AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16 Core CPU Benchmark Leaks

[Grimm_Reaper]

Ryzen 9 3950X for $750 compared to the Intel core i9 - 9980XE which is at $2000.

Welcome to the era of AMD most likely the new king


AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Benchmarked in Geekbench, $1250 US Cheaper Than Intel’s Flagship Core i9-9980XE With 18 Cores Yet Obliterates It In Single & Multi-Threaded Workloads

 

[August]

I'm running a ryzen 1600 but this looks like it's time for an upgrade

 

[DirectorGunner]

Single thread performance doesn't seem great. Gaming wise, until SC gets optimized for more threads, AMD needs a faster single core base clock. But it's slowly climbing. When they hit 4Ghz base clock per core with that many cores... I'm in! And no cheating with only 4GHz on the first core or two, all cores base clock 4Ghz or better and then I'm in.

 

[Printimus]

Has intel had any releases of CPU's recently? If not, they have a few more months til the end of the year to counter.

 

[Michael]

Single thread performance doesn't seem great. Gaming wise, until SC gets optimized for more threads, AMD needs a faster single core base clock. But it's slowly climbing. When they hit 4Ghz base clock per core with that many cores... I'm in! And no cheating with only 4GHz on the first core or two, all cores base clock 4Ghz or better and then I'm in.

So there you have it, an AMD 16 core chip that performs just as good as a flagship mainstream Intel CPU in single-core and much better than Intel’s flagship HEDT CPU in multi-threaded tasks.

?

I would wait for independent real world results anyway

Has intel had any releases of CPU's recently? If not, they have a few more months til the end of the year to counter.

9900k was released by the end of 2018. Intel changed their release system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process-Architecture-Optimization_model [old was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick–tock_model]) so next step would be to decrease the die size. Which should enhance thermal efficency. Also they might add more cores. I wouldn't expect major IPC changes.

 

[Grimm_Reaper]

Has intel had any releases of CPU's recently? If not, they have a few more months til the end of the year to counter.

As was last seen their next iteration is a 10nm chip in comparison to a 7 nm die used on the new Ryzen. As of right now they do not have an answer other than trying to over clock to stay ahead.

 

[Grimm_Reaper]

Single thread performance doesn't seem great. Gaming wise, until SC gets optimized for more threads, AMD needs a faster single core base clock. But it's slowly climbing. When they hit 4Ghz base clock per core with that many cores... I'm in! And no cheating with only 4GHz on the first core or two, all cores base clock 4Ghz or better and then I'm in.

According to the article

the chip scored 5868 points in single-core and 61072 points in multi-core performance tests

The Intel Core i9-9980XE on the other hand scores around 5300 points in single and 42000 points

It goes on to say

the Core i9-9900K scores around 6200 points in single-core and 31000 points in multi-core. Now while the 9900K has higher single-core performance due to the 5 GHz single-core frequency, it looks like the flagship AMD part isn’t much behind and can actually equalize or perform better with a 5 GHz OC. In addition to that, Robert Hallock confirmed that 3rd Gen Ryzen processors are equipped with the latest Precision Boost Overdrive algorithm which allows you to override the default boost clock by up to +200 MHz in addition to expanded TDP/EDC/PPT limits.

 

[DirectorGunner]

@Grimm_Reaper
Yea but I don't want to overclock and use up more power and create more heat than is designed usage for longevity, I want a 16 core (or whatever core count... at least 12 physical cores or more) CPU that does as well in single thread performance (without OC) as the leading gaming CPU from the last release cycle. When their base clock reaches 4Ghz, means normal use will likely be in fair excess above 4Ghz, maybe even above 5Ghz with very little OC. Between 4Ghz and 5Ghz or higher is the sweet spot where I decided to upgrade if something comes out with that speed when not OC'd across all 16 cores. That will be the day I shell out maybe $1K or more to get that CPU. Until then, I'm sticking with my old 7700k. I do a major upgrade about every 4 years or so. I will happily wait for longer.

 

[Grimm_Reaper]

@Grimm_Reaper
Yea but I don't want to overclock and use up more power and create more heat than is designed usage for longevity, I want a 16 core (or whatever core count... at least 12 physical cores or more) CPU that does as well in single thread performance (without OC) as the leading gaming CPU from the last release cycle. When their base clock reaches 4Ghz, means normal use will likely be in fair excess above 4Ghz, maybe even above 5Ghz with very little OC. Between 4Ghz and 5Ghz or higher is the sweet spot where I decided to upgrade if something comes out with that speed when not OC'd across all 16 cores. That will be the day I shell out maybe $1K or more to get that CPU. Until then, I'm sticking with my old 7700k. I do a major upgrade about every 4 years or so. I will happily wait for longer.

These CPU were estimated at between 3.4 to 4.7 Ghz. So might be what you are looking for and sells at less than 1k. Anyways we need to wait and see what values independent testers actually come up with.

 

[Bruce]

As was last seen their next iteration is a 10nm chip in comparison to a 7 nm die used on the new Ryzen. As of right now they do not have an answer other than trying to over clock to stay ahead.

As far as I understand "10nm" or "7nm" is more or less marketing stuff .. real measure is actual size and therefore achievable density of elements .. and Intel's "10nm" seems to be on par if not better than AMD's "7nm" . Still having 16 cores for 750 usd is tough to resist )

 

[Shadow Reaper]

As far as I understand "10nm" or "7nm" is more or less marketing stuff .. real measure is actual size and therefore achievable density of elements .. and Intel's "10nm" seems to be on par if not better than AMD's "7nm" . Still having 16 cores for 750 usd is tough to resist )

Intel's 10nm tech is really 11 nm by anyone else's standards. They are reaching for 9nm right now, and have failed to deliver for more than a year, which is why they still market older chip tech.

There is a difference in how many transistors can go on a reasonable sized form factor, based upon the size of the switches, but in real world terms, the biggest issue is heat generation. The smaller the tech, the less heat. What Intel can do with 165W, AMD is doing with 100W. That becomes important with very large systems, like supercomputers (Oak Ridge National Labs already has an order in for an AMD supercomputer based upon this 7nm tech) and small systems like laptops. 7nm tech could break the bottleneck of laptops failing to perform as hoped because of heat generation.

7nm tech also holds out huge promise for small robotic spacecraft, as power usage and heat generation aboard such craft are amongst the most urgent design drivers for guidance, navigation and control (GN&C). I think the way is open for AMD to dominate spacecraft usage if they jump on that opportunity.