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
I disagree with most of the stuff you wrote. An enthusiast of something, simply means you are interested in certain subject. Like computers.
Be informed about what you buy I'd rather say do your own research before you purchase stuff. Ask others for opinion about something to make sure you are correct or if you have doubts. That's just stupid bro :) I know this is based on a "now situation" about fanboys and which side you are on. You people say it doesn't matter if you're red or green or whatever and then you write something like that :)
Amazing how you want to divide the community into more groups with different point of view or preference. Honestly, I'm not sure how can you be biased based on experience an if i understand it correctly what you wanted to say.
The basic thing I said: Intel doesn't have to match AMD on performance/price to sell more. That's it.
Stop thinking so much about manufacturing process. It's just a factor. It's not relevant for customers.
Intel sold more in the Athlon days.
They sell more now despite an obvious Zen2 7nm advantage.
You can keep mocking me or you can just check the facts.
Sure, AMD makes attractive products since 2017 and that definitely hit Intel on sales and margin. But it's nowhere near the catastrophic scenarios that AMD fanboys here talk about ("no reason to buy Intel", "AMD outsell Intel 2:1" etc). Intel stock just went up because of very good Q3 results (both revenue and earnings). Not that I own any. It's not an interesting segment right now.
I understand what you are saying. I disagree with you that if somebody doesn’t own a CPU or a graphics card is not an enthusiast in any way and shouldn't say anything about the product itself. Being an enthusiast has nothing to do with owning any PC gear in this case. If they comment (bash on as you said) on a product, they should support this with arguments, which are true. Everyone has a right to have opinions on a certain subject but you need to have arguments to support your opinion, facts that will prove you are correct with your opinion. If, on the other hand, your arguments are dismissed, have the guts to admit a failure and move on.
I am not stating that a person should not but again we are talking about the same things. If I made a comment like Ryzen processors are garbage because "Johnny who who" says so and you knew that all I have even owned is Intel would I be a fanboy or enthusiast? If I said Ryzen processors are not as good as Intel in some things and you saw that I owned both would I be a fanboy or enthusiast? I do want to comment that it is healthy to have an adult debate without it falling into a mud slinging contest.
This meant say your Pentium 4 might have a 7200rpm drive with 512mb dual channel while their 939 offering got a 5400rpm with 512mb single channel likely at ddr333 vs Intel getting ddr400 or later getting ddr2 667 vs and ddr2 533. HP, Compaq, emachines where famous for this tactic.
I've got a copaq with an a64 3500 originally it had 80gb 5400rpm drive and a single 512 stick of pc2700, when given a 7200 drive it got much faster but the average consumer didn't know.
Intel was forced to pay a billion dollars for this literal crime.
And if a company thinks commission made a mistake (or the fine is too high), they can ask a court to rule.
Intel went to court with this case and from the start it wasn't obvious. After 10 years it's very probable that it'll be canceled or significantly lowered.
It's the same story as with traffic fines. Police' job is to fine people for traffic offenses. But they make mistakes. You can always ask a court to check.
So in short: as of today Intel isn't held responsible for anything and they don't have to pay anything.
just like they failed in video cards it just that they failed in video cards 2x more than in processors: 7 nm < 14 nm
you wanne say AMD is good ? compare 1:1 7 to 7 or 14 to 14 etc
remember AMD is barely winning using 7 nm vs a 14 nm, when intel make they 10 nm processor, only then you can compare it to AMD 7 nm one
only thing true about the compare is AMD more forward in creation technology, it doesn't meen that they are forward in chip architecture
People compare CPU to CPU or performance to performance not node to node or cache mem to cache mem. What's not fair here and what's your point?
As I see it AMD didn't fail actually the opposite. AMD now is giving Intel a great deal of stimulus in terms of performance and pricing. You can see this with current price drops and Intels new 9000 series processors refreshes and new 10 gen release.
I'm surprised you said AMD has failed cause i simply can't see it. If you say that Intel has still bigger market share than AMD then dahhh. How can AMD get 50% in 2 years time when it took Intel 10 years to get where it is now? Don't expect miracles here. It will take a lot of time and effort for AMD to get back in the market and match sales with Intel. (if it ever happens that is) The fact that AMD has abetter product is obvious so get your head outta your ass please.
Can you point such a case?
I know about just two billion-level situations:
One is the EU antitrust that's still going on.
And one was an agreement between Intel and AMD.
Neither of these was a result of a court judgement.
I don't care about fair or not and yhe sure AMD is winning even if only by a littel I don't say that it's bad
I don't realy care about market, but it's part of what I meen...
you have to understand something important: the reason that AMD is failed now is because intel is failed with 10 nm, which is they own fault
the problem of market as you say is important is this: if intel didn't failed with 10 nm, they skylake architecture would clean the florr with zen
that architecture is what ? 10 years old ? so explain to me how AMD is not a failure ?? zen is faighting (and berely winning) a 10 years old skylake cores made on a node that is twice as big
it mybe not entirely relevant but I wanne add something else to the explain, it might help understand what I meen: look at AMD video cards, failed right ?
but you say failed because the card is failed, but what if the card didn't failed and would clean the florr with 2080 ti ? that would still not be a good compare either, becuase the 14 nm is not compare to 7 nm, and the big problem of market ? is that when nvidea come out with a 7 nm version of they own - that can kill the AMD cards easy....
same CPU: right now AMD wins and I have no problem with that. the possible danger to that is when intel come up with 10 nm version of the skylake cores or whatever they have in design for 10 nm right now.... what my point ? the problem is that zen, as architecture is not superior to skylake (or haswell which is the same thing only DDR3 that's all), the diffrence is that I look at architecture not the whole CPU as you do, and in term of zen architecture, thare is nothing worth to mention: it just equal to skylake more or less in term of performance and skylake is a historic architecture
And this this statement is just crazy. AMD failed with Ryzen because Intel faild with 10nm? I have no idea what you are trying to say man.
You are delusional with what you are saying or you don't know how to express yourself correctly. AMD is far from failing and nodes has nothing to do with it. Besides 7nm is a fresh node and it is immature. It needs time to get better. Intel's 14nm+++++ (not sure how many +) can be be a bit better now but it is maxed out actually. 7nm still have room to improve and that's the difference with different node mainly.
BTW. It is not just the node it is also the architecture. You don't compare node to node for performance because the CPU as a complex design can't be compared only by one variable.
You can have the greatest node, the smallest and you can still fail if other aspects of the CPU design are not in place.
So again
No, you don't compare node to node to determine the performance advantage of a product. You compare CPU to CPU which is a complete product which uses a node, specific architecture, instructions sets. The node itself can give better future perspective for improvement when matured. I hope this makes sens.
This isn't about Video Cards and honestly I don't understand what you are trying to say. Maybe others do ??