News Intel 10th Gen Desktop CPU Rivals AMD Ryzen 9 3900X In Early Benchmark Results

[Admin]

Time Spy submissions offer a look at the performance difference between the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Intel Core i9-10900KF.

Intel 10th Gen Desktop CPU Rivals AMD Ryzen 9 3900X In Early Benchmark Results : Read more

 

[DrummerManSpike]

Probably costs a couple hundred more though, the 10900x sure does (418.89 vs 599.99 USD on PCPartPicker currently)

 

[TerryLaze]

Probably costs a couple hundred more though, the 10900x sure does (418.89 vs 599.99 USD on PCPartPicker currently)

The 10900x is a semi workstation CPU and previous gen,or previous skew however you want to look at it.
I'm sure the 10900k will be more expensive but then again you will be able to reach 5Ghz all core instead of just 4Ghz.

But apart from all that, timespy is pretty irrelevant to anything and isn't really telling us anything.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Probably costs a couple hundred more though, the 10900x sure does (418.89 vs 599.99 USD on PCPartPicker currently)

Also will have double or more the power draw.

 

[InvalidError]

The 10900x is a semi workstation CPU

And the Ryzen 3900X isn't by that standard? Two extra cores and PCIe 4.0 for cheaper and less power. Seems like a more workstation-y CPU than the i9 to me.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

And the Ryzen 3900X isn't by that standard? Two extra cores and PCIe 4.0 for cheaper and less power. Seems like a more workstation-y CPU than the i9 to me.

Agreed

 

[TerryLaze]

by that standard?

By which standard?!
Intel makes the tiers for their CPUs and AMD makes the tiers for their CPUs.

 

[InvalidError]

By which standard?!
Intel makes the tiers for their CPUs and AMD makes the tiers for their CPUs.

That's just marketing. On the practical side of things, there aren't many workstation-oriented things that the 10900X can do that the 3900X + X570 cannot do just as well if not better.

 

[st379]

I wonder what cooling he used. Last time Intel forgot to mention it was industrial chiller.

 

[JamesSneed]

I hope AMD does a thin bin product with Zen3. Intel and Nvidia are the masters of halo products of which everything else is compared. Take the 9900KS it was around for a few months and is now gone. Intel got what they wanted out of the product having it on every review site and chart. I have a feeling this is going to be similar high priced, low volume thin binned product.

 

[TerryLaze]

That's just marketing.

That's the point I made,the K model will be cheaper because intel doesn't categorize it as a semi-pro chip but as a mainstream one.

 

[cryoburner]

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X may have tough competition in the upcoming Intel Core i9-10900KF...

...AMD may want to be concerned.

Concerned about what? The i9-10900KF will apparently be priced above the 3900X's $500 launch price that it debuted for over 8 months ago, and well above the $420 that its selling for now. If anything, the 12-core 3900X will be competing with the 8-core i7-10700K and KF as far as pricing goes. Sure, these price drops are undoubtedly due in part to AMD expecting increased competition from Intel, but by the time these processors launch, AMD's chips will have been on the market for nearly a year, and it won't likely be more than a matter of months before their 4th-gen Ryzen processors launch to compete with them.

 

[TerryLaze]

Take the 9900KS it was around for a few months and is now gone. Intel got what they wanted out of the product having it on every review site and chart.

Yeah the 9900ks was clearly just a counter to so many benchmarking sites forcing the 9900k to not go over 95W not even for the slightest amount of time.
The 9900ks is basically how a 9900k will run on 99.99999% of users out there,you have to be a very special snowflake to lock down a K chip to 95W.

 

[jimmysmitty]

That's just marketing. On the practical side of things, there aren't many workstation-oriented things that the 10900X can do that the 3900X + X570 cannot do just as well if not better.

PCIe 4.0 does not make up for the lack of PCIe lanes available and it cannot even compete on the same level in memory intensive tasks, the 10900X has way more memory bandwidth available to it than the 3900X does.

 

[InvalidError]

PCIe 4.0 does not make up for the lack of PCIe lanes available and it cannot even compete on the same level in memory intensive tasks, the 10900X has way more memory bandwidth available to it than the 3900X does.

There is little to no benefit to the extra memory bandwidth in most real-world workloads and not many workloads that require more than the 128GB of a quad-DIMM setup. IO-wise, one PCIe 4.0 lane can replace two 3.0, so 3rd-gen Ryzen + RX570 has just as much total available IO bandwidth, only a matter of getting a board that splits it the way you need it which is the trickier part.

 

[mitch074]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't AMD's top of the line desk CPU the 3950X? So should they be concerned that Intel's future best can barely reach their second best offer, which is already known to be 10% slower than their own future second best?

 

[TerryLaze]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't AMD's top of the line desk CPU the 3950X? So should they be concerned that Intel's future best can barely reach their second best offer, which is already known to be 10% slower than their own future second best?

Most people only care about per core performance,bulldozer was better in rendering and archiving but still "failed" because of this.
10 cores being on the same level as 12 is a pretty big deal,it's 20% more cores basically for the same performance.

 

[mitch074]

Most people only care about per core performance,bulldozer was better in rendering and archiving but still "failed" because of this.
10 cores being on the same level as 12 is a pretty big deal,it's 20% more cores basically for the same performance.

yeah, thing is performance is "almost higher" on a gaming benchmark which is getting old (i.e. not perfectly threaded) on a chip with 10% higher boost frequency... And still comparing an older second-best to a future top of the line.
Of course there are still no leaks on a hypothetical 4950X, but I guesstimate it would cream that Intel offering by 10-40% depending on tasks, that with Zen 3's 10% IPC improvement and 6 extra cores and all.
All that, and you'll get it with a BIOS upgrade VS buying a new motherboard.
I was flummoxed when I saw that the latest BIOS for that 2017 MSI B350 Mortar added official support for the 3950X on what is essentially an old entry-level all-purpose motherboard. Of course I wouldn't DO such a setup, nevermind overclocking it, but to think it's actually supported...

 

[TerryLaze]

yeah, thing is performance is "almost higher" on a gaming benchmark which is getting old (i.e. not perfectly threaded) on a chip with 10% higher boost frequency...

Huh?! What you are saying here makes no sense,are you talking about time spy? This is perfectly scaled which is why it has no relevance to actual gaming.
It is also why a 39xx will be running at around 3.6-3.7 because all cores will be loaded while the 10xxx will be running at around 4.6-4.7 which is why ryzen needs 20% more cores to get to the same point.

Der8auer checked this and the 3900x hits 3.6 on most cores while one stays at around 3 and only one boosts to 4.

View: https://youtu.be/3LesYlfhv3o?t=405

 

[13thmonkey]

So a brand new CPU is better than an older one?

 

[InvalidError]

I was flummoxed when I saw that the latest BIOS for that 2017 MSI B350 Mortar added official support for the 3950X on what is essentially an old entry-level all-purpose motherboard. Of course I wouldn't DO such a setup, nevermind overclocking it, but to think it's actually supported...

If you are surprised that the combination would actually be supported then go around saying you wouldn't do that, you are basically admitting that the compatibility might be mostly moot - hypothetically there but not recommended.

Since AMD has written that making chiplets work on AM4 was an engineering challenge, I'll take it as meaning that AM4 forced AMD to make some performance and power compromises that it wouldn't have needed to on a socket designed from the ground up with chiplets in mind.

Personally, I haven't bothered upgrading CPUs in my own PCs in over 20 years. By the time I run into a CPU or RAM capacity bottleneck, I need new everything else anyway and I'd rather have two years socket cycles if that means not saddling the platform with unnecessary compatibility luggage and engineering compromises.

 

[JamesSneed]

@InvalidError I haven't upgraded CPU's either but i'm sitting on a decently high end 1800x based build with what was Gigabytes highest end x370 board so Ill very likely upgrade to the 4000 Ryzen series if I can get motherboard support. With 32GB of pretty darn good performing Samsung B die I think im set for a while. So while I agree I think some of us that bought in to the first gen Ryzen might have a good case to upgrade CPU's especially since the 8-cores are now mostly the mainstream parts likely can get 30% better performance for $300 or less.

 

[jimmysmitty]

There is little to no benefit to the extra memory bandwidth in most real-world workloads and not many workloads that require more than the 128GB of a quad-DIMM setup. IO-wise, one PCIe 4.0 lane can replace two 3.0, so 3rd-gen Ryzen + RX570 has just as much total available IO bandwidth, only a matter of getting a board that splits it the way you need it which is the trickier part.

There are plenty of workstation class loads that benefit from more RAM, one being HEC-RAS for example, which only needs a single fast core but likes more memory especially the more intense the simulation you plan to run.

 

[mitch074]

If you are surprised that the combination would actually be supported then go around saying you wouldn't do that, you are basically admitting that the compatibility might be mostly moot - hypothetically there but not recommended.

Since AMD has written that making chiplets work on AM4 was an engineering challenge, I'll take it as meaning that AM4 forced AMD to make some performance and power compromises that it wouldn't have needed to on a socket designed from the ground up with chiplets in mind.

Personally, I haven't bothered upgrading CPUs in my own PCs in over 20 years. By the time I run into a CPU or RAM capacity bottleneck, I need new everything else anyway and I'd rather have two years socket cycles if that means not saddling the platform with unnecessary compatibility luggage and engineering compromises.

You misunderstood me - I meant I wouldn't build such a machine, but upgrading an existing one would be fine. It might even be fun.

 

[hotaru251]

a new gen vs an old gen cpu.
its power draw is likely higher.
its gonna have the Intel tax.
Its MB will be ofc also have intel tax.

also lets not forget...its likely stock ram tuning....ryzen gets benefit from fine tuning your clocks and the IF more so than actually OC'ing the cpu.