Thursday, April 30th 2020

Core i9-10900K vs. Ryzen 9 3950X Cinebench R15 Comparison Leaked

by
btarunr
 Discuss (54 Comments)
Ahead of its launch a leaked ASUS ROG marketing slide reveals Cinebench R15 performance comparisons between the new Intel Core i9-10900K and AMD's current MSDT flagship part, the Ryzen 9 3950X. The graphs also include Intel's previous gen flagship, the i9-9900K, which should provide a reasonable indication of where the new Core i7-10700K performance could land.

In the single-threaded Cinebench R15 test, the Core i9-10900K scores 222 points, while the 3950X scores 213, which is a 4.22% lead for the new Intel flagship over AMD's. The i9-9900K is 2.81% faster than the 3950X in the same test. The landscape changes completely with multi-thread. Armed with 16 cores and 32 threads, the 3950X tests 48.61% faster than the i9-10900K, and a whopping 94.14% faster than the i9-9900K, which means the 3950X should land around 90% (±5%) faster than the i7-10700K. Core i9-10900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X should make for a fascinating contest.
Source: VideoCardz (Twitter)

Related News

Add your own comment

54 Comments on Core i9-10900K vs. Ryzen 9 3950X Cinebench R15 Comparison Leaked

#27
Assimilator
Vayra864%. Not much left of that bastion :) Its nearly margin of error territory and definitely not anything noteworthy any more.
But... but... but... ST lead went from nearly 3% on 9900K to over 4% on 10900K!
Posted on Reply
#28
Ravenas
I mentioned this during the 9900k review W1zzard provided... Intel has backed themselves in to a single core performance highlight. Beyond that how does this chip get priced in high end.
Posted on Reply
#31
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
You know, if these graphs are going to be shown to scale and be zero-based, you'll see something more like this:




Don't you just love it when people screw with graph scales?
Posted on Reply
#32
Metroid
single core performance is within margin of error, i wonder how any intel cpu can have its purchase justified, i see none.
Posted on Reply
#33
Chrispy_
Metroidsingle core performance is within margin of error, i wonder how any intel cpu can have its purchase justified, i see none.
Intel are only getting slaughtered if you go beyond 8 Cores.

Intel are performance-competitive at 6C and 8C if you don't mind paying extra. i9-9900 isn't too different to a 3800X and it's about 10-15% more expensive. If someone already has a S1151 board with a budget Pentium or i3 in it, there's a decent upgrade in most of the intel product stack and it works out cheaper and less effort than the AMD option and a new AM4 board.

Like for like, Intel are really falling behind but that's not really news; They've been in trouble for years now with manufacturing issues, security issues, performance issues. Ignoring their history I'd feel sorry for them, but they're the bully in the market and they play dirty at the expense of AMD and us - the consumers.
Posted on Reply
#34
lexluthermiester
AquinusDon't you just love it when people screw with graph scales?
Isn't it just irritating?

Intel's new hotness is going to be good, but it's just not going to be the clear winner or the best value. It's the same old story, if you want massive MHZ for games(and you don't mind a price premium), Intel is your choice. For anything and everything else, AMD Ryzen is the better value.
Posted on Reply
#35
Aerpoweron
For your entertainment.
9900k --- 3900X --- 3950X



Just some quick runs. Not the best thermal environment. AMD CPUs are on Air, 9900K is on 360mm Corsair AIO.

Addition: The 9900K had Discord (app) open, and the 3900X has 2 browser windows with 400+ tabs (combined) open
Posted on Reply
#36
ValVed RaY
MatsThose charts are wrong, both of them. Assuming the numbers are right.

Single core is obviously wrong, but so is the multi core. The 9900K bar should be closer to half the length of the 3950X bar.

I adjusted it ugly style, correct me if I'm wrong here.
I re-activated my account to write in just that, but you beat me to the punch.

It would be nice if TPU could remove the images for the time being since they don't represent the numbers in any way.
Posted on Reply
#37
R0H1T
AquinusDon't you just love it when people screw with graph scales?
No I don't but this is what the marketing people are paid to do, no offence to anyone in that field at TPU o_O
Posted on Reply
#38
Jism
RaendorThat's what is currently still stopping me from comfortably jumping on the Ryzen platform. I don't want to spend too much time on tweaking memory or many other settings that apparently is very useful for getting the best performance and sometimes even basic stability from Ryzen cpus. Intel seems like a much lower maintenance with easy xmp enabling and very basic approach to OC (if you're going the OC route).
Well you dont have or need to, just load op XMP profile and your set. It's just there's alot of potential in DDR4 timings as it's not like the usual 4 settings to adjust for some more performance. There's much more detail to it, and crap even i dont understand all those new DDR4 things either. But appearantly it works and it just shows how sensitive the Ryzen's are for memory (timings) in particular, which is good news.
kapone32Interesting how people look at Ryzen performance as necessary to tweak to work nicely but I can tell you as an AMD system builder that the only issue with Ryzen was some 1st gen memory issues. Today even the the Athlon 3000G fully supports DDR4 3600. Even though the Intel CPUs (10th gen of the same node) OC better there really is no need to OC Ryzen either as the that AMD has built these to factory OC anyway. If you want to talk about stability Zen is pretty stable and has a ton of next gen features that you just cannot get from Intel.
When you build a Ryzen setup, or intel setup for that matter, you need to check the QVL list of your motherboard. That's all there is to it. Needs matching and tested ram really.
AnarchoPrimitivThat's ridiculous, and in all honesty, I'd be willing to be that isn't your real reason, just your pretext. On my 2700x/X470 system, when I first built it, I got into all that tweaking, I was able to push my 2700x to 4.4Ghz all core at only 1.3125v, did the RAM timings calculator, etc etc etc and you know what, I didn't notice a single difference in my daily use, in the way my games played or how quickly my videos rendered, so I said screw it, just left the PBO on, and again, didn't notice any degradation in performance.

While tweaking can be fun, I truly believe that it's a placebo effect that can only be seen in a benchmark,, in other words, I'm sure all that tweaking only gains 1%-2% performance which isn't even perceived by a human being... What I'm saying is, staying away from a better platform because you're worried about having to put in some time to accomplish a 1% performance increase that isn't even noticeable is ridiculous.
PBO already gets the best out of your CPU. You dont need to manually overclock it, unless you need a all-core speed-boost. PBO pretty much maxes out single threads related to clockspeeds, which is good. Really all i didwas attaching a 360MM rad with 6 fans in push pull config, undervolt a small bit, and left everything to stock. The thing is ramping up all core 4.2GHz and after 4 minutes of linpack going back to 4.1Ghz and so on, because it's the water warming up slowly. :D

There's no real world situation in my work or game load that i require a all core overclock. PBO does a fantastic job already.
Posted on Reply
#39
AsRock
TPU addict
Core i9-10900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X should make for a fascinating
Maybe a little but it would have to be a shit load faster for the price differences, did you mean to say the 3950X ?.

$750 v's a $435,
Posted on Reply
#40
kapone32
JismWhen you build a Ryzen setup, or intel setup for that matter, you need to check the QVL list of your motherboard. That's all there is to it. Needs matching and tested ram really.

My issue was that I started using Corsair and of course 3200 but 2933 was the fastest I could get and no timing adjustments, it sucks not getting your advertised RAM speed on kits that are in the QVL. Then I started using Gskill and that was it. I really like the Ripjaws 4 3000MHZ 15-16-16-35 1.35 2x8 GB sets. They were regularly $100 Canadian for that set. They were designed for Z270 I think but work on every single Ryzen build I have used them in from R7 1700 builds all the way to 2920X and will easily accept 14 timings. Team Group seem to work pretty good too and some of my friends tout Ballistic. Not all boards are made equal either. I have found that As Rock boards seem to be the most solid at running a no brainer XMP profile on AM4. Having said that all AM4 boards will easily boot your RAM (regardless of it's speed) at 2133 or 2400 (especially on the QVL) until you apply the XMP profile so your statement is true.
Posted on Reply
#41
Cybrshrk
AssimilatorComparing a 10-core Intel CPU to a 16-core AMD one is somewhat unfair, methinks. Pity ASUS didn't bother to actually be useful and compare to the closer 3900X instead.



I built a system in December 2019 using a Ryzen 3600X, 2x 16GB DDR4-3000, and an X370 motherboard. I didn't have to tweak anything. I have had zero blue screens or other stability issues with it. And I am extremely impressed with the performance. The only tweaking I did was to overclock the memory to DDR-3200 and that was utterly painless. You don't need to mess around with manual overclocking on Ryzen, just enable PBO and the chip does it for you.

You're missing out.
If gaming is all yiu care about Intel is still the way to go. I've helped half a dozen friends set up ryzen systems in the last year or so and everyone but 1 had issues with booting and memory problems requiring removal of sticks in at random times to fix even a year after first coming on line.

All they do is game and all I care about is gaming and even now in 2020 my 7700k is still out performing their newer ryzen chips. I'll most likely take this chance to replace it with something that will ACTUALLY offer a performance upgrade where it matters to me and stay comfortably ahead for some time more.

My 7700k hit 5.0 without anything but typing 5.0 in the bios and I've had it at 5.1 with just a it more voltage. Ive ran it a little under just to keep the chip a bit more cool but even still it blows their newer chips away where it counts the most to all of us.
Metroidsingle core performance is within margin of error, i wonder how any intel cpu can have its purchase justified, i see none.
All I care about are the benchmarks with the most powerful gpu available at the time. Give me the one that gives the highest fps (and with the best frame timing) and I'm happy.
Posted on Reply
#42
Ravenas
CybrshrkIf gaming is all yiu care about Intel is still the way to go. I've helped half a dozen friends set up ryzen systems in the last year or so and everyone but 1 had issues with booting and memory problems requiring removal of sticks in at random times to fix even a year after first coming on line.
Maybe you should stop helping friends build PCs. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#43
John Naylor
RavenasI mentioned this during the 9900k review W1zzard provided... Intel has backed themselves in to a single core performance highlight. Beyond that how does this chip get priced in high end.
Mentioned what ? .... that the 9900k wins in gaming, Photo and video editing, splits in office suite and browsing ,.... and the 3900x wins in brain simulation, compression and other things almost never done by most people on thiir PCs ? How useful is it to be faster in things one rarely , if ever, does.

Make a case for the 3900X on your typical Home/ Office PC ... Pick the one that fits your usage. In engineering / architecture for example, a firm would best be served by both .... 2D and 3D AutoCAD works best on Intel / nvidia RTX ... rendering on AMD / nvidia quaddro ... so in a A/E firm w/ 20 CAD operators, that would mean 19 CAD stations and 1 rendering station
Posted on Reply
#44
Arctucas
AerpoweronFor your entertainment.
9900k --- 3900X --- 3950X



Just some quick runs. Not the best thermal environment. AMD CPUs are on Air, 9900K is on 360mm Corsair AIO.

Addition: The 9900K had Discord (app) open, and the 3900X has 2 browser windows with 400+ tabs (combined) open
Clocks?

Mine @5000MHz, sig rig, ~26°C ambient.

Posted on Reply
#45
lexluthermiester
CybrshrkIf gaming is all yiu care about Intel is still the way to go. I've helped half a dozen friends set up ryzen systems in the last year or so and everyone but 1 had issues with booting and memory problems requiring removal of sticks in at random times to fix even a year after first coming on line.
RavenasMaybe you should stop helping friends build PCs. :roll:
I have to agree, if that many people are having problems, he must be doing something wrong.
Posted on Reply
#46
Ravenas
John NaylorMentioned what ? .... that the 9900k wins in gaming, Photo and video editing, splits in office suite and browsing ,.... and the 3900x wins in brain simulation, compression and other things almost never done by most people on thiir PCs ? How useful is it to be faster in things one rarely , if ever, does.

Make a case for the 3900X on your typical Home/ Office PC ... Pick the one that fits your usage. In engineering / architecture for example, a firm would best be served by both .... 2D and 3D AutoCAD works best on Intel / nvidia RTX ... rendering on AMD / nvidia quaddro ... so in a A/E firm w/ 20 CAD operators, that would mean 19 CAD stations and 1 rendering station
I mentioned that Intel has backed themselves into a corner. All they can claim is that we have top single core performance, at the cost of horrible TDP and lack lust innovation for the last 5 years. Literally letting a 3 billion dollar company knock them out of position of market share.
Posted on Reply
#47
harm9963
springs113It is not that hard to believe. My 2700x/x470 can do 4.2 all core on/around that same vcore he listed.
Still waiting to see it.
jonupPicture of phase changing cooler incoming...
Still waiting to see it.
1.41v for all cores, my 2700x.
Posted on Reply
#48
dirtyferret
Will either of those two CPUs be powerful enough to run Crysis?...with Ray tracing?
Posted on Reply
#49
lexluthermiester
dirtyferretWill either of those two CPUs be powerful enough to run Crysis?...with Ray tracing?
I wonder if the remaster of Crysis will have RTRT?... But I disgress...
Posted on Reply
#50
medi01
ROG has fixed the crap, note just how deceiving the original charts are:

Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 4th, 2024 03:55 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts