Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

[ratirt]

If you truly believe 'now we have 8c thanks to AMD', then yes, get yourself examined. 8 core CPUs were there far earlier than Zen. There simply wasn't a market within the mainstream segment to launch them despite AMD trying to. For HEDT, there wére - up there you do have nicely threaded workloads and applications. Part of the reason FX-processors sucked so hard was because on MSDT, there were simply no good workloads for it. And for HEDT, Intel 6 cores would already run circles around them. AMD only receives kudos for bringing the price down on higher core counts. Because they compete again across the whole product stack.

For a decade we were stuck at 4c8t. And yet, games did not scale beyond 1 or 2 threads anyway. Found the reason behind that yet? Because that is proof that the movement to higher core counts for gaming is extremely late to the party, we've had quads for ages now and games are only recently truly catching up to that - and still many haven't.

Convenient / no market... aren't they the same? Its not convenient to make parts you don't sell.

You can be all up in arms about what I've said but its not strange and 'making my point', its an observation on what you think happened the last decade, and I think you're wearing the wrong glasses looking back. We need the hardware before we get the software that will fully use it, and then we also need 'the performance', after all if nobody asks for 200 FPS gaming, it won't be built. And the better threading of games on the CPU coincides NOT with Zen, but with the console releases.

The result of better threading then, is that we're no longer tied to single core processing power and thát in turn enables high refresh/FPS gaming. 4K is not even a player in the story here, you can run that on a potato CPU, what does it even do in a Zen topic one might ask... Its no secret that a CPU will do fine as long as its not the part bottlenecking you. There is no 'pursuit' to be had for CPUs to enable 4K gaming.

So, back to my final line in last post: let's not overinflate what happened here with Zen's release, because that is the gist of your story. As if AMD 'enabled' something for gamers. They didn't, and the higher core counts were coming regardless. They gave us back healthy competition and that's all it is.

Oh boy. I guess busses don't go where you live do they. Take that avatar off it is offensive.

Here's a interesting benchmark that doesn't have optimizations that favor one company over the other. I wouldn't of expected the Ryzen 5 3600 ahead of the Core i9-9900K though.

12 CPUs Tested Using Neat Video Noise Reduction Tool w/ NeatBench 5 - Legit Reviews

www.legitreviews.com

Puget Systems gets the same scoring with Neatbench 5.

First Look at AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPUs for Video Editing

AMD's new Ryzen 3rd generation CPUs just launched with terrific performance improvements across the board. While we don't have the full lineup tested just yet, we wanted to give a first look at what we are seeing in Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and other applications commonly...

www.pugetsystems.com

Did a quick run on my desktop.

View attachment 130227

That is nice. I need to try this on my Ryzen and see what I will get.

I thin you should have clarified that 4k is "immediate" future

I think this is the way to go. 4K looks just amazing

 

[Redwoodz]

Of course AMD's ecosystem is not up to par compared to Intel...who have had over 80% marketshare for the last 15 yrs. It won't take very long to catch up though...that Ryzen money fixes all sorts of short-comings.

 

[Midland Dog]

If you say so

oh yeah coz ln2 guys are benching photoshop

 

[dyonoctis]

oh yeah coz ln2 guys are benching photoshop

You don't even know what is puget system do you ? those guys aren't overclockers, there are system builder for professional (content creation, science). They don't do overclocking at all, because they do rather ship a stock but stable system, instead of trying to get more % with an oc that may or may not be stable.

 

[Midland Dog]

You don't even know what is puget system do you ? those guys aren't overclockers, there are system builder for professional (content creation, science). They don't do overclocking at all, because they do rather ship a stock but stable system, instead of trying to get more % with an oc that may or may not be stable.

lmao ur an idiot, i specifically said benchathon, i dont care what puget does in the slightest, if they were doing xoc benching my point would be proven even harder

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k in ur supplied bench a year late and still not as fast*, vega and 1080ti all over again
*1 point in a test that i dont care about, 1 point vs 10 more fps ill take the fps and live with 1 point less at STOCK thanks, OC for OC a 5ghz 8 core skylake trashes any oc ryzen 3000 can muster

 

[lexluthermiester]

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k

Your understanding needs improvement. Either your understanding of the benchmarks is lacking or your understanding of the definition of the word "pathetic" is lacking.

 

[dyonoctis]

lmao ur an idiot, i specifically said benchathon, i dont care what puget does in the slightest, if they were doing xoc benching my point would be proven even harder

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k in ur supplied bench a year late and still not as fast*, vega and 1080ti all over again
*1 point in a test that i dont care about, 1 point vs 10 more fps ill take the fps and live with 1 point less at STOCK thanks, OC for OC a 5ghz 8 core skylake trashes any oc ryzen 3000 can muster

I just told you that puget doesnt do world record benchmark or any overclocking at all, those results are from stock speed, meaning that there is no overclocking, they didn't mees with the speed in the bios, nor in ryzen master. Thoses results are from references clocks.

 

[Midland Dog]

I just told you that puget doesnt do world record benchmark or any overclocking at all, those results are from stock speed, meaning that there is no overclocking, they didn't mees with the speed in the bios, nor in ryzen master. Thoses results are from references clocks.

and intel barely loses while having the headroom to push all threads up another soild few hundred mhz, the ryzen stands to loose a few mhz on an all core oc, skylake still wins

Your understanding needs improvement. Either your understanding of the benchmarks is lacking or your understanding of the definition of the word "pathetic" is lacking.

1 point more, 1 node smaller, 1 year late and the same price, pathetic

 

[lexluthermiester]

1 point more, 1 node smaller, 1 year late and the same price, pathetic

Ah, I see! It's a lack of understanding context. So let's examine;
9900k

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B005404P9I/

$495

3800X

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPJ/

$399

Yup, that's the exact same price....

Now let's compare benchmarks shall we? Since TPU has yet to review the 3800X(unless I missed it) we'll go with the 3700X review, just to be fair;

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Review

AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved...

www.techpowerup.com

Wow! The 9900k beat it by 3%!!! Gee wiz, the 9900k is sooo kicking the 3700X in the nads....

Sarcasm aside, the only thing "pathetic" is your inability to do math and understanding of reality. The 3700X easily matches the 9900k in every metric but one, overclocking. It's nearly $150 less expensive and performs within 3% of said 9900k. Given that the 3800X is faster than the 3700X, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the 3800X is very likely bang on with the 9900k for nearly $100 less. Yup, I'll take your brand of "pathetic" all day, every day thank you very much.

 

[biffzinker]

I chalk it up to being immature if he is 19. The immature responses to criticism suggest, yes.

 

[ratirt]

I chalk it up to being immature if he is 19. The immature responses to criticism suggest, yes.

True that. I still don't get people. Where do they get this stuff from? It's not possible to be so damn blind. The 9900K is "the one" for some people. I simply just can't believe it

 

[Midland Dog]

Ah, I see! It's a lack of understanding context. So let's examine;
9900k

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B005404P9I/

$495

3800X

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPJ/

$399

Yup, that's the exact same price....

Now let's compare benchmarks shall we? Since TPU has yet to review the 3800X(unless I missed it) we'll go with the 3700X review, just to be fair;

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Review

AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved...

www.techpowerup.com

Wow! The 9900k beat it by 3%!!! Gee wiz, the 9900k is sooo kicking the 3700X in the nads....

Sarcasm aside, the only thing "pathetic" is your inability to do math and understanding of reality. The 3700X easily matches the 9900k in every metric but one, overclocking. It's nearly $150 less expensive and performs within 3% of said 9900k. Given that the 3800X is faster than the 3700X, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the 3800X is very likely bang on with the 9900k for nearly $100 less. Yup, I'll take your brand of "pathetic" all day, every day thank you very much.

i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores

i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores

lmao u just sold me on intel %110, oc potential is ALL that i care about, i buy a chip for the most the sillicon can happily do not the most that a company says it "should" do

 

[ratirt]

i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores


lmao u just sold me on intel %110, oc potential is ALL that i care about, i buy a chip for the most the sillicon can happily do not the most that a company says it "should" do

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. How would Intel accomplish that? Twice the IPC of skylake? Actually, most applications now use more than 2 cores I think around 4 now or even more. Knowing the current state of CPU industry and how the frequency of processors is crumbling now and it will get worse, the cores, in a CPU, are the only way to guarantee performance boost.

Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.

 

[Midland Dog]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. How would Intel accomplish that? Twice the IPC of skylake? Actually, most applications now use more than 2 cores I think around 4 now or even more. Knowing the current state of CPU industry and how the frequency of processors is crumbling now and it will get worse, the cores, in a CPU, are the only way to guarantee performance boost.

Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.

4 or more lmao like i said id take the quad core, cores DO NOT scale infinitely at all, winning the MT war means having the most powerful individual cores to make up mt perf, making your core 2% faster scales to all of the cores, %2 per core on a 16 core means + 32% overall

 

[ratirt]

4 or more lmao like i said id take the quad core, cores DO NOT scale infinitely at all, winning the MT war means having the most powerful individual cores to make up mt perf, making your core 2% faster scales to all of the cores, %2 per core on a 16 core means + 32% overall

Sure but what's the point if your previous statement was

i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores

Make up your mind.
and no it would not be 32% because application may scale only for 6 cores. That depends on the application. The problem with your 1ghz more is that the 5Ghz is basically maximum for silicon. Each node shrink will not give any improvement in frequency but it will degrade the frequency. You won't be able to hit 5Ghz. The only way to increase performance is with the IPC increase which is tough to accomplish. Core number is easier (AMD done it) but the downside is utilization of the cores by an application.