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
Add your own comment

143 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Beats Intel Core i9-10980XE by 24% in 3DMark Physics

#26
NicklasAPJ
The numbers is way to low for 10980 XE, my 7980 XE at 4.5Ghz are doing 34k CPU score.

and the benchmark cant use more than 16 core.
Posted on Reply
#27
notb
ratirt
Not wasn't always more expensive.
I'm pretty sure it was.
And in the Athlon days the gap was absurdly huge. Much larger than today.
You just don't remember.
I remember very well because that was the last (and only) time I bought an AMD CPU. And the last time I overclocked. It was fantastic value.
Maybe you had forgotten what AMD is but not all people so please speak for yourself only.
I can sense your AMD-coloured heart is in pain, but you have to focus and get yourself together! Everything is going to be all right!
In the earlier comment I sad "most", not everyone. I'm pretty sure you remembered and your AMD altar at home gave you hope. ;)

Find 10 friends who aren't PC geeks (normal people: they mostly use smartphones, maybe a laptop at work etc). Maybe your parents, neighbours, hairdresser?
Ask them about Intel and AMD. You'll see I'm right - even after 2.5 years of Ryzen praise in the PC community.
Your arguments have no value or meaning. For you, Intel was always expensive and it should stay that way, because why would it change? You don't understand this and I'm not going to explain it.
I only said that Intel doesn't have to offer the same (or better) performance/price as AMD. That's it. You went berserk.
Hit a wall with 20%? Ignorance is bliss and yours is beyond believe. It is way different. You will see soon :)
OK. I'll remind you this comment when their market share starts to drop. You have my word. :)
Posted on Reply
#28
Super XP
TheLostSwede
And the AMD CPU even used quite slow RAM, so there could be more performance to be had.
The key here is that a none HEDT chip from AMD beat up a high end HEDT chip from Intel.
So with that said, I wonder how much more faster the new Threadripper HEDT chips are going to be?
AMD is on the right track..................... :peace:
Posted on Reply
#29
notb
Aquinus
Even if you're correct (which I'm skeptical,) that's a lot of money in the server market.
Of course. I never said it isn't.
But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.

From consumers' point of view an 80-20 market will be fine (Intel won't be able to ask too much).
And from AMD's point of view: they'll be able to achieve that with limited offer - focusing on datacenters and consoles / gaming desktops.
They won't have to spend a lot on developing their mobile lineup or trying other niches (which Intel has to do, hence: Optane, IoT, drones etc)
Posted on Reply
#30
EarthDog
3DMark................ Fire Strike............ base? Extreme? Ultra? Looks like base.

Anyway, here is a 16c/32t 7960x at 4.4 GHz all c/t DDR4 3600...33.3K.



That score for the Intel seems low, honestly. Those all core boost speeds must be really low for the AMD part to beat it out by "24%" and have two more cores/four more threads. I wouldn't think a few hundred MHz could trump 2c/4t more... but AMD's SMT efficiency is better. I just find it interesting that at the same/similar clocks, the 3950x (barely) loses here with a generation old CPU. Sure, memory can play a role, but it isn't making up the ~4% difference between the two platforms between the 7960x and 3950x.

(and for the record, I am only talking about performance here, not price. We get it... it's cheaper... but I'm calling out the odd performance data on the Intel part).

EDIT: And I don't think anyone gives a shit in this thread about market share and whatever ya'll are droning on about...
Posted on Reply
#31
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
notb
Of course. I never said it isn't.
But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.

From consumers' point of view an 80-20 market will be fine (Intel won't be able to ask too much).
And from AMD's point of view: they'll be able to achieve that with limited offer - focusing on datacenters and consoles / gaming desktops.
They won't have to spend a lot on developing their mobile lineup or trying other niches (which Intel has to do, hence: Optane, IoT, drones etc)
I agree, but that entirely depends on how long it takes Intel to shift gears.
Posted on Reply
#32
ratirt
notb
I'm pretty sure it was.
And in the Athlon days the gap was absurdly huge. Much larger than today.
I guess we remember different things. And you should be more specific with the Athlon. There had been quite line-up for few years and I bet you didnt look through all of the products.
notb
I can sense your AMD-coloured heart is in pain, but you have to focus and get yourself together! Everything is going to be all right!
In the earlier comment I sad "most", not everyone. I'm pretty sure you remembered and your AMD altar at home gave you hope. ;)

Find 10 friends who aren't PC geeks (normal people: they mostly use smartphones, maybe a laptop at work etc). Maybe your parents, neighbours, hairdresser?
Ask them about Intel and AMD. You'll see I'm right - even after 2.5 years of Ryzen praise in the PC community.
I understand this is a mockery towards me. :) Funny, that last week I was called Intel fanboy now I've got an AMD colored heart. :)
You lemmings crack me up :) and you better stop while you still can.
notb
OK. I'll remind you this comment when their market share starts to drop. You have my word.
For now it is growing. When you will remind me? In 2 years when Intel moves to 7nm? Next year? when? Please don't bother.
notb
Of course. I never said it isn't.
But that's revenue, not earnings. AMD is not making money - that's the problem.
And to start making money, they'll have to raise their prices - which will stop their expansion.
OMG this one is unbelievable. You really think AMD is not making money with Ryzens? How did you get to that conclusion? please share? So I suppose Intel is earning a lot and with the new gen even more.
Probably that's because Intel is going monolithic. Yes that must be it. AMD's chiplets are crap and cost twice as much, way more than Intel's design. So now Intel is dropping price for its processors to kill AMD with this. Yes and revenue has nothing to do with profits. Actually higher revenue means the company is not getting any profit it means the company is losing money.
Please stop this madness.
Posted on Reply
#34
Dragonsmonk
notb
I

Intel still comfortably outsells AMD, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Because the gap was too large.

I mean... seriously... do I have to paste a supply-demand graph or what?
What exactly do you struggle to understand? I'll try to focus on that part.
I just looked at the sales numbers for Asia, EU & US and the numbers are saying that AMD is shipping more CPU's... so...
Posted on Reply
#36
TheinsanegamerN
Jism
You buy a CPU for it's performance. AMD offers that same great performance for less then Intel's offerings. The time of change is here now. AMD always bin the underdog since the A64, now it's turned tables.

OC'ing is still there with AMD CPU's, you need a bit of expertise on what your doing and you still need better cooling compared to stock. That way you can extract the best out of PBO or DIY with a all core overclock (or various CCX's for that matter).
And gain a whopping, what, 2% more then the CPU will do on their own with auto settings? AMD already has their OC dialed in really well, or conversely, they have already pushed the ryzen arch as fast as it will go without LN2.
Posted on Reply
#37
Mephis
Dragonsmonk
I just looked at the sales numbers for Asia, EU & US and the numbers are saying that AMD is shipping more CPU's... so...
I would love to see those numbers. Could you please provide a source or link, it is really hard to get accurate current figures without paying a ton for them.
Posted on Reply
#38
halo9
fynxer
Would not want to be the Intel boss trying to explain to stockholders why they stopped innovating all these years and now are being Bulldozed big time by AMD.
I don't think they stopped innovating at all, I think they twiddled their thumbs for so long without competition that now when they need to innovate, they have forgotten how too. I do think the fire has been lit now beneath some arses and things are starting to move again. The next few years look good for all PC users : )
Posted on Reply
#39
cucker tarlson
Aint nobody cares about 3d Mark physics.it's a benchmark where 2700 x beats 9700 k so you can't find a more irrelevant one if you tried.
Posted on Reply
#40
Mephis
ratirt
OMG this one is unbelievable. You really think AMD is not making money with Ryzens? How did you get to that conclusion? please share? So I suppose Intel is earning a lot and with the new gen even more.
Probably that's because Intel is going monolithic. Yes that must be it. AMD's chiplets are crap and cost twice as much, way more than Intel's design. So now Intel is dropping price for its processors to kill AMD with this. Yes and revenue has nothing to do with profits. Actually higher revenue means the company is not getting any profit it means the company is losing money.
Please stop this madness.
Yes, AMD is making a profit, but not much of one. For the 2nd quarter of 2019 (the latest quarter with released numbers), AMD had $1.53B in revenue and $59M in operating income (profit) and $35M in net income (profit).

http://ir.amd.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amd-reports-second-quarter-2019-financial-results

And yes, Intel makes a ton more money than them. For the same quarter Intel made $16.5B in revenue and $4.6B in net income (profit).

https://www.intc.com/investor-relations/investor-education-and-news/investor-news/press-release-details/2019/Intel-Reports-Second-Quarter-2019-Financial-Results/

Obviously Intel is a much larger company, my point is that Intel is in no danger of going under anytime soon. AMD can't get enough processors from TSMC to replace Intel. With the demand for TSMC's 7nm node, from other companies including Apple, they can't get enough chips to over take Intel in market share. Their goal is to get above the 25% they had in the Opteron days. And that would be impressive, considering they were in the single digits last year (in servers).
Posted on Reply
#41
EarthDog
cucker tarlson
Aint nobody cares about 3d Mark physics.it's a benchmark where 2700 x beats 9700 k so you can't find a more irrelevant one if you tried.
A 2700x SHOULD beat a 9700k in this man.

You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?
Posted on Reply
#42
cucker tarlson
EarthDog
A 2700x SHOULD beat a 9700k in this man.

You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?
I expected nothing cause it's a synthetic benchmark.I expected it shouldn't make news.
Posted on Reply
#43
notb
Dragonsmonk
I just looked at the sales numbers for Asia, EU & US and the numbers are saying that AMD is shipping more CPU's... so...
Yeah, and you should definitely show us the Mindfactory graph as well.

It's really not rocket science:
AMD 2019Q2 revenue: $1.53B
Intel 2019Q2 revenue: $16.5B

So you can:
a) think this over
OR
b) convince me that over 90% of Intel's revenue comes from products other than CPUs.

EarthDog
A 2700x SHOULD beat a 9700k in this man.

You are comparing an 8c/16t part to an 8c/8t part in a benchmark that uses all cores and threads. What did you expect?
And what did we expect in 3950X vs 10980XE? Even putting aside the fact that 10980XE's score is weirdly low.
Zen SMT implementation works very well in some tasks (much better than Intel's) and very badly in others.
This is why in so many benchmarks and apps Ryzen's actually get better marks with SMT disabled. It's very rare with Intel.

In real life this will be mixed and these CPUs should compete pretty well.
Of course Intel is HEDT, so you need expensive motherboards and so on.
3950X may work on a cheap mobo... but most people will buy an expensive X570 anyway, so it's pretty even.
Posted on Reply
#44
EarthDog
notb
And what did we expect in 3950X vs 10980XE? Even putting aside the fact that 10980XE's score is weirdly low.
Zen SMT implementation works very well in some tasks (much better than Intel's) and very badly in others.
This is why in so many benchmarks and apps Ryzen's actually get better marks with SMT disabled. It's very rare with Intel.

In real life this will be mixed and these CPUs should compete pretty well.
Of course Intel is HEDT, so you need expensive motherboards and so on.
3950X may work on a cheap mobo... but most people will buy an expensive X570 anyway, so it's pretty even.
Odd echo in here for the most part. :p

That said, both AMD and Intel, when SMT/HT is disabled, BOTH get better FPS in some games. I don't know if/how that translates into productivity or other apps that don't use all cores and threads, but both exhibit this behavior similarly in some games. To that end, it won't come close to making a 9700k compete with a 2700x in this test IF disabling XMP actually improves anything here.

I just want to figure out what the all core clock is on the new Intel part and the 3950x. That should clear things up a bit.

cucker tarlson
I expected nothing cause it's a synthetic benchmark.I expected it shouldn't make news.
LOL, maybe, but the point was a 2700x SHOULD walk a 9700K, contrary to your apparent surprise. ;)
Posted on Reply
#45
The Egg
One test result from 2 unreleased processors, unknown source or testing standards.

Just remember to fill your mouth with a 40% saltwater solution and gargle the star spangled banner before reading this.
Posted on Reply
#46
IceShroom
TheGuruStud
You're far too generous on power consumption lol.

Most people are going to OC this star? Good luck with that.
And people call AMD CPUs power hungry. o_O o_O
FX 9590 consumes less power at 5Ghz than this.
Edit.
Posted on Reply
#47
EarthDog
IceShroom
And people call AMD hot. o_O o_O
FX 9590 consumes less power at 5Ghz than this.
You do realize that hot and power consumption are different things, right? For example, let's take fire... let's compare a lighter and a bonfire, both with yellow flames...which do you think would be more difficult to put out (has more energy)... even though the temps are the same?

I've had a 90C 5W IC and my 200W CPU runs cooler....while associated, don't let it fool you... the processor will still run where it is supposed to. ;)
Posted on Reply
#48
IceShroom
EarthDog
You do realize that hot and power consumption are different things, right? For example, let's take fire... let's compare a lighter and a bonfire, both with yellow flames...which do you think would be more difficult to put out... even though the temps are the same.

I've had a 90C 5W IC and my 200W CPU runs cooler....
Opps.:p
Posted on Reply
#49
xtreemchaos
this is rubbing salt into my cuts , daughters car has popped its engine today and ive just 10mins ago gave my 3950x money for a deposit for another one, woe is life your flying high and something kicks us in the gutts :banghead: . ive still got hope but my 2700x is going to last me a wee bit longer.
the 3950x is looking good.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment