• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

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

I find hilarious that the uploader of these benchmark results is called "blueleader". Oh, the irony...
 
Unless the latest Intel hardware mitigates against the security flaws and their performance regressions then people should take those into full account for all of these comparisons as well.

For example, having to disable hyperthreading, which several companies have said is necessary for full security, is a big blow to some of Intel's parts. Some people will respond by saying they're not that worried about security. Well, maybe they aren't but some are and should be.
 
Regarding the comments on the IF divider, 3733 is the last step at 1:1, the next one up is 2:1. So 3733 is considered the "sweet spot" unless you have really fast RAM and can get the latency settings way down.

Additionally, there should be enough IF b/w at 2:1 as it's supposed to be 2.5 or 3x the speed of Zen+ IIRC. Even if it's "only" 2x, it would be no worse at the 2:1 divider but the RAM (and the IF) will still be going faster vs Z+.

I can't wait to play with it.
 
Last edited:
RichF said:
Unless the latest Intel hardware mitigates against the security flaws and their performance regressions then people should take those into full account for all of these comparisons as well.

For example, having to disable hyperthreading, which several companies have said is necessary for full security, is a big blow to some of Intel's parts. Some people will respond by saying they're not that worried about security. Well, maybe they aren't but some are and should be.
Click to expand...

It's a blow to ALL of Intel's parts. I have noticed in my system (It is Intel) a performance regression over the past 12 months. That ~10% drop in my applications is actually VERY noticeable.

What people don't seem to realize is that AMD is clearly still holding back some of their cards. That benchmark where they showed Intel without hardware patches was very intentional - they are excited for the final reviews to make Intel look even worse than they did.
 
diatribe said:
I hesitant to believe this just yet. The 18 core Intel should be a least negligible faster than the AMD 16 core counterpart.
Click to expand...

Perhaps when they get a non ES chip running 200 MHz faster than the one tested you will believe it.
 
Captain_Tom said:
What people don't seem to realize is that AMD is clearly still holding back some of their cards. That benchmark where they showed Intel without hardware patches was very intentional - they are excited for the final reviews to make Intel look even worse than they did.
Click to expand...

I just imagined Dr. Su rubbing her hands together with a smirk on her face lol
 
nemesis.ie said:
Regarding the comments on the IF divider, 3733 is the last step at 1:1, the next one up is 2:1. So 3733 is considered the "sweet spot" unless you have really fast RAM and can get the latency settings way down.

Additionally, there should be enough IF b/w at 2:1 as it's supposed to be 2.5 or 3x the speed of Zen+ IIRC. Even if it's "only" 2x, it would be no worse at the 2:1 divider but the RAM (and the IF) will still be going faster vs Z+.

I can't wait to play with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, IF bus width has been increased from 256-bit in Zen/Zen+ (AM4 only) to 512-bit (same as Zen/Zen+ Threadripper). So, IF is pretty well overprovisioned vs DDR4 in 1:1 mode. The numbers seem a bit ridiculous until you consider that IF SDF also handles all other communication too, which can saturate the bus internally. Once RAM access is needed, that becomes the primary performance limiter. Ryzen seems ready for DDR5, honestly.

1866.5 (1:1 mode) * (512/8) * 2 lanes = 238.912GB/s
- Maximum DDR4 bandwidth at 1866 (3733MT): 1866.5 * (128/8) * 2 = 59.728GB/s
- IF bandwidth is well in excess of maximum DDR4 speed

2000/2 (1:2 mode) = 1000 * (512/8) * 2 lanes = 128GB/s
- Maximum DDR4 bandwidth at 2000MHz (4000MT): 2000 * (128/8) * 2 = 64GB/s
- bandwidth isn't an issue, but since IF speed is halved, latency increases slightly

These numbers exclude overhead costs.

I'm still not clear on if the SDF is a 512-bit bidirectional link (2 lanes). I'm assuming it is for this exercise.
 
Last edited:
fireedo said:
it is overclocked but, at least with the same geekbench application (different OS I know) 7980XE win a quite much :)

7980XE Geekbench result
Click to expand...

I think the clock speeds where different to what they are meant to be released at... But it's a good result :)
 
Do we know if 3950X reviews are coming on 7/7? since Der8auer already got his
I know it will be out only on September
 
HwGeek said:
Do we know if 3950X reviews are coming on 7/7? since Der8auer already got his
I know it will be out only on September
Click to expand...

Did he now? Huh.

Well, he may have had to sign a NDA, so he probably won't tell us much until we are closer to launch. Besides, I'd wait until at least a few major tech sites have their reviews ready.
 
Low quality post by medi01
diatribe said:
I hesitant to believe this just yet. The 18 core Intel should be a least negligible faster than the AMD 16 core counterpart.
Click to expand...
Because we have never seen AMD beat Intel while on the same process, or because TSMC process node is not ahead of Intel's.
Oh wait.
 
"Almost as big a win as that huge stone on Lisa's hand."

What?
 
Captain_Tom said:
It's a blow to ALL of Intel's parts. I have noticed in my system (It is Intel) a performance regression over the past 12 months. That ~10% drop in my applications is actually VERY noticeable.
Click to expand...
Which is why I continue to make the point that people need to keep these performance regressions front and center in their minds and in their writing, when they do evaluations. Too often I see presentations that seem to be based in an alternate reality where there are no performance regressions.

Some have seemed to suggest that the latest Intel CPUs have less performance degradation because there are some baked-in mitigations, in hardware. I want clarification about that in any performance comparison between Intel and AMD until it's no longer relevant. I want hyperthreading to be disabled on any Intel parts that require that for full security, in any performance comparison, so people can see what the impact is.

Captain_Tom said:
What people don't seem to realize is that AMD is clearly still holding back some of their cards. That benchmark where they showed Intel without hardware patches was very intentional - they are excited for the final reviews to make Intel look even worse than they did.
Click to expand...
That's nice for that artificial financial instrument's empty pursuit of profit, I suppose. I'd rather have reality taken into full account, not marketing magic hold the day. Right now, reality appears to be that we have serious performance regressions due to serious security vulnerabilities. Those need to be taken into account in all performance appraisals. Now, not later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top