really see it and feel it in games?



phill said:


> I'd like to hope that they can read and see 9900k = 8 cores, 10900k = 10 cores lol  But we'll move on


Yes they will see it and they will say "10 cores much faster than 8 cores"...... IN EVERYTHING.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

john_ said:


> Yes, even in gaming. With an AMD you lose how much? From 0%-10% in 1080p? Up to 5% in 1440p? Up to 2% in 4K? And those differences with a 2080Ti probably.
> 
> So you go out and buy an Intel processor because reviews show you that the top Intel CPU, under the best cooling solution, on an expensive high end motherboard in a case with plenty of air flow, while paired with an RTX 2080 Ti is 5%-10% on average faster than the 3900X at 1080p? And that's while ignoring power consumption because power consumption is important only when AMD CPUs are less efficient.
> 
> What about a typical system with a mid range motherboard, mid range air cooling, probably an RTX 2070S or 5700XT at best, in a case with mediocre air flow running games at 1440p? What is the difference in games there? And can you really see it and feel it in games?


In the other camp you can also go and buy 9400F for 150€$. If Intel puts 10400(F) price (now with HT) at the same spot, AMD has a problem.

AMD power consumption wins are at 8 cores or more. 6-core CPUs are not doing too well. There is a baseline higher power consumption of +10W (compared to both Intel's 9000 series and Ryzen 2000 series) and scaling kind of helps but not completely. If I remember correctly in TPU CPU reviews, 8700K puts up hell of a fight to 3600/3600X that includes power consumption/efficiency. It is worth noting here that 8700K does indeed have all the software mitigation problems right now.


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> The next platform will be AM5 in 2021 with DDR5 RAM and Ryzen 5000. So with AM4 there is only one upgrade left, Ryzen 4000.


Still better than Intel with 0 upgrade path on worst overall platform.



JackCarver said:


> You get an Intel high end Mainboard for the same Price as an X570 middle end mainboard


With 0 upgrade path, power hungry CPUs that need professional cooling, a whole list of security holes, and just 10% gaming benefits with a 2080Ti and loosing up to 50% in everything else...

Intel is just struggling right and (and regurgitate same things, from struggling?) and we as users hope to get it together and show some real competition soon.


----------



## john_ (Jan 2, 2020)

londiste said:


> In the other camp you can also go and buy 9400F for 150€$. If Intel puts 10400(F) price (now with HT) at the same spot, AMD has a problem.
> 
> AMD power consumption wins are at 8 cores or more. 6-core CPUs are not doing too well. There is a baseline higher power consumption of +10W (compared to both Intel's 9000 series and Ryzen 2000 series) and scaling kind of helps but not completely. If I remember correctly in TPU CPU reviews, 8700K puts up hell of a fight to 3600/3600X that includes power consumption/efficiency. It is worth noting here that 8700K does indeed have all the software mitigation problems right now.



I understand your point but I am feeling you are doing a common mistake. You search for one example, let's say the 10400(F) and then try to come to a general conclusion based on that one example.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Still better than Intel with 0 upgrade path on worst overall platform.


Intel's socket history on desktop is quite predictible. A socket houses 2 generations of CPUs and lasts about 2 years.
2011-2012: s1155 - Sandy Bridge (2000) and Ivy Bridge (3000)
2013-2014: s1150 - Haswell (4000) and Broadwell (5000)
2015-2017: s1151 - Skylake (6000) and Kaby Lake (7000)
2018-2019: s1151v2 - Coffee Lake (8000) and Coffee Lake refresh (9000)


john_ said:


> I understand your point but I am feeling you are doing a common mistake. You search for one example, let's say the 10400(F) and then try to come to a general conclusion based on that one example.


We have no price reference other than 9000 series for now. Intel is probably screwed in 8-10 core space primarily due to power issues but 6-core CPUs are competitively in a pretty nice position if priced correctly. 9400F is simply put the best bang-for-buck gaming CPU today, there is no contest. What it lacks is futureproofing both due to lack of HT and platform. 10400F can change both of these. 9600K is currently at ~220€ with the same problems. Again, 10600K can get HT and competitive enough platform and should perform close enough to 3600/3600X in production while being faster in games.

We enthusiasts like our powerful CPUs but majority of the people do not need or want an expensive CPU. Today, the best bang-for-buck CPU - in new prices, not accounting for the EOL sales of Ryzen 2000 series - is Ryzen 5 3600. This is all about the 200+-50€ price range that has been midrange for a long time and sells a lot. A few years back Intel got a lot or criticism for 300€ i7 CPUs and much more justified criticism about the 500€ 9900K. The market has not changed but our perception of it has, making new price points seem normal. This really is not normal for a layperson who wants a good enough or bang-for-buck computer.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 2, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> And AMD is using better glue?  What is your point here?  This is just as valid a criticism as Intel calling Ryzen "glued together."


AMD has does multiple iterations of their glue and it's working out pretty well at this point. Cooper Lake "MCM" is just a modern day Pentium D.


----------



## Midiamp (Jan 2, 2020)

Intel i3-9100F and i5-9400F have been keeping their ship afloat in my country. Aggressively priced and got performance to match, not so much on the i7 and the i9 end. 

Not so sure about that 30% performance increase will come for free, especially with that 250 watt max TDP. I'm not into watercooling of any kind, and I already consider my 3700X as hot.

Still, I bought the AMD because I believe Intel needs a competition. I'm in the position now hoping that Intel will clean up their mess and be the leader in computing solution once again... Because AMD now have the capability to match it, which in the end, we as the consumer will win with the available solutions.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Jan 2, 2020)

Is that with or without the security fixes?


----------



## JackCarver (Jan 2, 2020)

> And can you really see it and feel it in games?


That's nature of Benchmarks, isn't it? Can you feel the few ms a Ryzen 3900X compresses a file faster than an Intel 9900K?

You can look at the 3900X Review, it got beaten over all games relative Performance by my old 8700K. But when it comes to pricing a german Hardware dealer asks the following Prices:

- Ryzen 3700X 325,90€/Intel i7 9700K 379,90€
- Asrock Taichi X570 305,90€/Asrock Z390 Taichi 232,45€

The Ryzen System costs you 631,80€/The Intel System costs you 612,35€
So the Intel System is cheaper and it beats the Ryzen System in games by nearly 10%. So if your System is a gaming rig, what would you choose?



> With 0 upgrade path, power hungry CPUs that need professional cooling, a whole list of security holes, and just 10% gaming benefits with a 2080Ti and loosing up to 50% in everything else...


You can cool it with a good air cooler or an AiO, no custom Loop or similar necessary here. 10% gaming benefit over all cards


----------



## Zach_01 (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> - Ryzen 3700X 325,90€/Intel i7 9700K 379,90€
> - Asrock Taichi X570 305,90€/Asrock Z390 Taichi 232,45€
> 
> The Ryzen System costs you 631,80€/The Intel System costs you 612,35€
> So the Intel System is cheaper and it beats the Ryzen System in games by nearly 10%. So if your System is a gaming rig, what would you choose?


Buy the 3600/3600X, save a 100€, have about the same gaming performance or use the 100€ for better GPU and send that Intel 9700K home...

It’s really that simple!


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> That's nature of Benchmarks, isn't it? Can you feel the few ms a Ryzen 3900X compresses a file faster than an Intel 9900K?


And can you feel the few frames of difference Intel has vs AMD in games assuming you are using the same GPU?
When it comes to compression and especially decompression Ryzen beats Intel by a lot. The bigger the archive being decompressed for example the bigger the difference. Few ms is far from true.


JackCarver said:


> You can look at the 3900X Review, it got beaten over all games relative Performance by my old 8700K.


For gaming 3600 is good enough and pretty much as fast as 8700K.


JackCarver said:


> The Ryzen System costs you 631,80€/The Intel System costs you 612,35€
> So the Intel System is cheaper and it beats the Ryzen System in games by nearly 10%. So if your System is a gaming rig, what would you choose?


You forget to factor in a cooling solution for the Intel system. Ryzen already includes a cooler. Include even a 20€ budget cooler and you have price parity with X570 being a more modern platform. Plus thanks to not limiting compatibility to one chipset it's possible to get B450 for less 1/3rd the price of X570 if the user does not need PCIe 4.0 and put that saving toward a class higher GPU instead.

So which one would i buy if i had to?

9700K+Z390+Cooler+ let's say 1660S.
Or 3700X+B450+5700.
or even 3600+B450+2070S

Assuming the price will be the same the AMD system will be faster thanks to a faster GPU.
People argue over how much a CPU affect framerates. Guys - a GPU is still the #1 when it comes to gaming.
So if AMD offers good enough performance at significantly lower prices that allows the user to get a faster GPU.

9700K and 9900K make sense only if you already have the fastest card and want those few extra frames at the top end.
For most users AMD makes tons more sense.

Besides would you buy Ryzen - a CPU that is faster at everything except gaming (losing 5-20% in edge cases in 1080p with 2080Ti) or would you buy Intel - a CPU that is great only at gaming (losing 20-100% in everything else that needs cores).

To me the choice is clear - AMD. A more user friendly platform with upgrade options that excels at nearly everything instead of being great at only one thing.


----------



## hat (Jan 2, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> And AMD is using better glue?  What is your point here?  This is just as valid a criticism as Intel calling Ryzen "glued together."


Maybe Infinity Fabric is better glue than whatever Intel does when more than one die is present on the same substrate? Just speculating on this one. Infinity Fabric is baked in to the core Zen design... even on single CCX chips, it still gets used for the cores to communicate with the separate chipset portion of the processor. Intel puts everything on a single piece of silicon so you don't need an interconnect system... until you make a chip with multiple dies. Their system for this, I'm assuming, is largely inferior to AMD's implementation because until very recently nobody was buying processors with heaps of cores unless they were in the server space, where latency and per thread performance wasn't as important as having a ton of cores. Thanks to AMD, the core wars have now truly begun, as well as looking for the most performance per core we can get... at least outside of the server space. AMD started this war, so they have a leg up at the moment. It's going to be interesting to see what Intel comes up with once they get out of the lake, and it will be equally as interesting to see what AMD has at that time. 

Intel is really in a sad state at the moment. Their 10nm issues are truly unfortunate, I'll give them that, but it seems clear to me they got too comfortable with their lead over AMD when I think about how many iterations of Skylake we've seen at this point. The Zen architecture, and the growing list of *lake security flaws have been around for a while now... and so far we've been shown nothing more than more *lake chips. I don't think they had any plans to move on from *lake any time soon...


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

There are two somewhat different implementations of IF in Zen, one inside the CPU between CCXs is different from the one used between dies. IF in the implementation it is used between dies in Zen CPUs it seems to be roughly on par with UPI.

Intel's counterpart to IF is UPI. By the way, both are used in pretty much the same way in multi-socket/CPU systems. There is a reason EPYCs top out at 2 socket configurations and while marketing says this is market optimization and best most optimal section of the market, the actual reason is purely technical - with the amount of dies EPYCs use there are not enough to facilitate the links between separate CPUs in optimal manner.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

IF is more universal,AMD are using them to connect same,functional dies.
what Intel is developing with their EIMB is different,separate modules working together as one cpu.


----------



## KarymidoN (Jan 2, 2020)

Hmmm lemme guess. up to 30%, but didn't you guys add 2 extra cores (4t)? and this new plataform needs a new mobo, and after that theres no upgrade path? so new cpu in the future, new mobo in the future right? yeah, no  thanks mate.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> IF is more universal,AMD are using them to connect same,functional dies.
> what Intel is developing with their EIMB is different,separate modules working together as one cpu.


You are confusing different things. 
- IF and UPI are interconnects, basically a logical/electrical specification of the connection. Whether IF is more universal has little bearing in this context.
- EMIB is a physical, packaging solution. using a silicon substrate isntead of PCB traces for connecting two dies which has multiple advantages, primarily concerning power and speed. EMIB is in the middle of tracing over PCB and having a full interposer.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> Hmmm lemme guess. up to 30%, but didn't you guys add 2 extra cores (4t)? and this new plataform needs a new mobo, and after that theres no upgrade path? so new cpu in the future, new mobo in the future right? yeah, no  thanks mate.


same number of upgrades as ryzen 3000 owners at this point.
and same type too.tweaked 14nm vs tweaked 7nm.
more for amd to squeeze out from 7nm+ than for Intel to gain from another 14nm revision,same as a better IMC on ryzen 4000 would benefit IF speeds.
Still,the path is mostly the same.



londiste said:


> You are confusing different things.
> - IF and UPI are interconnects, basically a logical/electrical specification of the connection. Whether IF is more universal has little bearing in this context.
> - EMIB is a physical, packaging solution. using a silicon substrate isntead of PCB traces for connecting two dies which has multiple advantages, primarily concerning power and speed. EMIB is in the middle of tracing over PCB and having a full interposer.


was that developed for core+vega apus only ? seems wasteful.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> was that developed for core+vega apus only ? seems wasteful.


No. Remember that this is a packaging thing. You can use it to route any traces or connection over it. For example, AMD could route IF over EMIB faster and more power efficiently than current CPU packaging. TSMC is developing similar solutions so that might/will come to pass at one point.

It is likely that APUs with Vega were a kind of mass-production test of sorts. In these APUS, EMIB was used for GPU-HBM connection, meaning connecting the very wide memory bus from GPU to HBM without having a full interposer.


----------



## Bones (Jan 2, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> And AMD is using better glue?  What is your point here?  This is just as valid a criticism as Intel calling Ryzen "glued together."



AMD is using this glue to make good processors.
Intel is just sniffing it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2020)

W00t, more cores? lol



XL-R8R said:


> Intel do have some funny press announcements recently.


You think only intel markets that way?


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 2, 2020)

londiste said:


> There are two somewhat different implementations of IF in Zen, one inside the CPU between CCXs is different from the one used between dies. IF in the implementation it is used between dies in Zen CPUs it seems to be roughly on par with UPI.
> 
> Intel's counterpart to IF is UPI. By the way, both are used in pretty much the same way in multi-socket/CPU systems. There is a reason EPYCs top out at 2 socket configurations and while marketing says this is market optimization and best most optimal section of the market, the actual reason is purely technical - with the amount of dies EPYCs use there are not enough to facilitate the links between separate CPUs in optimal manner.


Based on what i found UPI tops out at ~30GB/s (3 links per CPU) where as IF is quoted to much more scaleable between 30-250GB/s. Intel prefers to do as much as possible in silicon and use UPI only when needed where as IF is used much more.

The reason why EPYC tops out at 2S is TCO. Since a single EPYC CPU can replace a 4S Intel system (typically a 2S system, and still cost less) there is little incentive to go to 4S systems due to cost and complexity reasons.

So no i don't see any scalability issues with IF. If Intel were more competetive in server space i have no doubt AMD would push 4S systems.
But any of this is way beyond the current topic. We are talking abount mainstream enthusiast CPU's here. The fact that Intel might have some benefit in some rare server scenario has little bearing on mainstream.


----------



## heflys20 (Jan 2, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> It has less latency which is better for gaming yes.  But it is actaully worse in ST IPC.


I stopped taking him seriously long ago. just Lol when he post...Anyway, I would hope it would be 25%-30% faster, since it possesses two more cores. I think I'll just get a 3700x to replace my 4670k and call it a day.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> Based on what i found UPI tops out at ~30GB/s (3 links per CPU) where as IF is quoted to much more scaleable between 30-250GB/s. Intel prefers to do as much as possible in silicon and use UPI only when needed where as IF is used much more.


There are some advantages and disadvantages to both interconnects but overall they are pretty close to parity.
- Current UPI is 41.6GB/s bi-directional.
- IF as implemented in Zen/Zen+ was 38GB/s bi-directional at 1333MHz memory clock (so, usually a bit more than that). Zen2 upped it a bit but I'd have to look up how much.


Tomorrow said:


> The reason why EPYC tops out at 2S is TCO. Since a single EPYC CPU can replace a 4S Intel system (typically a 2S system, and still cost less) there is little incentive to go to 4S systems due to cost and complexity reasons.


Not sure about Zen2 EPYCs but in case of Zen/Zen+ EPYCs the reason it tops out at 2S is 4 IF links per die.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> same number of upgrades as ryzen 3000 owners at this point.
> and same type too.tweaked 14nm vs tweaked 7nm.
> more for amd to squeeze out from 7nm+ than for Intel to gain from another 14nm revision,same as a better IMC on ryzen 4000 would benefit IF speeds.
> Still,the path is mostly the same.
> ...


You can't just say Ryzen 3000 owners as AM4 has been around for a few years now and alot of those users are still on Ryzen 1000

So for those they have the option of upgrading to Zen+, Zen 2, and Zen 3 without the need of having to change anything but the BIOs

Hell i went from Ryzen 1000 to Ryzen 3000 and still have the option of Ryzen 4000 once it launches. I say that's a win win considering I've had my board now close to 3 years


----------



## Bjørgersson (Jan 2, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Intel should of added on four more cores for at least twelve cores instead of a measly two core bump.
> 
> Intel already looks be in second place compared to AMD's twelve, and sixteen core chips.


*should have


----------



## B-Real (Jan 2, 2020)

fancucker said:


> Cooper-Lake will arrive MCM with 48/56 cores H2 2020. As for this, Skylake at two nodes behind still manages to have greater ST than AMD's tweaked Ryzen. Zen 3 will arrive to find backported Willow Cove on 14nm++ or 10nm/7nm, Zen 4 will probably be the first to equal WC clock-for-clock in IPC. So Intel has winning cards in all battles here.


"So Intel has winning cards in all battles here."

Absolutely! That's why AMD is outselling Intel CPUs in nearly every market by 70/80% to 20/30%.  So bad troll you are.



cucker tarlson said:


> I think they're slightly ahead,though for single thread gaming intel still beats them due to lower latency of the ring design and clocks.
> 
> This looks like same old same old core,only 10th gen locked skus will match 9th gen k-series on stock clocks and there's HT on every cpu + a 10 core.
> 
> will probably end up really competitive against ryzen 3000/4000,imagine stock 9900k rivalling 3700x/3800x not 3900x,but intel has no new core design still.


Yes, beats Ryzen in gaming by 4-5% when you pair it with a $1100 2080Ti and test it on FHD.  Which is not a real life situation. When you move to 1440p with a 2080Ti, difference is 2-3%. When you switch to lower tier GPUs, difference is near 0 on FHD.


----------



## ZeroFM (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> That's nature of Benchmarks, isn't it? Can you feel the few ms a Ryzen 3900X compresses a file faster than an Intel 9900K?
> 
> You can look at the 3900X Review, it got beaten over all games relative Performance by my old 8700K. But when it comes to pricing a german Hardware dealer asks the following Prices:
> 
> ...


Okey budged 900$ cpu , mb , gpu
*9700K 426€ + asus strix h370-f 137.20€ + cooler 212 evo 30€ + gigabyte 1650 super 189.39€ = 782.59€ / 874.51$
2700 160.19€ + strix b450-f 119.69€ + sapphire pulse 5700xt 447€ = 726.88€ / 812.25$*
In most games 5700xt is at least 80%+ faster , wolfenstein 2 1440p is 160% faster .
For gaming and is only choice .


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

B-Real said:


> AMD is outselling Intel CPUs in nearly every market by 70/80% to 20/30%.


proof ?

 So bad troll you are.


----------



## B-Real (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> There is no clear answer which cpu is better, Intel or AMD. Before Ryzen the answer was clear Intel but now it depends on use case. For gamer I think Intel is the best choice and 10c/20t are more than enough for this use case. For Productivity I would choose AMD.


It isn't clear?  Gaming performance is equal. If you want to use your 2080 Ti on a 1080p monitor, yes, you get 4-5% better fps on average on Intel. On the "other" part, AMD has reached Intel in IPC. Not to speak about programs that make use of the cores.



cucker tarlson said:


> proof ?
> 
> So bad troll you are.











						New Retail Data Shows AMD CPUs Outselling Intel 2:1 - ExtremeTech
					

Good news for AMD. Sales of the company's CPUs have spiked at retail, possibly pointing towards a bright Christmas for the company.




					www.extremetech.com
				











						AMD Outselling Intel By More Than Double - Analyzing 5-Year Historical Sales At Mindfactory.de
					

The tech enthusiasts have had their eyes on AMD ever since the first leaks about its upcoming Zen architecture began to leak out - but this is one of the first times that a large online retailer has given us a breakdown of historical sales figures by architectures - proving a conjecture many of...




					wccftech.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is such a hit it almost outsold Intel’s entire CPU range
					

Ryzen sales have reached startling heights – and Intel should be worried




					www.techradar.com
				











						Japanese DIY Market Goes Big on Ryzen: 68.6% Market Share for AMD
					

The Japanese DIY PC market has developed a strong appetite for AMD Ryzen processors, with PC Watch reporting sales data aggregated by BCN across leading retailers. In the DIY space, AMD processors now hold a monstrous 68.6 percent market share. Data was collected from Amazon Japan, Bic Camera...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Gamersnexus made a survey, where 85 or 90% of its users bought Ryzen.


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> proof ?


Germany, Japan and South Korea have been in the news for Ryzen significantly outselling Intel.  Individually Gamers Nexus say most of their audience now buys Ryzen.
There's little reason to doubt other markets do not have the same trends.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Yes, beats Ryzen in gaming by 4-5% when you pair it with a $1100 2080Ti and test it on FHD.  Which is not a real life situation. When you move to 1440p with a 2080Ti, difference is 2-3%. When you switch to lower tier GPUs, difference is near 0 on FHD.


15-20% between 9900k and 3900x in gaming








						Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! (strona 51) Test procesorów AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9-9900K, czyli najszybszych modeli mainstream'owych.




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! (strona 43) Test procesorów AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9-9900K, czyli najszybszych modeli mainstream'owych.




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! (strona 44) Test procesorów AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9-9900K, czyli najszybszych modeli mainstream'owych.




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Jeszcze wincyj rdzyniuf! (strona 46) Test procesorów AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9-9900K, czyli najszybszych modeli mainstream'owych.




					www.purepc.pl
				




also,how 1440p is a test for CPU's performance to guys like you I still can't understand.
framerates are framerates,if it takes 2080Ti to show the difference then after ampere/rdna2 enter the market that's gonna be a $500-600 card,what a vast portion of this forum is running.2080 super after OC is already close to 2080Ti.



Tomorrow said:


> Germany, Japan and South Korea have been in the news for Ryzen significantly outselling Intel.  Individually Gamers Nexus say most of their audience now buys Ryzen.
> There's little reason to doubt other markets do not have the same trends.


I take your and B-real's point,but your data is anecdotal.That's not Germany,that's minfactory.If you analyzed their prices for amd and intel you'd see why.


----------



## trparky (Jan 2, 2020)

I'm really surprised nobody is talking about the 250 Watt TDP value that Intel is saying the chip will have when hitting all-core boost speeds. On one hand, I'm glad that Intel is finally advertising something that comes close to real-world TDP values; but on the other hand, it's showing just how inefficient their chips really are and just how badly they need to get off the aging 14nm process node. Too bad Intel doesn't have an answer to that issue until sometime in 2023 if you ask some people.

In other words, get ready for some really hot running chips from here on out from Intel until they can somehow fix their smaller process nodes. Good luck people. Meanwhile, I'm really looking more and more at AMD as the winner for the next few years.


----------



## B-Real (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> That's nature of Benchmarks, isn't it? Can you feel the few ms a Ryzen 3900X compresses a file faster than an Intel 9900K?
> 
> You can look at the 3900X Review, it got beaten over all games relative Performance by my old 8700K. But when it comes to pricing a german Hardware dealer asks the following Prices:
> 
> ...


Why are you counting an X570 when an X470 or B450 is absolutely enough for a 3700X? Or why are you checking the same model? Cheapest X570 is $140, cheapest Z390 is $115. That's a $25 difference. Yours is $73. Of course it sounds better for you, Intel fanboy.

Where did your 8700K beat the 3700X by nearly 10% in games? It's 4% with a 2080Ti in FHD. Is lying lucrative for you?



			https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png
		


"You can cool it with a good air cooler or an AiO"

Hope you counted its price when comparing prices.  



cucker tarlson said:


> 15-20% between 9900k and 3900x in gaming
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. So it takes a $1100 card to show that Intel has a 4-5% advantage in gaming. A card that is never used in FHD, but 1440P or more likely in 4K, where you nearly won't get measurable difference. Anyway, how do you see a 4-5% difference in real life? 

2. You believe a Polish site but you won't to Techpowerup?  https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png And you link one result but won't link something like Watch Dogs 2, where the difference is 4%? Or Civilization VI where Ryzen beats Intel? 

3. "That's not Germany,that's minfactory" Mindfactory is Germany's BIGGEST retailer. Also, there is the link from Japanese retailers. You can believe what you want, I don't really care. I care for the numbers that are shown for current sales. Check Techpowerup's survey for future CPU purchases and current CPU owners. For the former, the majority is willing to buy Ryzen, for the latter, about 40% of them have CPUs of Haswell or older models (myself too). Most of these owners will switch to AMD in some years.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Where did your 8700K beat the 3700X by nearly 10% in games? It's 4% with a 2080Ti in FHD. Is lying lucrative for you?


7-15% is a correct estimate









						Test AMD Ryzen 7 3800X. Najszybsze osiem rdzeni na rynku
					

Testujemy procesor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, bazujący na nowej architekturze Zen 2. Sprawdź wyniki testu i zobacz, jak radzi sobie w praktyce.




					ithardware.pl
				










it's 12% faster than 3800x OC,on 1080ti

for a guy with that nickname you surely talk surprisingly little facts and surprisingly lot propaganda




B-Real said:


> So it takes a $1100 card to show that Intel has a 4-5% advantage in gaming. A card that is never used in FHD, but 1440P or more likely in 4K, where you nearly won't get measurable difference. Anyway, how do you see a 4-5% difference in real life?



this is how measuring performance works.
you think all other tests,e.g. video or rendering,are setup differently cause that way they favor amd ?
fhd at ultra runs same or worse than 1440p on custom high/v.high settings
it's the numbers the tests focuses on,not resolutions.


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> 15-20% between 9900k and 3900x in gaming
> 
> 
> 
> ...


15-20% edge cases. Not the norm:




Source:


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> 15-20% edge cases. Not the norm:
> View attachment 141075
> 
> Source:


certainly not the norm.
but then again,9900k is not for normal people,is it 

btw their numbers are BS,like 1% in witcher 3.easy to find videos disproving it.they're testing 3600 cl14 too.
but then they're a youtube channel,they will pander to whoever prevails in their comment section.just the way it has to be.


----------



## trparky (Jan 2, 2020)

Yes, Intel will indeed beat AMD in gaming when you pair each of their high-end chips with the best nVidia GPU that can be had (RTX 2080Ti). However, can I ask a really stupid question? Outside of benchmarks and people who just have more money than they know what to do with... Who really builds a system like that? Most of us mere mortals don't, we're lucky we're going to be pairing these chips with something closer to that of an RTX 2060 or something that's far more affordable than that.

With that being said... if you pair an Intel or AMD chip with a more affordable GPU then the performance gap starts to not look as big. Some might say that it's hardly noticeable at that point.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

trparky said:


> Yes, Intel will indeed beat AMD in gaming when you pair each of their high-end chips with the best nVidia GPU that can be had (RTX 2080Ti). However, can I ask a really stupid question? Outside of benchmarks and people who just have more money than they know what to do with... Who really builds a system like that? Most of us mere mortals don't, we're lucky we're going to be pairing these chips with something closer to that of an RTX 2060 or something that's far more affordable than that.
> 
> With that being said... if you pair an Intel or AMD chip with a more affordable GPU then the performance gap starts to not look as big. Some might say that it's hardly noticeable at that point.


the "floor" on current cpu gaming performace is good enough to buy a 3500x/9400f and easily pair it with a 2080 for pleasurable +70-80 fps experience with everything cranked up at 1440p
with 4c/8t i3s running +4GHz on locked skus it's gonna get even better.

people who buy 9900k's for that extra 10-20% are just like those who buy 3900x over 3700x to save seconds on rendering.cause they can.

noticeable - yes,easily.
the real question is *necessary*,not noticeable.


----------



## trparky (Jan 2, 2020)

The point I'm driving at is the fact that when you ask most benchmarkers they refer to the fact that they use the RTX2080Ti graphics card to eliminate all possible forms of GPU-bound performance limitations. However, when you pair any one of these chips that's we're talking about with more affordable graphics cards you start bumping up against situations in which you're no longer limited by the CPU but instead by the GPU.

For instance, if I were to build two systems with my GPU which is an older GTX1060 6 GB card. One system with the best Intel offers and one with the best AMD offers. Would you be able to tell the difference? Probably not even close.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

trparky said:


> The point I'm driving at is the fact that when you ask most benchmarkers they refer to the fact that they use the RTX2080Ti graphics card to eliminate all possible forms of GPU-bound performance limitations. However, when you pair any one of these chips that's we're talking about with more affordable graphics cards you start bumping up against situations in which you're no longer limited by the CPU but instead by the GPU.


it's the testing location that matters just as much imo,not just the card.
it all depends on what your upgrade path is,too.
I went from 980Ti to 2070 super on my current z97.that's 1.6x on average.If your way is to keep the gpu for longer you may look at it from another perspective.BTW it's an interesting topic to ask ppl ion a poll.how much has your gpu performance increased on your current platform (socket) and did you have to upgrade the cpu in the process too.


----------



## SrKag (Jan 2, 2020)

View this on Intel's self boosting marketing. Y'all are falling in the same pit again.


----------



## trparky (Jan 2, 2020)

I guess that the point I'm driving at is that 95% of users out there with modest hardware configurations aren't going to be able to tell the difference between AMD and Intel other than having about $200 more in the bank when buying AMD. It's only the top 5% of users that just have to have the best GPU that money can buy that will be able to tell the difference.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Benchmarks are nice and all, yes; I'm not denying that at all. It's cool to be looking at these numbers but in reality, they only really matter to 5% of the market that just must have the best of the best of the best just to say that they have it.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

trparky said:


> I guess that the point I'm driving at is that 95% of users out there with modest hardware configurations aren't going to be able to tell the difference between AMD and Intel other than *having about $200 more in the bank when buying AMD. *


sorry,but which Intel equivalent costs $200 more than amd's option ?

9600k(f) is priced between 3600 and 3600x
9700k(f) is priced between 3700x and 3800x


of course you buy what you need,but that does not change the facts.
most of us would not notice 3600 vs 3700x in video creation nor gaming too.and you're paying a 60% premium.so yeah,saving ..... the more cores,the more saved.


----------



## trparky (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> sorry,but which Intel equivalent costs $200 more than amd's option ?


Well with AMD you get a cooler as part of the deal, with Intel you need to buy one. A good high-end CPU cooler is going to be expensive.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

trparky said:


> Well with AMD you get a cooler as part of the deal, with Intel you need to buy one. A good high-end CPU cooler is going to be expensive.


does amd provide a high-end cooler ?  the cooler on 3700x/3900x is adequate for 3600 only.71 degrees at 46dba.acceptable,not great.
with intel you're getting an iGPU too.


----------



## JackCarver (Jan 2, 2020)

> Why are you counting an X570 when an X470 or B450 is absolutely enough for a 3700X? Or why are you checking the same model? Cheapest X570 is $140, cheapest Z390 is $115. That's a $25 difference. Yours is $73. Of course it sounds better for you, Intel fanboy.



You call me a fanboy...don‘t want to know how many AMD Fanboys are writing here...
You have to compare same models that you can compare the prices fair. A comparison between two different boards would not be very meaningful. But sure you can compare the cheapest X570 with the cheapest Z390, but if VRM/Layout/Quality is not the same then it‘s useless. I chose the Taichi because it‘s Z390/X570 quality should be approximately equal.



> Where did your 8700K beat the 3700X by nearly 10% in games? It's 4% with a 2080Ti in FHD. Is lying lucrative for you?



I didn‘t say anything like that. What I wanted to say is that the i7 9700K beats the Ryzen 3700X in 720p nearly by10%.
Yes in 1080p it‘s less and in 4K even more less but CPU benchmarking is best done in 720p. They only use a RTX 2080 Ti that GPU is not the bottleneck and the higher the Resolution gets the minor is the difference in FPS. But in 720p with an RTX 2080 Ti, where GPU isn‘t a bottleneck at all you see the CPU gaming performance best.
And by the way GamersNexus came to the similar result that if you use your rig mostly for gaming then go with i7 9700k









Watch at 23:40...


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2020)

B-Real said:


> It isn't clear?  Gaming performance is equal. If you want to use your 2080 Ti on a 1080p monitor, yes, you get 4-5% better fps on average on Intel. On the "other" part, AMD has reached Intel in IPC. Not to speak about programs that make use of the cores.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I recall GN jesus saying 75% of his pollesters were still using four core CPUs in one of his latest videos...


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> You call me a fanboy...don‘t want to know how many AMD Fanboys are writing here...
> You have to compare same models that you can compare the prices fair. A comparison between two different boards would not be very meaningful. But sure you can compare the cheapest X570 with the cheapest Z390, but if VRM/Layout/Quality is not the same then it‘s useless. I chose the Taichi because it‘s Z390/X570 quality should be approximately equal.
> 
> 
> ...


GN also recommended R5 3600 overall instead of i5's or even 9700K. They said as much in their latest 4790K revisit about 9700K.
Also 720p testing. That's meaningless. Almost none of the bigger benchmarking outlets do 720p testing. You are creating an artificial bottleneck and basing your decision to go Intel years down the track on those results that do not represent real world. Good luck with that.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> GN also recommended R5 3600 overall instead of i5's or even 9700K. They said as much in their latest 4790K revisit about 9700K.
> Also 720p testing. That's meaningless. Almost none of the bigger benchmarking outlets do 720p testing. You are creating an artificial bottleneck and basing your decision to go Intel years down the track on those results that do not represent real world. Good luck with that.



...I recall him saying the 3600 as the best budget and 9700k as a pure gaming CPU(and avoiding the 3700x and 3800x) in that video and the 6700k video

Note: I personally find the 3700x and 3800x as great CPUs but I also don't have long curls going down to my back


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

imo the hierarchy goes

9400f/3500x
3600
(.............) ->>>> need a cpu to fill asap.3700x is not fast enough to justify the premium over 3600.not for gaming.not for anything.
9700k

9900k and 3800x are the worst value per dollar,3800x for gaming (matched by 9600k),9900k for workstation (matched by 3700x,bulldozed by 3900x)


----------



## mainlate (Jan 2, 2020)

AMD has compatibility problems with expansions cards, excluding graphics cards. The older the card, the more hit or miss it is to get it work, if it works at all. Second is software compatibility, for ex.cracked games, especially those that are cracked before Ryzen was in market. But still even nowadays playing cracked games is one area where Intel is still superior, this is a bit group specific though, CPY/CODEX are usually fine, RELOADED/SKIDROW not that much and so on. But if AMD reaches 40-50% desktop CPU market share, this issue gets solved by itself on its own weight.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

mainlate said:


> AMD has compatibility problems with expansions cards, excluding graphics cards. The older the card, the more hit or miss it is to get it work, if it works at all.


no.......


----------



## SrKag (Jan 2, 2020)

Too Much Noise
					

More than just hearing damage, studies have shown the harmful effects of noise in the workplace on things like creativity, concentration, and communication.




					www.steelcase.com
				




Average office noise 60 - 65 db and a quite room is 23 to 30 db ,  your noise point is??


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> imo the hierarchy goes
> 
> 9400f/3500x
> 3600
> ...



At their current street prices, who knows the 3800x could be $100 cheaper this time next year (so can the 3700x, 3600, etc.,).   I would place the 8700k stock in that gap and its still a damn good gaming CPU for high refresh systems


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

dirtyferret said:


> At their current street prices, who knows the 3800x could be $100 cheaper this time next year (so can the 3700x, 3600, etc.,).   I would place the 8700k stock in that gap and its still a damn good gaming CPU for high refresh systems


absolutely.
used 8700k fills that price gap nicely.
I knda regret not getting one.If I did it'd last me till zen 5nm on ddr5 comes.
may still happen.


----------



## heflys20 (Jan 2, 2020)

trparky said:


> 9400f/3500x
> 3600
> (.............) ->>>> need a cpu to fill asap.3700x is not fast enough to justify the premium over 3600.not for gaming.not for anything.
> 9700k



Are you saying the 9700k is a good buy in the upper price bracket? Over here it's $400 compared to the $329 3700x and the $200 3600, and that's before you factor in having to buy a cooler.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

heflys20 said:


> Are you saying the 9700k is a good buy in the upper price bracket? Over here it's $400 compared to the $329 3700x and the $200 3600, and that's before you factor in having to buy a cooler.


at least it's a decent performance uplift from 3600,and doesn't cost as much as 9900k while it performs almost the same.there's no alternative,that's why it gets a mention.
like I said,a used 8700k would be much better from a value standpoint.


----------



## JackCarver (Jan 2, 2020)

Have one 8700k, got very hot at first but after delidding temps are very nice. At time it runs with 4.9 AllCore Turbo


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2020)

heflys20 said:


> Are you saying the 9700k is a good buy in the upper price bracket? Over here it's $400 compared to the $329 3700x and the $200 3600, and that's before you factor in having to buy a cooler.



Not for $400 but I got my 9700k for under $300 and at microcenter you can get the 9700k for less then $329 and the 8700k for under $300.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

dirtyferret said:


> Not for $400 but I got my 9700k for under $300 and at microcenter you can get the 9700k for less then $329 and the 8700k for under $300.


that's not how it looks like in general.
you do pay a premium for 9700k over 3700x usually.
it's about the same as 3800x.


----------



## heflys20 (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> a used 8700k would be much better from a value standpoint.



I definitely agree. 



dirtyferret said:


> Not for $400 but I got my 9700k for under $300 and at microcenter you can get the 9700k for less then $329 and the 8700k for under $300.



Hmm...My microcenter is charging $370. With the cooler, it'll likely be bumped to $400+. Must have been a holiday sale. The were selling the 3700x for like $280-290 at one point, too.


----------



## candle_86 (Jan 2, 2020)

mainlate said:


> AMD has compatibility problems with expansions cards, excluding graphics cards. The older the card, the more hit or miss it is to get it work, if it works at all. Second is software compatibility, for ex.cracked games, especially those that are cracked before Ryzen was in market. But still even nowadays playing cracked games is one area where Intel is still superior, this is a bit group specific though, CPY/CODEX are usually fine, RELOADED/SKIDROW not that much and so on. But if AMD reaches 40-50% desktop CPU market share, this issue gets solved by itself on its own weight.



Well shoot, my sound blaster audigy 2 works fine, my pcie via ide controller works fine, so does my pcie legacy I/o card. What compatability issue?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 2, 2020)

candle_86 said:


> Well shoot, my sound blaster audigy 2 works fine, my pcie via ide controller works fine, so does my pcie legacy I/o card. What compatability issue?


Sounds like the guys doesn't know how to install drivers


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

if that was true,it'd be:
1.widely covered by tech media
2.seen on tpu threads
3.addressed by amd


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 2, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> if that was true,it'd be:
> 1.widely covered by tech media
> 2.seen on tpu threads
> 3.addressed by amd


Not to mention he's playing cracked aka pirated games which is a huge red flag


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2020)

Durvelle27 said:


> No to mention he's playing cracked aka pirated games which is a huge red flag


absolutely.


----------



## candle_86 (Jan 2, 2020)

The only incombatability I could imagine would be software from the late 90s or early 2000s that read the cpuid and then require 3d now, but we are talking about what 2-3 programs


----------



## Renald (Jan 2, 2020)

> Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors



What a joke.


----------



## HugsNotDrugs (Jan 2, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Intel should have added on four more cores for at least twelve cores instead of a measly two core bump.
> 
> Intel already looks be in second place compared to AMD's twelve, and sixteen core chips.



It's very costly to expand the size of an already-large monolithic die.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 2, 2020)

almost 30% more cores, certainly 30% faster in multicore apps,  now if is 30% in single thread then I shut off my mouth, which I'm sure is not the case.


----------



## ppn (Jan 2, 2020)

Metroid said:


> almost 30% more cores, certainly 30% faster in multicore apps,  now if is 30% in single thread then I shut off my mouth, which I'm sure is not the case.



meteor lake in 2021-22. ST+30% sunny cove +50% faster than SKL. what we have to do now is wait and boycott this 14++ ridiculous refresh cycle.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

HugsNotDrugs said:


> It's very costly to expand the size of an already-large monolithic die.


In this case I think adding two cores would be doable without any major issues. Running them at competitive clock speeds, however...


----------



## trparky (Jan 2, 2020)

londiste said:


> In this case I think adding two cores would be doable without any major issues.


Their yields must be hideous.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2020)

trparky said:


> Their yields must be hideous.


Why? A 10-core 10900K die would be about 200mm^2. This is roughly the same size as Zen/Zen+ dies on the same type of mature manufacturing process.

When we are talking about monolithic, we are talking about many cores and large die sizes. Intel's 28-core is difficult/expensive enough as monolithic. To some degree, so is 18-core die. 10 cores and 200mm^2 or so is very much fine.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 2, 2020)

As *londiste* was saying, ~200mm² is not a problem. Comet Lake is likely to have the same "bottlenecks" as Coffee Lake, where the limit will be energy density. 125W (and ~185W peak) on ~200mm² is the issue, not yields. 200mm² is still a "small" chip. If we're talking >500mm², then yields become a greater concern.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 2, 2020)

efikkan said:


> As *londiste* was saying, ~200mm² is not a problem. Comet Lake is likely to have the same "bottlenecks" as Coffee Lake, where the limit will be energy density. 125W (and ~185W peak) on ~200mm² is the issue, not yields. 200mm² is still a "small" chip. If we're talking >500mm², then yields become a greater concern.


Intel's problem being stuck on 14nm++ is how many dies per wafer they can get. Bigger die means less yield per wafer.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 3, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Intel's problem being stuck on 14nm++ is how many dies per wafer they can get. Bigger die means less yield per wafer.


As I said; yields is not an issue for such small dies. Yields on 14nm++ is excellent. As we can see on their bigger dies, they have to sacrifice clock speeds due to heat and power long before yields become an issue.


----------



## trparky (Jan 3, 2020)

londiste said:


> Why? A 10-core 10900K die would be about 200mm^2. This is roughly the same size as Zen/Zen+ dies on the same type of mature manufacturing process.
> 
> When we are talking about monolithic, we are talking about many cores and large die sizes. Intel's 28-core is difficult/expensive enough as monolithic. To some degree, so is 18-core die. 10 cores and 200mm^2 or so is very much fine.


Yeah but I have to wonder how many of these 10-core chips can still be 10-core chips and not be down-binned to lesser models like i7s, i5s, and even worse... i3s.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 3, 2020)

trparky said:


> Yeah but I have to wonder how many of these 10-core chips can still be 10-core chips and not be down-binned to lesser models like i7s, i5s, and even worse... i3s.


Good enough that Intel plans to use the 10-core die for only 10 and 8 core models, and 6-core die for 6 core models and down.


----------



## trparky (Jan 3, 2020)

efikkan said:


> Good enough that Intel plans to use the 10-core die for only 10 and 8 core models


I guess we'll see based upon how much Intel prices these things. If they're priced at some ungodly high amount then we'll know how (un)successful they are at making these things.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 3, 2020)

Renald said:


> What a joke.


actually its not, Intel is known to do such things.


----------



## Berfs1 (Jan 3, 2020)

*adds 25% more cores* (1.25x)
*adds 6% more clock speed* (1.06x)
*acts surprised that there is a 30% improvement in multithreaded is huge when 1.25x1.06 is 1.325 and with losses is ~30% gain so IPC actually is not improved*
“125W TDP.” 125W my ass.

It’s funny how intel is the one that said adding more cores is bad, yet they GLORIFY this for their 10900K. Best joke of the new decade.



efikkan said:


> As I said; yields is not an issue for such small dies. Yields on 14nm++ is excellent. As we can see on their bigger dies, they have to sacrifice clock speeds due to heat and power long before yields become an issue.


Intel totally didn’t have any yield issues with their 9th generation.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 3, 2020)

Rather wait for reviewers to compare this chip against the R9 3900X & possibly Ryzen 4th gen (when it comes out later this year). Hoping this year Intel is taking things seriously...


----------



## Berfs1 (Jan 3, 2020)

Yo, Intel finally had the balls to come out and mention the actual power limit of the 9900K, 210W! Bravo Intel! So that means the 10900K is rated to do 250W. Ok. Consumer chips, doing 250W, no biggie. It's not like we won't have liquid nitrogen AIO coolers in 2020.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 3, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> So that means the 10900K is rated to do 250W. Ok.


With or without AVX2 though?


----------



## Pap1er (Jan 3, 2020)

john_ said:


> Yes, even in gaming. With an AMD you lose how much? From 0%-10% in 1080p? Up to 5% in 1440p? Up to 2% in 4K? And those differences with a 2080Ti probably.
> 
> So you go out and buy an Intel processor because reviews show you that the top Intel CPU, under the best cooling solution, on an expensive high end motherboard in a case with plenty of air flow, while paired with an RTX 2080 Ti is 5%-10% on average faster than the 3900X at 1080p? And that's while ignoring power consumption because power consumption is important only when AMD CPUs are less efficient.
> 
> ...



 you nailed it !


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 3, 2020)

cant wait for my 4700x from amd


----------



## Renald (Jan 3, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> actually its not, Intel is known to do such things.



I know, and that's why these numbers are ridiculous !

Very often they do it in "secret". This time it's "We are bullshiting you, it's just for shareholders"


----------



## mechtech (Jan 3, 2020)

Sysmark overall says 1.10x, but the wattage says 125W/250W over the i9s 95W/210W.  Wattage % increase outdoes performance, is this cause on 14nm or pushing it too far out of the happy curve?


----------



## cygnus_1 (Jan 3, 2020)

Oh boy, 33% more power usage and 25% more cores... and it ONLY gets 30% better performance??


----------



## Steevo (Jan 5, 2020)

Now 30% faster with 30% more cores 30% more power consumption and 30% more winter heating!


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 5, 2020)

funny replies aside, I wanna know does Intel's claim can be legit when it comes out? what if the 30% gain is with all the hardware mitigations & AVX-adjusted clocks thrown into the mix? Will it be at the heels of AMD's R7 & R9 when it comes to heavy workloads? Will Intel finally add more PCIe lanes for their mainstream platform? All these questions; I want it to be answered.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jan 5, 2020)

My biggest issue with the 10th gen CPUs for LGA 1200 is, that they don't offer any advantage over the 9th gen in PCI-E lanes or PCI-E version. They have Wifi 6 included, but to use that you have to upgrade your Wifi router at least.
If they would release the 10 core CPU on LGA 1151 that would be ok. But a new platform for 2 more cores?

Come on Intel, you can do better than this.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 5, 2020)

dirtyferret said:


> Not for $400 but I got my 9700k for under $300 and at microcenter you can get the 9700k for less then $329 and the 8700k for under $300.



You can always find a markdown deal and make false comparison vs current non makred down prices on the competition.  Right now at Newegg the Ryzen 5 3600X is $160 less than a 9700K, and the 3600 is $205 less.  The 8700K costs more than the 9700k at Newegg.

If you are building a system, that ~$200 is the difference between having a RX 5500XT or 1650 Super and having an RTX 2070 or 5700.

Or it will get you a 2TB SSD.  Or, it'll get you a 1TB SSD and take you from a 1650 Super to a 1660 Super.  And so on and so forth.


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2020)

I picked up a 9900K for a build last week for $380 from Microcenter, open box.  I think at that price it's fair.  Building a productivity desktop for my dad to replace his W3680 X58 system.  Probably will be the same price as the upcoming i7 but his need for a computer is now.
i9 9900K, Z390 Taichi, MSI 1060 3GB OCV1, Seasonic 550W Prime Ultra Platinum, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, G Skill TridentZ 2x16GB DDR4 3000C14 B Die, Lian Li PCA05-FN, Phanteks PHTC14PE.



Aerpoweron said:


> My biggest issue with the 10th gen CPUs for LGA 1200 is, that they don't offer any advantage over the 9th gen in PCI-E lanes or PCI-E version. They have Wifi 6 included, but to use that you have to upgrade your Wifi router at least.
> If they would release the 10 core CPU on LGA 1151 that would be ok. But a new platform for 2 more cores?
> 
> Come on Intel, you can do better than this.



Probably a matter of power delivery, maybe only the top tier of Z390 boards can hypothetically run the 10 core without issue such as Asus Maximus XI Apex, MSI MEG Godlike, Gigabyte Aorus Extreme, etc.  New socket's pin increase might be related to the extra power demand.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 5, 2020)

Steevo said:


> 30% more winter heating!


30% Lower gas bill!


----------



## trparky (Jan 5, 2020)

Vario said:


> I picked up a 9900K for a build last week for $380 from Microcenter, open box. I think at that price it's fair.


That's a fair price, that's about $100 off list price.


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2020)

trparky said:


> That's a fair price, that's about $100 off list price.


No way would we buy one at the list price.  I waited around for an open box one to appear and sniped it.


----------



## xtremesv (Jan 6, 2020)

My 9900K runs very hot even with a 360 mm AIO. I can't imagine how heat is going to be kept in check as we're talking of 10 cores on an ancient process by today's standards.


----------



## Berfs1 (Jan 8, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> With or without AVX2 though?


its just turbo specs, I don't understand why people deal with AVX offsets. IMHO, if the CPU is stable for a certain application, but with the same overclock, fails in another application because of different code, then it is not 100% stable. Just run it at 1 flat frequency to make it simple.



cygnus_1 said:


> Oh boy, 33% more power usage and 25% more cores... and it ONLY gets 30% better performance??


yea cus intel's pro csgo strats ar to ad mor cors & mor freqs


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 8, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> its just turbo specs, I don't understand why people deal with AVX offsets. IMHO, if the CPU is stable for a certain application, but with the same overclock, fails in another application because of different code, then it is not 100% stable. Just run it at 1 flat frequency to make it simple.


What if i don't run the application where it's not stable?

I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me. I would rather have max perf in applications i do use instead of chasing some magical (and lower) frequency that is stable in every scenario.

Ideally i would like to have something like Afterburner does for GPU's - per game OC. Takes more time to finetune but offers better performance for those willing to do some testing.
FYI i have 3800X running at 4.5Ghz allcore OC (1.4v). Yes it gets to 90c in AVX2 stress test but that's irrelevant for me. Does not exceed 75c in games.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 8, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me.


Trouble with that is software has started using AVX/AVX2 without you being aware of it's usage. In other words not every piece of software is going to advertise it utilizes AVX.


----------



## Vario (Jan 9, 2020)

xtremesv said:


> My 9900K runs very hot even with a 360 mm AIO. I can't imagine how heat is going to be kept in check as we're talking of 10 cores on an ancient process by today's standards.


Got this 9900K system built today, Z390 Taichi, latest bios, Gskill 32GB 3600C16, Phanteks PHTC14PE, just loaded the defaults, installed 10 OS, ran Prime95 Blend, it ran for 5 minutes and I wasn't seeing temperatures over 72*C, so I walked out to take care of something, left it unattended for another 5 minutes. When I came back, test was 10 minutes in, it was up to 108C and ~245 Watts as reported in HWmonitor! Immediately turned off P95, temps returned to idle 30*C, shut it down for a bit.  I am sure the thermal paste is nicely cooked though.

Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit.  I would have expected it to throttle or shutdown.  Probably will undervolt and slightly underclock this system.  It also seems to want a fairly high default vcore of 1.32.  This computer will be a workstation not a gamer.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 9, 2020)

Vario said:


> Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit.


MultiCore Enhancement is turned on would be my guess. Might be worth checking to see if it's on. You have to watch for that when enabling XMP profile.


----------



## Vario (Jan 9, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> MultiCore Enhancement is turned on would be my guess. Might be worth checking to see if it's on. You have to watch for that when enabling XMP profile.


It wasn't MCE in this instance which was disabled, but it was the Long and Short Duration Power Limits and the TJ Max set to Auto. Turned these to Long Duration: 100 Watts, Short Duration: 150 Watt, TJ Max 100*C and now it behaves as it should with throttling at high wattage.  The CPU is under an aircooler.  I will probably try to find a way to get the core volts down a bit more.   However, this isn't the thread for this discussion other than to illustrate how damn hot the 9th gen i9 can get!


----------



## londiste (Jan 9, 2020)

Shouldn't Short Duration be a bigger value than Long Duration?


----------



## Vario (Jan 9, 2020)

londiste said:


> Shouldn't Short Duration be a bigger value than Long Duration?


Yeah I had them reversed when I typed the post, but they are set properly in bios.  Also applied a -50mv offset to get the vcore max to 1.280 which is a bit more reasonable.

Edit: changed max turbo bin to 48x, -20 offset, and the CPU performs admirably with a max voltage of 1.184V and temperatures generally not exceeding 70*C in Smallest FFT P95 AVX2.  Pretty decent.  The 9900K works fine on an aircooler, it just needs to be tamed.


----------



## trparky (Jan 10, 2020)

Vario said:


> When I came back, test was 10 minutes in, it was up to 108C


DAMN!!!


----------



## Berfs1 (Jan 10, 2020)

Tomorrow said:


> What if i don't run the application where it's not stable?
> 
> I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me. I would rather have max perf in applications i do use instead of chasing some magical (and lower) frequency that is stable in every scenario.
> 
> ...


As with overclocking, there isn't really a perfect stress test, you have to test for stability based on your kinds of workloads. Also, I would not recommend running a 3800X at 1.4V, NOT BECAUSE OF THE TEMPERATURES, but because you will see serious degradation within a few months. I recommend 1.325V, 1.35V, and 1.375V max for Ryzen 3000 under stock/average air cooling, high end air/average liquid cooling, and high end liquid cooling respectively. 1.4V isn't going to *kill* the chip, but it will *degrade* it, as in, you will have to lower the clock speed if you plan on running 1.4V for a long time. Temperature wise, it looks like you are using a liquid cooler, probably 240mm, I wouldn't go over 1.35V, but you do you.



Vario said:


> Got this 9900K system built today, Z390 Taichi, latest bios, Gskill 32GB 3600C16, Phanteks PHTC14PE, just loaded the defaults, installed 10 OS, ran Prime95 Blend, it ran for 5 minutes and I wasn't seeing temperatures over 72*C, so I walked out to take care of something, left it unattended for another 5 minutes. When I came back, test was 10 minutes in, it was up to 108C and ~245 Watts as reported in HWmonitor! Immediately turned off P95, temps returned to idle 30*C, shut it down for a bit.  I am sure the thermal paste is nicely cooked though.
> 
> Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit.  I would have expected it to throttle or shutdown.  Probably will undervolt and slightly underclock this system.  It also seems to want a fairly high default vcore of 1.32.  This computer will be a workstation not a gamer.


Fun fact, it has been known for a while that the 9900K takes *a lot* of power. When I say a lot, I mean more than the era of the FX-9590. You almost always need a liquid cooler to run a 9900K overclocked. A typical air cooler just wont cut it anymore.


----------



## trparky (Jan 10, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> You almost always need a liquid cooler to run a 9900K overclocked. A typical air cooler just wont cut it anymore.


That's a clear sign that Intel is bumping up against the limits of their process node.


----------



## Tomorrow (Jan 11, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> As with overclocking, there isn't really a perfect stress test, you have to test for stability based on your kinds of workloads. Also, I would not recommend running a 3800X at 1.4V, NOT BECAUSE OF THE TEMPERATURES, but because you will see serious degradation within a few months. I recommend 1.325V, 1.35V, and 1.375V max for Ryzen 3000 under stock/average air cooling, high end air/average liquid cooling, and high end liquid cooling respectively. 1.4V isn't going to *kill* the chip, but it will *degrade* it, as in, you will have to lower the clock speed if you plan on running 1.4V for a long time. Temperature wise, it looks like you are using a liquid cooler, probably 240mm, I wouldn't go over 1.35V, but you do you.


I plan on upgrading to Zen 3 later this year. So longevity does not matter to me. And no im using be quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 aircooler.


----------



## Jetflo69 (Feb 14, 2020)

hat said:


> Maybe Infinity Fabric is better glue than whatever Intel does when more than one die is present on the same substrate? Just speculating on this one. Infinity Fabric is baked in to the core Zen design... even on single CCX chips, it still gets used for the cores to communicate with the separate chipset portion of the processor. Intel puts everything on a single piece of silicon so you don't need an interconnect system... until you make a chip with multiple dies. Their system for this, I'm assuming, is largely inferior to AMD's implementation because until very recently nobody was buying processors with heaps of cores unless they were in the server space, where latency and per thread performance wasn't as important as having a ton of cores. Thanks to AMD, the core wars have now truly begun, as well as looking for the most performance per core we can get... at least outside of the server space. AMD started this war, so they have a leg up at the moment. It's going to be interesting to see what Intel comes up with once they get out of the lake, and it will be equally as interesting to see what AMD has at that time.
> 
> Intel is really in a sad state at the moment. Their 10nm issues are truly unfortunate, I'll give them that, but it seems clear to me they got too comfortable with their lead over AMD when I think about how many iterations of Skylake we've seen at this point. The Zen architecture, and the growing list of *lake security flaws have been around for a while now... and so far we've been shown nothing more than more *lake chips. I don't think they had any plans to move on from *lake any time soon...



None of this is so simple as intel is on a downtrend and amd is movin' on up.  It has been a good year for amd and intel continues to make strong revenue.  Getting into the platforms and products each company offers we are looking at a highly competitive time.  That means that it is unclear to most consumers that either amd or intel is best and purchase decisions are made based on the way the consumer expects to use the hardware.  

Nobody can predict the future and a new computer often delights in unexpected ways.  Hence, most of us are now using our desktop PCs for things we never did on our past PCs.  For this reason, I believe any new PC should be purchased to meet the excepted needs and with an open mind about how the computer might succeed in generalized usage, now and out perhaps 3 years into what we imagine to be the future.

One might argue that a new Ryzen has the edge in future usage scenarios because we all expect the future to better utilize high cpu core counts than hardware does today.  But is this the future of the PC?  If you've been watching Optane develop, then you are aware that future computers may do away with the notion of memory and storage being separate hardware.  The future of computing could be that all files are kept in non-volatile memory, always available with no need to ever boot the computer or open a file.   That could be a lot better than a huge core count for most users.

There are steps that can be taken to make intel cpus perform better and amd cpus are generally running flat out from the factory.  So if you like overclocking, intel might seem more attractive.  

Most people do not do massively multi threaded avx instructions in any of their workloads.  Video conversion in Handbrake would be an example of a task like that.  For these tasks, amd does hold an advantage with higher core counts.  But even here, a thorough overclock of cpu and ram on intel can make up a lot of the difference ... i9-9900k really perks up in the hands of an experienced overclocker.  Like 40% faster in Handbrake, for example.

Stop fearing there are bad choices out there.  This is a time of innovation in desktop computers.  Most any new system is going to blow you away with fast transfers between storage devices and snappy response while you do all those tasks that used to take longer on your old PC, Ryzen or Core either one is sweet.

I've an i9-9900k at 5GHz all cores, avx instructions (prime95 small ffts) with low latency ram (c16, 1T command rate) running @ 3866MHz.  It is water cooled and all the storage devices are M.2 NVME ssds.  It does a lot of video conversion and overclocking reduced the time to convert 20GB of 1080p MKVs to MP4s from 89 minutes to 53 mintues.  It's clear evidence that you can increase multi-thread performance on the i9-9900k by 40%.  But buying a Ryzen 3950x would be just as good, cost less and take less time.

I like overclocking and would never be happy with a Ryzen.  That's me.


----------

