Monday, October 21st 2019
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Beats Intel Core i9-10980XE by 24% in 3DMark Physics
AMD's upcoming Ryzen 9 3950X socket AM4 processor beats Intel's flagship 18-core processor, the Core i9-10980XE, by a staggering 24 percent at 3DMark Physics, according to a PC Perspective report citing TUM_APISAK. The 3950X is a 16-core/32-thread processor that's drop-in compatible with any motherboard that can run the Ryzen 9 3900X. The i9-10980XE is an 18-core/36-thread HEDT chip that enjoys double the memory bus width as the AMD chip, and is based on Intel's "Cascade Lake-X" silicon. The AMD processor isn't at a tangible clock-speed advantage. The 3950X has a maximum boost frequency of 4.70 GHz, while the i9-10980XE isn't much behind, at 4.60 GHz, but things differ with all-core boost.
When paired with 16 GB of dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory, the Ryzen 9 3950X powered machine scores 32,082 points in the CPU-intensive physics tests of 3DMark. In comparison, the i9-10980XE, paired with 32 GB of quad-channel DDR4-2667 memory, scores just 25,838 points as mentioned by PC Perspective. Graphics card is irrelevant to this test. It's pertinent to note here that the 3DMark physics test scales across practically any number of CPU cores/threads, and the AMD processor could be benefiting from a higher all-core boost frequency than the Intel chip. Although AMD doesn't mention a number in its specifications, the 3950X is expected to have an all-core boost frequency that's north of 4.00 GHz, as its 12-core sibling, the 3900X, already offers 4.20 GHz all-core. In contrast, the i9-10980XE has an all-core boost frequency of 3.80 GHz. This difference in boost frequency, apparently, even negates the additional 2 cores and 4 threads that the Intel chip enjoys, in what is yet another example of AMD having caught up with Intel in the IPC game.
Sources:
TUM_APISAK (Twitter), PC Perspective
When paired with 16 GB of dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory, the Ryzen 9 3950X powered machine scores 32,082 points in the CPU-intensive physics tests of 3DMark. In comparison, the i9-10980XE, paired with 32 GB of quad-channel DDR4-2667 memory, scores just 25,838 points as mentioned by PC Perspective. Graphics card is irrelevant to this test. It's pertinent to note here that the 3DMark physics test scales across practically any number of CPU cores/threads, and the AMD processor could be benefiting from a higher all-core boost frequency than the Intel chip. Although AMD doesn't mention a number in its specifications, the 3950X is expected to have an all-core boost frequency that's north of 4.00 GHz, as its 12-core sibling, the 3900X, already offers 4.20 GHz all-core. In contrast, the i9-10980XE has an all-core boost frequency of 3.80 GHz. This difference in boost frequency, apparently, even negates the additional 2 cores and 4 threads that the Intel chip enjoys, in what is yet another example of AMD having caught up with Intel in the IPC game.
143 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Beats Intel Core i9-10980XE by 24% in 3DMark Physics
They will have to drop prices even further, if you look at performance and lack of PCIe 4.0 Intel Core i9-10980XE price should be under $750 then.
Also drop the HEDT classification of the Intel Core i9-10980XE since it can not even beat AMD's top main stream cpu.
Would not want to be the Intel boss trying to explain to stockholders why they stopped innovating all these years and now are being Bulldozed big time by AMD.
It's like Intel built a wonderful fort with massive defenses at front (meaning feeding us all lots of bullsh!t) trying to convince everyone they where innovating every year with a 5% performance bump. BUT in reality by not doing actual innovating made them extremely vulnerable, you could say they left the backside of the fort defenseless and the door wide open without any guards for any competitor to enter and take over their market.
So satisfying seeing Intel getting REKT by AMD after knowing they stiffed us all these years.
Also who will buy Intel when AMD's (HEDT for REAL) Threadripper will ripp Intel's HEDT line up a new (a)hole and at the same time sending it down to the little league even under AMD's main stream.
There is only so many Intel morons in the world (and they are getting less every day) that eat Inte's bullsh!t and pay more for less.
Classic David (AMD) and Goliath (Intel) fight, only now David has nukes in it's arsenal coming at Goliath in full force.
Ryzen's factory setting are near the limit. Intel has a big OC margin. That's it.
Intel could always launch a variant with high factory settings and call it 10980XES (because why not :D).
And I have to say... how opinions change...
I bet that if I mined TPU long enough, I'd find your comment saying that, for example, Vega 64 just needs a bit of tuning or underwolting and becomes quite competitive to Nvidia ;).
Because you know... it's pretty crap out of the box.
GET REAL, WAKE UP, if AMD can do 16 core main stream CPU at ONLY $750 that beat Intel's 18 core TOP HEDT CPU THEN YOU MUST KNOW that Intel's HEDT prices where astronomical so half of Intel's astronomical prices is not low enuf.
In this business it is performance per dollar that matters if you are to compete, no matter what your previous astronomical price was, Intel can not bullsh!t people any more except for a few last hold outs that still got their heads so far up Intel's (a)ss that they don't realize that Intel's half is still too expensive.
Most people are going to OC this star? Good luck with that.
Infact I prefer the latter because right now so many people buy a product from Intel and not getting the full potential out of it while with AMD they pretty much are.
Also Vega 64 was not that bad, just the pricing is a bit meh, Vega 56 was the better purchase.
Just like how just about everything currently from Nvidia and the 5700 (xt) are priced meh (actually meh is an understatement, prices are ridiculous)
Previous (2x higher) were fine. No competition let them do that. And it's not like they really wanted to sell many of these CPUs.
Current pricing vs AMD seems OK as well. Intel has always been more expensive. There's no reason why they would offer the same performance/price ratio.
Undervolting is not OC'ing. Being competitive doesn't mean OC potential. And please find those comments I dare you. Vega 64 was competitive with NV straight out of the box. You need to be more specific though because what you are saying is misleading.
OC'ing is still there with AMD CPU's, you need a bit of expertise on what your doing and you still need better cooling compared to stock. That way you can extract the best out of PBO or DIY with a all core overclock (or various CCX's for that matter).
You really think they can run a cpu product line up and say, hey, it does not matter if it is not selling, let's just put the cpu's in a warehouse and let them collect dust.
Intel DOES NOT HAVE THE UPPER HAND ANYMORE, so they do not have the luxury to be more expensive.
Just for a real world check, Intel has already LOWERED THEIR PRICE TWICE in main stream. WHY would they lower price twice if they have no problem with being more expensive.
I would be so bold to say that Intel are already planing for a third price cut in the main stream segment.
AMD top main stream cpu with PCIe 4.0 (PLEASE observe i am stating MAIN STREAM) is more powerful than Intel's (so called HEDT) top cpu. So you are telling me you would PAY MORE for Intel HEDT 18 core with PCIe 3.0 when you can get an AMD 16 core with PCIe 4.0 that performs better for far less.
Get real man.
Concept of overclocking was to take dirt cheap crap and make it work like a premium not to take a premium and squeeze 10% more performance.
Anyway you are obviously sold on the corporate vision of what overclocking should be.
The most important metric is always the price performance one the rest is small boys comparing their sticks.
Intel was more expensive back in Athlon days when AMD offered similar performance and occasionally more modern products.
Back then we also had people saying "there's no reason to buy Intel anymore" and "it's the end of Intel".
Less than a decade later most PC users forgot what AMD is or thought they went out of business.
For me this Zen situation isn't that much different.
They'll hit a wall at maybe 20% market share and then what?No they don't.
They can ask more for many reasons: better positioning, better marketing, better OEM agreements, better brand. It doesn't matter.
People will rather pay $200 for an Intel CPU than $180 for identical AMD CPU.
That's it.Intel still comfortably outsells AMD, so I don't know what you're talking about.Because the gap was too large.
I mean... seriously... do I have to paste a supply-demand graph or what?
What exactly do you struggle to understand? I'll try to focus on that part.
Your arguments have no value or meaning. For you, Intel was always expensive and it should stay that way, because why would it change? You don't understand this and I'm not going to explain it.
Hit a wall with 20%? Ignorance is bliss and yours is beyond believe. It is way different. You will see soon :)
twenty-four %
TWENTYFOUR PERCENT!
sorry just had to say it ... hard to believe...