Intel Core i9-10900 10-core CPU Pictured

[GlacierNine]

It was done by my friend as a part vendor and they already got hands on LGA1200 motherboards so I trust their numbers.

 

[svan71]

Nice conclusion
In the most games Intel is clearly dominating AMD, read some Benchmarks at this stuff, and I don't think that will switch in the future, but let's see.

View attachment 145304

And here comes AMD:

View attachment 145305

+4.7% with 4 less cores and 8 less threads no M2 4.0 makes 9900k a terrible value for my money

 

[MrAMD]

Quick question: what's your ram latency in AIDA64 ram test? (you can do this in trail version)

Do you know that currently most games are RAM latency bounded? Intel's gaming advantage is mostly coming from better IMC that can run 4000+ rams ad have less than 40ns latency.

9900KS is not faster than 8086k in those games as less core = less latency for Intel.

See attached. Yes I've explained that to many AMD fanbois. Games are very latency dependent as well as raw clock speed (and IPC obviously). In my real world experience; I've seen 9900k always beat 8700k/8086k due to same IPC, clocking higher on average, more cores to help balance background programs. The very slight latency advantage 8086k has is real, but small. Ryzen has a much higher latency wall to fix and is a much better argument.

 

[GlacierNine]

See attached. Yes I've explained that to many AMD fanbois. Games are very latency dependent as well as raw clock speed (and IPC obviously). In my real world experience; I've seen 9900k always beat 8700k/8086k due to same IPC, clocking higher on average, more cores to help balance background programs. The very slight latency advantage 8086k has is real, but small. Ryzen has a much higher latency wall to fix and is a much better argument.

AMD's IF latency is much higher yes, but the latency inside a single core and a single CCX is actually slightly lower than Intel's ring bus. This being a 2700X, you can also expect that the 3000 series further improved on this.

 

[MrAMD]

AMD's IF latency is much higher yes, but the latency inside a single core and a single CCX is actually slightly lower than Intel's ring bus. This being a 2700X, you can also expect that the 3000 series further improved on this.

View attachment 145936

Interesting, thanks for sharing that. Looks like the cross-CCX still needs to be vastly improved though.

 

[londiste]

Cross-CCX latency has a part to play but memory latency is more of a suspect for gaming performance. This is considerably higher for Ryzen 3000 series than Intel's for now and actually a bit higher than Ryzen 2000 series.

Techspot has some directly comparable latency graphs:

4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K

Expanding upon all the testing we performed in our day-one 3rd-gen Ryzen coverage, today we'll be running a clock-for-clock comparison benchmark. IPC can be a good indicator...

www.techspot.com

Spoiler

 

[MikeZTM]

See attached. Yes I've explained that to many AMD fanbois. Games are very latency dependent as well as raw clock speed (and IPC obviously). In my real world experience; I've seen 9900k always beat 8700k/8086k due to same IPC, clocking higher on average, more cores to help balance background programs. The very slight latency advantage 8086k has is real, but small. Ryzen has a much higher latency wall to fix and is a much better argument.

3600 is no where pushing the IMC of 9900k/8086k. Try 4200 with tight timing and you will see the difference.
Sub 40ns latency is really hard on 9900k but much easier on a 8086k.