Never bought an Intel CPU after learning about their illegal anti-competetive deals with OEMs. It's been probably 15 years with AMD CPUs.
Happy to see AMD on top once again.
$499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
81–90 of 170 posts
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#82Out 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?
in ZEN2: "The key highlight improvement for floating point performance is full AVX2 support. AMD has increased the execution unit width from 128-bit to 256-bit, allowing for single-cycle AVX2 calculations, rather than cracking the calculation into two instructions and two cycles. This is enhanced by giving 256-bit loads and stores, so the FMA units can be continuously fed. AMD states that due to its energy aware sche…
> Corsair MP600 SSDs will offer up to 4950 MB/s sequential read speed as well as up to 4250 MB/s sequential write speed when used with a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface
WOW! Looks like they haven't announced pricing yet. I wonder what those drives will cost.
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#83Take 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."
Calling Geekbench a "single benchmark" is misleading because it runs 25 different types of workloads. So AMD doing well here means it does well compared to Intel in 25 different areas when they are all averaged: • Cryptography Workloads - AES • Integer Workloads - LZMA Compression - JPEG Compression - Canny - Lua - Dijkstra - SQLite - HTML 5 Parse - HTML 5 DOM - Histogram Equalization - PDF Rendering - LLVM - Camera…
Sorry for the confusion, I meant "single benchmark" as in "single run of Geekbench." As in comparing one measurement versus an aggregate of measurements isn't particularly meaningful, you need to compare aggregate to aggregate to get something valid. It's still a sample size of 1, even if the sample has 25 dimensions.
(I don't know if Geekbench uses an average or what they're weighting is e.g. with memory speeds and operating systems, which is why I'm saying "aggregate").
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#84Yeah but I can't find a motherboard and RAM that won't hardware reserve half my memory without RMAing 4 iterations of each.
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#85Out 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?
There might be meaningful differences in the hardware encode/decode for video. In the Plex community for example it seems like Intel CPUs are the best bet. They support a lot of codecs and can service multiple transcode streams. Consumer Nvidia GPUs are limited to 2. I don't think Plex supports hardware transcoding on AMD Ryzen or discrete GPUs at all right now. I haven't really looked into why yet, and could likely just be a software support issue in Plex.
This, unfortunately, would be a deal breaker for my home-server use case, although I'm very happy AMD is finally competitive again, overall.
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#86Take 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 parti…
What I mean is that it's a sample size of 1. I can go through the 9980xe results and cherry pick a dozen iterations that crush this single sample.
Even looking at the leaked 3600 benchmarks listed on Geekbench and there's some pretty gnarly variance. The benchmarks are extremely promising, and I'm likely going to be an AMD customer in a month, but these articles are not grounded in statistical significance. Wait until the embargo is lifted before posting stuff like this, imo.
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#87This was expected because the 3900X is optimized for fewer faster cores (12 at 3.8GHz) while the 9980XE is optimized for more slower cores (18 at 3.0GHz.)
A better and far more impressive comparison would be the 3950X vs 9980XE which have comparable number of cores (16 vs 18). And in that instance AMD still beats Intel in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads! And by wide margins! And with AMD being 62% cheaper ($750 vs $1950)! And with AMD's TDP 36% lower (105 vs 165W)! And despite having 2 fewer cores! And despite the 3950X engineering sample below being clocked under final specs (3.29GHz vs 3.5GHz)! See this leaked 3950X engineering sample codenamed "Myrtle": https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13612629?baseli...
Intel has never been so thoroughly defeated since the 1999 K7. Interesting times...
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#88Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#89Take 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 parti…
> Obviously this will change over time as engines continue to adapt.
They're already fairly well adapted - Xbox One and PS4 both have 8 cores for a reason.
Re: $499 AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Almost as Fast as $2000 Intel Core I9-9980XE
#90My next CPU will be an AMD.
My next CPU will hopefully be RISC-V.