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
You are looking at this with a crooked mind and telling everyone in this forum that the advantage for Intel is that skylake is the same processor as haswell with DDR4? if that is the case (and i kinda agree) thi is not an advantage. Where is the spirit of innovation and technology advancement? Intel had 10 years to perfect the design for Intel's 14nm +++++++++ node. AMD break the stagnation offering something out of the box new and innovative. It needs time to mature. Look at the gains in performance from Zen 1st gen to 2nd gen Zen and that's only within 2 years time. I think Intel didn't achieve that imrpvement for over 6 years with it's processors and you are saying AMD failed because Skylake (aka Haswell with ddr4 support) still beats it in few frames in certain games?
I never said there is an advantage for intel
I never said zen performance is bad or that it performance gains are not good
I never say that skylake beats zen
I sure never mentioned the word "frames" in any of my messages, or "games"
I am delusional ? so far only you see things that are not there...
You saidSince when performance comes just from silicon? Listen to yourself dude what a bullshit is that?You said AMD failed to deliver better performance than 10 year old "Haswell with DDR4 support ". You are saying AMD failed with 10 year old Intel's architecture. That is what you are saying man. What a crap is that. AMD has a new architecture and new node. It needs time to mature and get to the potential it has in the design. It is not going to happen after few months. Intel's 14nm is maxed out and 10nm is not there yet and delayed for so long.
10nm Skylake? Where is that skylake? Would have cleaned the floor? Open your eyes it is not here and the 10th gen processors being released now and what to they offer? Probably the desktop CPUs will still be 14nm. Open your eyes and look at the facts not what would have happened. 10th gen is just around the corner let's look what it will bring. From the leaks we've all seen basically nothing.
BTW we will see what the 3rd gen Ryzen will be like next year. For now this conversation is over man because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are in denial of everything I say and you deny your own words or you simply write something without knowing the meaning of it.
Who failed is you understanding the facts and what's going on. You fail to comprehend the aspects of the CPUs and technology involved in making these and what they bring to the table. Denial is all you can offer without giving any valuable information, argument or ounce of thought before you write these crap in this forum.
The battle has gone on for years and it only pushes the two to develop better cpus and architecture, slashing costs and giving a great boost to the gaming and power user community!
At the very least whether pro intel, or pro amd... folks need to see the big picture and that is simply that the consumer wins when amd rises every 10-15 years or so.
I agree there could be more performance to be had via RAM overclocking, but the idea 3200MHz is gimping it is a bit rich.
3200MHz is admittedly the highest "base" spec, but it's holding back the Zen 2 chips, all of which will happily run with 3600MHz or faster RAM.
And since when has anyone really cared about JEDEC spec when it comes to RAM?
This is one of the reasons why Zen falls behind in laptops and business PCs in general.
So I'd say it's quite relevant.
Looks at my own avatar.. giggles, moves on.
And it's fine as long as AMD aims at 10% market share of DIY gamers etc.
But yeah... considering they plan to go mainstream, more and more of their clients will pair Zen with RAM slower than what is usually used in reviews.
Furthermore, since some Zen CPUs are ECC certified and will be used with ECC RAM, it's worth noting that it's (AFAIK) up to DDR4-2666 for now.
The AMD will be quicker IRL but not that much.
we all just install, overclock to limits. then set it back to stock settings and overclock it only when needed.
its stupid to run a premium chip on a 100% OC utilization and let it burn out earlier.