Live data from Hacker News

$499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

techquila.co.in

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#51
Take with a grain of salt. Comparing a single benchmark against an aggregate isn't particularly meaningful (although getting within a stone's throw definitely is). You can go through and cherry pick benchmarks and find plenty that obliterate that measurement.

Better article title would be, "3900x appears comparable to 9980XE in single threaded workloads."

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#52
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the socket really zero insertion force? I've always been planning on buying an AMD CPU after dealing with an Intel processor.

Yes. I remember my 1800X making a "thunk" sound[0] when it dropped into the socket. It requires as much insertion force as water into a cup. [0] https://youtu.be/QdNISYm0w-U?t=756

If AMD advertised that their CPUs can be installed gingerly as opposed to Intel which felt like thirty pounds of pressure was required, then I would have opted for the older, but AMD chip.

Had a false impression from all the PC part guides that somehow each were equal difficulty.

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#53
post #34

I just assembled a new computer: amd 2200g ($90) + MSI B450M MORTAR ($90) + Intel 512GB SSD M.2 ($68) + 4 x 16G 2666 memory (4 x $72). I installed the debian testing system. After the installation, X hung at starting up. But after installing amdgpu driver by following this tutorial: https://wiki.debian.org/How%20to%20install%20official%20AMDG... , it works like a charming now.

I had to double check your price on the SSD. When did SSDs get so cheap??

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#54
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I remember my 1800X making a "thunk" sound[0] when it dropped into the socket. It requires as much insertion force as water into a cup. [0] https://youtu.be/QdNISYm0w-U?t=756

If AMD advertised that their CPUs can be installed gingerly as opposed to Intel which felt like thirty pounds of pressure was required, then I would have opted for the older, but AMD chip. Had a false impression from all the PC part guides that somehow each were equal difficulty.

Most AMD heatsinks use a clip retention mechanism, which definitely require significant force.

Aside: at least new CPUs have heatspreaders. The first heatsink I installed was on an Athlon XP 2500+. Those things had the bare die exposed! Do it wrong the first time, and you had an expensive tiny brick.

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#55
post #34

I just assembled a new computer: amd 2200g ($90) + MSI B450M MORTAR ($90) + Intel 512GB SSD M.2 ($68) + 4 x 16G 2666 memory (4 x $72). I installed the debian testing system. After the installation, X hung at starting up. But after installing amdgpu driver by following this tutorial: https://wiki.debian.org/How%20to%20install%20official%20AMDG... , it works like a charming now.

I had to double check your price on the SSD. When did SSDs get so cheap??

https://www.newegg.com/intel-660p-series-512gb/p/0D9-002V-00...

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#56

Take with a grain of salt. Comparing a single benchmark against an aggregate isn't particularly meaningful (although getting within a stone's throw definitely is). You can go through and cherry pick benchmarks and find plenty that obliterate that measurement. Better article title would be, "3900x appears comparable to 9980XE in single threaded workloads."

But single treaded was really the only area Intel used to have a lead in - which is interesting

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#57

Out of curiosity, has anybody had anything in the AMD Ryzen instruction set missing that required you to purchase an Intel 9xxx instead? Any significant differences in regards to scientific applications or machine learning?

I'm considering Intel for my next workstation because I want to be able to run macOS at least in VirtualBox (or just run Hackintosh, did not decide yet). For some reason macOS does not like AMD CPUs.

With a little elbow grease this hasn't been true for Hackintosh builds nor virtualization for ages: https://amd-osx.com

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#58
post #5

Any chance Apple will ever consider AMD chips for the MacBook Pro or any of their computers. I have to wonder how much of the $4k+ I just spent on my MacBook Pro went to pay for the Intel 8-core CPU...

Apple is probably going to switch to their own chips before they switch to AMD.

So from a recent standing start Apple are going to beat Intel and AMD - I could see Apple using their own cpu's for tablets and phones but for work stations I don't think so.

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#59
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put a 2700X in my most recent desktop and a 2400G in my HTPC. For the price they can't be beat.

Are you gaming with the 2700X by chance? How is it?

Not GP, but gaming on 2700x+1070ti w/ 144hz 1440p monitor. It's suboptimal, but usually I can play games on high/ultra settings ~60fps or full 144 on low-medium. Not having any problems with VR either.

Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE

#60

Take with a grain of salt. Comparing a single benchmark against an aggregate isn't particularly meaningful (although getting within a stone's throw definitely is). You can go through and cherry pick benchmarks and find plenty that obliterate that measurement. Better article title would be, "3900x appears comparable to 9980XE in single threaded workloads."

The 3900X already crushes in multi-threaded. That stone-throw multi-core result result is 12 AMD cores on vs 18 Intel cores. That's 50% more cores and 300% more cost for basically the same results.

Single-threaded is the only thing Intel's been touting as they get steamrolled. This is particularly important because a big market for this class of CPU is desktop gamers and for better or worse games tend not to be particularly well multi-threaded so single-core performance is king in that market. Obviously this will change over time as engines continue to adapt.

To your point though it's better to look at an overall trend of AMD vs Intel over the last couple of years, and that's equally devastating.

Post reply on HN