AMD's Upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) Shown Beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)

[matar]

Great news as this 3950x is my new CPU

 

[Crackong]

The target isn't "3950x beating 9980xe" cause a reasonable person would know Geekbench wasn't a good benchmark for high core count CPUs at all.
They put this up to bait the reviewers out there to test 3950x against 9980xe right at launch day.
I bet the 9980xe will hold its position but the 3950x will be really close , something like 9960x < 3950x < 9980xe .

Consider their prices, all these benchmark reviewers will put the Intel 9th Gen HEDT lineup into "Overpriced trash" territory.

 

[dicktracy]

The target isn't "3950x beating 9980xe" cause a reasonable person would know Geekbench wasn't a good benchmark for high core count CPUs at all.
They put this up to bait the reviewers out there to test 3950x against 9980xe right at launch day.
I bet the 9980xe will hold its position but the 3950x will be really close , something like 9960x < 3950x < 9980xe .

Consider their prices, all these benchmark reviewers will put the Intel 9th Gen HEDT lineup into "Overpriced trash" territory.

Once the new Threadrippers come out, they will be lol

 

[Hossein Almet]

If it's true, I may be tempted to upgrade, instead of waiting for Zen 3.

 

[TheGuruStud]

The target isn't "3950x beating 9980xe" cause a reasonable person would know Geekbench wasn't a good benchmark for high core count CPUs at all.
They put this up to bait the reviewers out there to test 3950x against 9980xe right at launch day.
I bet the 9980xe will hold its position but the 3950x will be really close , something like 9960x < 3950x < 9980xe .

Consider their prices, all these benchmark reviewers will put the Intel 9th Gen HEDT lineup into "Overpriced trash" territory.

Hey, if you can afford the CPU and MB, then you can afford the 300 dollar water loop to cool it, too! Intel wins!

 

[Crackong]

Hey, if you can afford the CPU and MB, then you can afford the 300 dollar water loop to cool it, too! Intel wins!

3950x + GODLIKE = 749 + 799(assumed) + 300 = $1848
9980xe = $1999

With the money of a 9980xe alone, you can buy 3950x+ unnecessary high end MB + water loop and still have money for 32GB of RAM

 

[SIGSEGV]

I am ready, ready, ready, ready...
I don't think I am gonna upgrade my X470

 

[TheGuruStud]

3950x + GODLIKE = 749 + 799(assumed) + 300 = $1848
9980xe = $1999

With the money of a 9980xe alone, you can buy 3950x+ unnecessary high end MB + water loop and still have money for 32GB of RAM

Pretty funny that for 1,100 you can have a 3950x/MB/ram, which means an entire high end system with video card is the same price as just a 9980xe. Get bent, Intel.

 

[Xzibit]

I am ready, ready, ready, ready...
I don't think I am gonna upgrade my X470

More for everyone else...

The new feature allows you to override the default boost clock by up to +200MHz, in addition to expanded TDC/EDC/PPT limits. The CPU will self-manage from there using its built-in boost and clock management programming.

Ryzen doesn't really have a "single core turbo" clock. Our boost algorithm pursues the highest possible clocks on as many cores as possible until you hit some sort of limit: socket power, core temps, VRM electrical limit, VRM thermal limit, max clockspeed, etc.

 

[SIGSEGV]

More for everyone else...

arrrrghh...
d*mn you. Please stop...

 

[bszalman]

More for everyone else...

How much that's gonna cost?

 

[phanbuey]

haha wow they're actually ahead of schedule this time.

Im in austin and the local shops here always make fun of what a sh*tshow AMD launches typically are (Ryzen very much included) - it's extra funny considering HQ is down the street. Where the local Fry's had a bunch of chips on hand and no motherboards for 2 weeks after launch.

 

[Berfs1]

I am amazed at how many ignorant people commented on this post. You wanna know the conditions of the ram? LOOK AT THE SOURCES LMFAO. Wanna know what cooling? Generally speaking it doesn’t matter. For the 9980XE specifically, it runs 3800 MHz at all cores, and idk what the turbo boost is for the 3950X under load. What I will mention is the 3950X score is interesting as it’s memory is clocked at 2063 MHz effective speed, which is way below AMD’s 3200 MHz rating. And it was running X470..

More for everyone else...

Weird flex but okay. I say that because you are flexing with shittabyte motherboards.

 

[Assimilator]

God DAMN I wish people would stop using Shitbench as a performance metric for anything. The only thing that will objectively prove or disprove Ryzen 2's superiority over Intel's HCC CPUs are hard reviews by TPU, AnandTech, etc.

 

[Vycyous]

What I will mention is the 3950X score is interesting as it’s memory is clocked at 2063 MHz effective speed, which is way below AMD’s 3200 MHz rating. And it was running X470..

2063 MHz is 4133 MT/s (DDR4-4133). What is truly interesting is that AMD has shown that performance may actually be reduced by running the memory at anything over about 3600 to 3733 MT/s (1800 to 1866 MHz).

 

[ratirt]

Maybe Geekbench isn't the perfect benchmark to show the numbers but it still shows something. If the difference is small between the 2 processors I'd agree that it can go either way which one wins in real time and other benchmarks and workloads. The difference is enormous and if the GB doesn't scale well with multicores then it is still advantage for AMD since less cores beat intel's more core product. Of course other reviews would be nice and I'm sure we will get them some time around. We will all be welcome to comment afterwards

 

[phanbuey]

2063 MHz is 4133 MT/s (DDR4-4133). What is truly interesting is that AMD has shown that performance may actually be reduced by running the memory at anything over about 3600 to 3733 MT/s (1800 to 1866 MHz).

latency, not performance. You're still going to get the bandwith but increased latency at the high end strap.

 

[Vayra86]

I hesitant to believe this just yet. The 18 core Intel should be a least negligible faster than the AMD 16 core counterpart.

Unlikely, the single score of Ryzen is now considerably higher as well. About 5% - per core. So it may be a hair faster on multicore loads, but only if those scale very well.

And let's face it, we've always maintained that those single scores matter a whole lot more than a slightly higher multi,... Intel has nothing on this. Especially if you consider price and the now also relevant damage to HT.

 

[Vycyous]

latency, not performance. You're still going to get the bandwith but increased latency at the high end strap.

According to Ian Cutress at AnandTech, "This ratio should automatically come into play around DDR4-3600 or DDR4-3800, but it does mean that IF2 clock does reduce in half, which has a knock on effect with respect to bandwidth. It should be noted that even if the DRAM frequency is high, having a slower IF frequency will likely limit the raw performance gain from that faster memory. AMD recommends keeping the ratio at a 1:1 around DDR4-3600, and instead optimizing sub-timings at that speed."

If that's truly the case, it's really unfortunate because I was hoping for great memory overclocks and the additional bandwidth and lower latency that usually comes along with that, not one or the other. Speaking of latency, it doesn't appear that it has been improved at all. I run at 3600 MT/s CL14 with my 2700X and latency is generally around 55-60 ns in Aida64, which is about as good as it seems to get with Ryzen. The same 3600 MT/s CL14 (with closely matched sub-timings) on my 7700K has about 33-38 ns of latency, which is a huge difference. I guess we'll find out for sure in a few weeks.

 

[xtreemchaos]

every dog has its Day, and about time to. looks one hell of a chip i carnt wait for christmas.

 

[PanicLake]

I hesitant to believe this just yet. The 18 core Intel should be a least negligible faster than the AMD 16 core counterpart.

The number of core is in no way a measure of performance.
Like those stupid advertisement for smartphone (at least where I live) that say : octa core bla bla bla
Octacore alone doesn't mean anything. Same goes for CPU core count.

 

[Konceptz]

You thinking that constitutes any sort of evidence and warrants defense makes you an AMD fanboy and just as bad.

Sorry but no, I just find it hilarious the lengths certain folks go to defend Intel. I buy and build from both camps.

 

[xtreemchaos]

me too i like both just as much

 

[Jism]

From ZEN1 AMD already had a really good base that only needed improvement, to finally beat the best counterpart of Intel. They succeeded. Case closed.

 

[phanbuey]

According to Ian Cutress at AnandTech, "This ratio should automatically come into play around DDR4-3600 or DDR4-3800, but it does mean that IF2 clock does reduce in half, which has a knock on effect with respect to bandwidth. It should be noted that even if the DRAM frequency is high, having a slower IF frequency will likely limit the raw performance gain from that faster memory. AMD recommends keeping the ratio at a 1:1 around DDR4-3600, and instead optimizing sub-timings at that speed."

If that's truly the case, it's really unfortunate because I was hoping for great memory overclocks and the additional bandwidth and lower latency that usually comes along with that, not one or the other. Speaking of latency, it doesn't appear that it has been improved at all. I run at 3600 MT/s CL14 with my 2700X and latency is generally around 55-60 ns in Aida64, which is about as good as it seems to get with Ryzen. The same 3600 MT/s CL14 (with closely matched sub-timings) on my 7700K has about 33-38 ns of latency, which is a huge difference. I guess we'll find out for sure in a few weeks.

I hope that's not true... makes sense what he's saying though. I figured the IF bandwidth was high enough that even at 1:2 it wouldn't degrade bandwidth from RAM.