Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techquila.co.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 170 posts

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

#131

Post by why_only_15 »

walshemj wrote: post #126
chimpburger wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right. But don't underestimate Apple. They have $250 billion in cash reserves.

Supposedly a new 7nm fab in Taiwan is going to cost around 17 billion dollars just for the FAB. Not sure Apple share holders will think trying to compete with intel and AMD is good use of their money

That's not relevant. Apple isn't going to be manufacturing its own chips, it doesn't do that currently. What the person was talking about was the same thing it does for the iPhone chips, which is design them and then get TSMC to fabricate them.

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

#133

Post by justsid »

shereadsthenews wrote: post #113
zamadatix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is comparing an unreleased CPU It comes out in 10 days, does it really matter? > to a two year old one. The 9980XE launched Q4 2018, did you mean 2 quarter old? This also seems to imply Intel has something else better is due for release in the next year, there is nothing on the roadmap. > It's just comparing two random user submissions. Here's another i9-9980XE where Intel scored 7700 in single core. Because t…

The 9980XE is just a really large/fast Skylake CPU. Skylake is years old. If you wanted this level of performance from Intel you could have ordered the Xeon Gold 6154 way back in 2017. It seems fair to call this a 2-year-old part. A more comparable part would be the i9-9980HK.

> The 9980XE is just a really large/fast Skylake CPU. Skylake is years old.

Unfortunately larger and slightly refined Skylakes is all that Intel ships these days on Desktop. If it’s unfair to compare Ryzen CPUs to that, then I’m afraid there is no fair comparison that can be made until Intel gets around making actually new CPUs.

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

#134

Post by Nexxxeh »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #54
ryacko wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Retro tip - copper shim.

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

#135

Post by Nexxxeh »

tapirl wrote: 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.

Why a B450 board over an older cheaper A320 board if you're using a 2200g?

Edit: NM, probably RAM...

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

#137

Post by Wowfunhappy »

thelittleone wrote: post #122
shortformblog wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could do it via KVM-based virtualization without a ton of trouble.

This is interesting. Any recommended project links so I can read more?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20222492

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

#138

Post by chimpburger »

walshemj wrote: post #126
chimpburger wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right. But don't underestimate Apple. They have $250 billion in cash reserves.

Supposedly a new 7nm fab in Taiwan is going to cost around 17 billion dollars just for the FAB. Not sure Apple share holders will think trying to compete with intel and AMD is good use of their money

$17 billion is peanuts for Apple. However, Apple uses TSMC for fabrication and they are already at 7nm. No need to own fabs. AMD doesn't own fabs either. The Apple designed A12X Bionic processor contains 10 billion transistors and is already competitive with desktop processors from AMD and Intel. Do you think it would be that difficult for Apple to design a desktop or laptop version? They have more than enough money to hire all of the smartest engineers on the planet. The problem would be backwards compatibility, like the transition from PPC to x86 in 2005.

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

#140

Post by XMPPwocky »

yeukhon wrote: post #109
mrb wrote: post #87

This 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% c…

Does the old “there are more software written with Intel in mind than AMD” still hold? Just like Nvida.

A critical difference is that GPU architectures differ far more, AND different GPUs (well, their driver's) effectively use different compilers with different optimizations, etc. (Yes, the input is an IL with some optimizations already done, but ultimately codegen is done by the driver.)

You can micro-optimize for a particular CPU- say, not using AVX-512 on Zen, or hand-placing instructions so the latencies all line up juuust right- but it's not nearly as important as for a GPU.

Plus, GPU vendors will work with software devs to optimize the driver just for that software (mostly via a collection of weird workarounds, hacks, feature flags, etc. in the driver, automatically applied when it detects that software running); often the software dev will take, essentially, a bribe from a GPU manufacturer to only work with them.

Then you have stuff like PhysX, CuDNN, etc...

Post reply on HN