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
and the benchmark cant use more than 16 core.
And in the Athlon days the gap was absurdly huge. Much larger than today.I remember very well because that was the last (and only) time I bought an AMD CPU. And the last time I overclocked. It was fantastic value.I can sense your AMD-coloured heart is in pain, but you have to focus and get yourself together! Everything is going to be all right!
In the earlier comment I sad "most", not everyone. I'm pretty sure you remembered and your AMD altar at home gave you hope. ;)
Find 10 friends who aren't PC geeks (normal people: they mostly use smartphones, maybe a laptop at work etc). Maybe your parents, neighbours, hairdresser?
Ask them about Intel and AMD. You'll see I'm right - even after 2.5 years of Ryzen praise in the PC community.I only said that Intel doesn't have to offer the same (or better) performance/price as AMD. That's it. You went berserk.OK. I'll remind you this comment when their market share starts to drop. You have my word. :)
So with that said, I wonder how much more faster the new Threadripper HEDT chips are going to be?
AMD is on the right track..................... :peace:
But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.
From consumers' point of view an 80-20 market will be fine (Intel won't be able to ask too much).
And from AMD's point of view: they'll be able to achieve that with limited offer - focusing on datacenters and consoles / gaming desktops.
They won't have to spend a lot on developing their mobile lineup or trying other niches (which Intel has to do, hence: Optane, IoT, drones etc)
Anyway, here is a 16c/32t 7960x at 4.4 GHz all c/t DDR4 3600...33.3K.
That score for the Intel seems low, honestly. Those all core boost speeds must be really low for the AMD part to beat it out by "24%" and have two more cores/four more threads. I wouldn't think a few hundred MHz could trump 2c/4t more... but AMD's SMT efficiency is better. I just find it interesting that at the same/similar clocks, the 3950x (barely) loses here with a generation old CPU. Sure, memory can play a role, but it isn't making up the ~4% difference between the two platforms between the 7960x and 3950x.
(and for the record, I am only talking about performance here, not price. We get it... it's cheaper... but I'm calling out the odd performance data on the Intel part).
EDIT: And I don't think anyone gives a shit in this thread about market share and whatever ya'll are droning on about...
You lemmings crack me up :) and you better stop while you still can.For now it is growing. When you will remind me? In 2 years when Intel moves to 7nm? Next year? when? Please don't bother.OMG this one is unbelievable. You really think AMD is not making money with Ryzens? How did you get to that conclusion? please share? So I suppose Intel is earning a lot and with the new gen even more.
Probably that's because Intel is going monolithic. Yes that must be it. AMD's chiplets are crap and cost twice as much, way more than Intel's design. So now Intel is dropping price for its processors to kill AMD with this. Yes and revenue has nothing to do with profits. Actually higher revenue means the company is not getting any profit it means the company is losing money.
Please stop this madness.
ir.amd.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amd-reports-second-quarter-2019-financial-results
And yes, Intel makes a ton more money than them. For the same quarter Intel made $16.5B in revenue and $4.6B in net income (profit).
www.intc.com/investor-relations/investor-education-and-news/investor-news/press-release-details/2019/Intel-Reports-Second-Quarter-2019-Financial-Results/
Obviously Intel is a much larger company, my point is that Intel is in no danger of going under anytime soon. AMD can't get enough processors from TSMC to replace Intel. With the demand for TSMC's 7nm node, from other companies including Apple, they can't get enough chips to over take Intel in market share. Their goal is to get above the 25% they had in the Opteron days. And that would be impressive, considering they were in the single digits last year (in servers).
You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?
It's really not rocket science:
AMD 2019Q2 revenue: $1.53B
Intel 2019Q2 revenue: $16.5B
So you can:
a) think this over
OR
b) convince me that over 90% of Intel's revenue comes from products other than CPUs.And what did we expect in 3950X vs 10980XE? Even putting aside the fact that 10980XE's score is weirdly low.
Zen SMT implementation works very well in some tasks (much better than Intel's) and very badly in others.
This is why in so many benchmarks and apps Ryzen's actually get better marks with SMT disabled. It's very rare with Intel.
In real life this will be mixed and these CPUs should compete pretty well.
Of course Intel is HEDT, so you need expensive motherboards and so on.
3950X may work on a cheap mobo... but most people will buy an expensive X570 anyway, so it's pretty even.
That said, both AMD and Intel, when SMT/HT is disabled, BOTH get better FPS in some games. I don't know if/how that translates into productivity or other apps that don't use all cores and threads, but both exhibit this behavior similarly in some games. To that end, it won't come close to making a 9700k compete with a 2700x in this test IF disabling XMP actually improves anything here.
I just want to figure out what the all core clock is on the new Intel part and the 3950x. That should clear things up a bit.LOL, maybe, but the point was a 2700x SHOULD walk a 9700K, contrary to your apparent surprise. ;)
Just remember to fill your mouth with a 40% saltwater solution and gargle the star spangled banner before reading this.
FX 9590 consumes less power at 5Ghz than this.
Edit.
I've had a 90C 5W IC and my 200W CPU runs cooler....while associated, don't let it fool you... the processor will still run where it is supposed to. ;)
the 3950x is looking good.