Thursday, June 13th 2019
AMD's Upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) Shown Beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)
When we said AMD was readying a presentation on their Ryzen 9 3950X CPUs to awe crowds at E3, we weren't thinking of something of this magnitude. But apparently, it's true: a Geekbench test result has shown AMD's $750, 16 core, 32 thread Ryzen 9 9 3950X beating Intel's 18 core, 36 thread $2,000 i9-9980XE monster. Now, you may be thinking: ok, it beat it because of AMD's announced 4.7 GHz boost, and did so only on single threaded performance, obviously... but you would be wrong.
The Geekbench scores show AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X delivering 5,868 points in single, and 61,072 points in multicore workloads. Intel's i9-9980XE, on the other hand, scores just 5,391 single core, and 46,876 multicore points (on average and at stock clocks of 3,000 MHz base and 3,400 MHz boost). This is an incredible performance difference (particularly in the multicore score), and was apparently done with an engineering sample for AMD's upcoming chip that didn't even run at its announced 4.3 GHz base and 4.7 GHz boost clocks, but at 3.3 GHz and 4.3 GHz respectively. AMD's 105 W TDP, 16 core chip beats Intel's 185 W TDP, 18 core one... Where has the world come? Take the usual dosage of NaCl, and let's keep things in perspective - even if AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X equals, and doesn't beat, Intel's i9-9980XE, it's still a huge win for the red company. Almost as big a win as that huge stone on Lisa's hand.
Sources:
Tom's Hardware, Intel i9-9980XE GeekBench score example, GeekBench Ryzen 9 3950X test result
The Geekbench scores show AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X delivering 5,868 points in single, and 61,072 points in multicore workloads. Intel's i9-9980XE, on the other hand, scores just 5,391 single core, and 46,876 multicore points (on average and at stock clocks of 3,000 MHz base and 3,400 MHz boost). This is an incredible performance difference (particularly in the multicore score), and was apparently done with an engineering sample for AMD's upcoming chip that didn't even run at its announced 4.3 GHz base and 4.7 GHz boost clocks, but at 3.3 GHz and 4.3 GHz respectively. AMD's 105 W TDP, 16 core chip beats Intel's 185 W TDP, 18 core one... Where has the world come? Take the usual dosage of NaCl, and let's keep things in perspective - even if AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X equals, and doesn't beat, Intel's i9-9980XE, it's still a huge win for the red company. Almost as big a win as that huge stone on Lisa's hand.
70 Comments on AMD's Upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) Shown Beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)
9980XE all core boost = 3.8Ghz Non AVX or 3.3Ghz AVX, so with the IPC advantage for the 3950X- it should only run at ~3.8Ghz all core on Non AVX - Magic right? :).
18C is only 12.5% more cores then 16C - same as the IPC advantage of 3950X + AMD's SMT give better performance uplift.
I do believe that Intel will bring back 20C,22C options to X299- same like it was on X99.
HCC tops up at those 18 cores.
For anything higher they need XCC
Those dies are absolutely ginormous, and do not fit on the LGA 2066, they need LGA 3647, meaning ... new boards.
Yep, that's the monster Xeon W-3175X and those "sell your kidney" ultra-expensive LGA 3647 boards...
They aren't going to compete with AMD's tiny chiplets with that ...
Perhaps a better comparison would be something like CB R20 (R15 may be too fast as well to properly tax these CPUs), with MCE and XFR / PBO enabled, matched RAM and a very good CPU cooler, and then let them perform with a window of HWinfo opened with the relevant sensor tab, in order to find out, in real time, max clocks / sustained clocks / power usage during the bench run.
Any benchmark that scales well with cores and isn't "lightning fast" should work as well.
Lisa, Monday e3 10 June, as amazed as it was, published very dignified charts and in those charts 9900k won x 3900x in some games. So even Lisa, AMD CEO is cautious about the hype.
Looks like they are going for the large socket, they offer 8~28C and actually the prices looking good compared to current EPYC. :
This board looks nice at $499:
www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813183686?Description=3647%20&cm_re=3647-_-13-183-686-_-Product
- cooler(s) used?
- RAM used and it's parameters?
- MCE and XFR / PBO enabled?
- mitigations used?
I'm proposing best possible scenario under non-manual OC, meaning very good CPU cooling, RAM @ matching parameters, MCE and XFR / PBO enabled and mitigations disabled.
Not sure if I'm getting the expectations right, but drooling at the 3700 or 3600X to replace my current i5-4690K (workload is 50% gaming, 20% CAD work, 30% image and video editing, so I need a CPU that performs well in all areas).
Intel per core score = 46876 / 18 = 2604.2
%Different clock = ((4300 - 3400) / 3400) * 100 = 26.5%
AMD score = (16*per core + 26.5% value) + 15% IPC claims
= 41667.2 + 11041.8 + 7906.4
= 60615.4
They put this up to bait the reviewers out there to test 3950x against 9980xe right at launch day.
I bet the 9980xe will hold its position but the 3950x will be really close , something like 9960x < 3950x < 9980xe .
Consider their prices, all these benchmark reviewers will put the Intel 9th Gen HEDT lineup into "Overpriced trash" territory.