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
My 7960x at 4GHz on all cores and with garbage RAM at only 2400 (and with horrible timings) scores 28615 in the physics test with a ton of open background applications and an instance of Plex Media Server running. Sorry, but a loss of 200MHz (with a gain of 2 cores) isn't going to drop the score 3000 points.
www.3dmark.com/3dm/40354402?
And before all the AMD zealots jump in, I'm cheering for AMD this round. I definitely want to build a 64-core Threadripper 3000 system.
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-beats-intel-core-i9-10980xe-by-24-in-3dmark-physics.260317/page-2#post-4136780
My 7980xe only boosts to 4.2 (In the test it determined max freq was only a little over 4ghz mind you). And while im not saying the 10980xe could beat ryzen, and while I know its not an architectural wormhole of difference I Find it hard to believe that chip only managed only a few thousand point faster than my CPU at bone stock (non over clocked) with not only a 400mhz boost and ark advantage but prime testing conditions.
I had a multitude of things open and like 5 different messaging platforms.
www.3dmark.com/3dm/40354603?
Seems odd. Id look at it the same way if AMD lost the bench, it just doesn't make a ton of sense. With that kind of gap, I could beat the physics score doing a clean boot and overlocking a few hundred mhz and probably still keep my clocks under the 10980xe at that!
Though with the age of the internet, more and more people are doing there own research. Today more people recognize AMD as a high quality CPU & GPU designer, but still that past false stigma of lesser quality over Intel still rides on people's minds.
That said, just picture Intel as a stubborn child that refuses to eat its food for example, well that is Intel on there stance to even have competition.
I've read somewhere several months ago off (Seeking Alpha? I think) where many that hold Intel stock were complaining that AMD should never have been allowed to release such a processor such as ZEN, as to compete with Intel, because that prevented the Intel stock price from reaching a high potential. Anyhow my point is the arrogance of the actual company INTEL and its Stockholders is ludicrous., they WHINE like a bunch of freaking Babies.
I don't think I mentioned anything about TDP. But 100W power used on Intel and AMD processors doesn't equal the same temperature (for many reasons). Look back in the day... FX chips, at using more watts than Intel and Intel yet the Intel's ran with a higher temperature. As I said, I had a 5W IC on a mining ASIC board run 90C... it's more than power used that equal the hot temps.
The analogy was to show the different amounts of energy for the same temperature. :)
... but that isn't really what this thread is about so... I digress (PM box is open. ;)).
Maybe 3.6 GHz or something? I can see 4.2-4.2GHz with two less c/t and better SMT efficiency catch up...
ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/198017/intel-core-i9-10980xe-extreme-edition-processor-24-75m-cache-3-00-ghz.html
Which means this all makes a lot more sense now. Oh well, almost no one buys an HEDT chip and doesn't overclock, so I don't really care about stock performance.
Why not compare the AMD 3970x instead? Maybe only 2/3s the power then?