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

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 290 posts

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#211

Post by paulmd »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #151
mrandish wrote: post #23

I noticed yesterday's articles about Intel's upcoming unusually large release of security mitigations. Under serious competitive threat for the first time in a while, I'm curious if Intel may have slowed the release of some mitigations to land after this round of comparison benchmarks.

Intel has been cheating their single core performance against AMD for many years, thanks to predictive and insecure algorithms. Reality is just catching up, AMD is already number one for a long time. Intell's cheating just didn't make it clear. I've waited for a year to express my opinion, before I could see any evidence. The time has come that AMD is even beating Intell's fake single core performance, so slowly we w…

Do remember that Meltdown and Spectre affected literally everyone else in the industry (including POWER, ARM, and SPARC) and it's only by chance that AMD's branch predictor happens to be relatively difficult to train to follow a predictable path (which is a necessary condition for some of these exploits). Intel isn't cheating any more than anyone else, AMD got lucky.

Cascade Lake and the latest Coffee Lake (and Comet Lake) steppings have hardware mitigations for all the previously known exploits (although there is a new batch) including some for which AMD still requires software mitigations themselves (Spectre V2).

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#212

Post by NicoJuicy »

benibela wrote: post #189
NicoJuicy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel has been cheating their single core performance against AMD for many years, thanks to predictive and insecure algorithms. Reality is just catching up, AMD is already number one for a long time. Intell's cheating just didn't make it clear. I've waited for a year to express my opinion, before I could see any evidence. The time has come that AMD is even beating Intell's fake single core performance, so slowly we w…

>Ps. Long AMD So you recommend to buy AMD stock now? Or TSMC? Or is it already too late for that? The share price already went up from 28 to 38 since October

I won't recommend anything. The p/e is too bad to recommend it, Warren Buffet would think I'm a fool :p

But I do think that AMD has enough space too grow the next year:

- servers

- laptops

- desktops ( OEM )

And I'm curious if their video card line-up will be as good as their CPU line-up.

Intel had 16 billion revenue in 2018. My guess is they will take a lot of that the coming years.

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#213

Post by NicoJuicy »

paulmd wrote: post #203
benibela wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ps. Long AMD So you recommend to buy AMD stock now? Or TSMC? Or is it already too late for that? The share price already went up from 28 to 38 since October

AMD has been overbought by brand fanboys/"amateur investors" egging each other on (see: r/AMD_Stock) and is now effectively pricing in a massive amount of expected future growth. Probably decades worth. For context: Intel currently has a P/E ratio of 13.57, which is 70th percentile of tech stocks. AMD currently has a P/E ratio of 201.89, which is 5th percentile of tech stocks. https://www.gurufocus.com/term/pettm/int…

Server, desktop, laptop and video cards.

Lots of room if they break Intel's monopoly though.

Intel had 16 billion revenue in 2018 and AMD "profits" from TSMC and their clients ( eg. Apple, Nvidia,... )

In the server market, it seems that they are partially breaking Intel's monopoly. Today's news in Intel won't change that perspective. P/e is also a bad ratio if a company invests a lot.

But yeah, a lot of hype on the stock.

Intel is keep getting hit hard though. Benchmarks, security issues, delays, failing at 7-10nm. They are currently still holding the monopoly though.

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#214

Post by shmerl »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #29
zamubafoo wrote: post #19

I find it interesting how desktop CPUs are essentially coming down to two enthusiast markets, developers/content creators/workstations and gaming. While the gaming market is (usually) seeking the highest top single core clock speed with respect to CPUs, it also relies on other expensive hardware. Meanwhile the dev/content creator/workstation market is much better served by these multi-core behemoths. Intel really has…

Before Vulkan, there were more bottlenecks on multithreaded rendering. Most games pushed everything to a single drawing thread. Hopefully going forward that will change, but even with Red Dead Redemption 2's Vulkan implementation, a 6 core Intel/AMD chip is competitive with this processor at lower settings/resolutions where the GPU is less of a bottleneck. Compute bound games like Civilization 6 do scale with process…

The Witcher 3 likes all 12 cores on my Ryzen 9 3900X when running in Wine+dxvk, thanks to Vulkan (especially for faster shader compilation). Same as they are useful for compiling Mesa and Linux kernel ;)

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#215

Post by gameswithgo »

seminatl wrote: post #208

I don't really get how they reached their conclusion. It seems like on most of the tests this new part gets beat by a cheaper one from Intel. It seems like a kinda unfair approach to use handbrake without AVX-512 support? Also not sure why they include the 3-d particle thing without AVX ... I guess because Intel is just too fast on that? If you look through the results, the things most people want to do with a comput…

avx2 performance between the new amd cpus and intel is comparable. ive done some detailed comparisons with my own code that is tuned for intel and the ryzen is quicker in some places, slower in others.

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#216

Post by IanCutress »

greatpatton wrote: post #48
IanCutress wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new 18-core i9-10980XE isn't out yet, and review embargoes haven't been lifted. We know it's a slightly clock bumped version of the i9-9980XE, which was included in the AnandTech review and not the Linus review. Linus tested the 8-core i9-9900KS, which came out a few weeks ago, and those results are also in the link which is the title to this thread.

Yet the main question remain if the benchmark were done with the latest mitigation (and version of the microcode) or without...

No, I didn't have time to run 30hr+ of tests on 7-10 Intel CPUs with only 24 hours notice from the announcement yesterday

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#217

Post by gameswithgo »

paulmd wrote: post #132

GamersNexus really hammering AMD's deceptive marketing around boost clocks. The only time it can hit its advertised boost clocks in when it's in the menu and you have near-zero load, and it barely touches it for an instant. Under even a single-core load it's failing to meet its advertised spec. There was a lot of hubbub around this with the initial release, AMD released a BIOS which they claimed fixed this, looks lik…

people want big boost clocks which is dumb. they got them (when under no load) which is dumb.

seems everything is fine.

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#218

Post by NicoJuicy »

paulmd wrote: post #211
NicoJuicy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel has been cheating their single core performance against AMD for many years, thanks to predictive and insecure algorithms. Reality is just catching up, AMD is already number one for a long time. Intell's cheating just didn't make it clear. I've waited for a year to express my opinion, before I could see any evidence. The time has come that AMD is even beating Intell's fake single core performance, so slowly we w…

Do remember that Meltdown and Spectre affected literally everyone else in the industry (including POWER, ARM, and SPARC) and it's only by chance that AMD's branch predictor happens to be relatively difficult to train to follow a predictable path (which is a necessary condition for some of these exploits). Intel isn't cheating any more than anyone else, AMD got lucky. Cascade Lake and the latest Coffee Lake (and Comet…

So, AMD got lucky 218 times?

https://windowsreport.com/amd-intel-security-vulnerabilities...

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#219

Post by IanCutress »

mrandish wrote: post #53
IanCutress wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new 18-core i9-10980XE isn't out yet, and review embargoes haven't been lifted. We know it's a slightly clock bumped version of the i9-9980XE, which was included in the AnandTech review and not the Linus review. Linus tested the 8-core i9-9900KS, which came out a few weeks ago, and those results are also in the link which is the title to this thread.

Ian, What are your thoughts on the question of whether Intel may be strategically timing releases of some mitigations to favor their performance in review benchmarks?

This decision was likely made from a different department, and just lucked out that it was the day before an AMD launch. If Intel wanted to delay it specifically to appear for better benchmarks, they would have waited until after Cascade Lake-X benchmarks were out. It's meant to be being launched later this month.

Re: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review

#220

Post by Retric »

paulmd wrote: post #211
NicoJuicy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel has been cheating their single core performance against AMD for many years, thanks to predictive and insecure algorithms. Reality is just catching up, AMD is already number one for a long time. Intell's cheating just didn't make it clear. I've waited for a year to express my opinion, before I could see any evidence. The time has come that AMD is even beating Intell's fake single core performance, so slowly we w…

Do remember that Meltdown and Spectre affected literally everyone else in the industry (including POWER, ARM, and SPARC) and it's only by chance that AMD's branch predictor happens to be relatively difficult to train to follow a predictable path (which is a necessary condition for some of these exploits). Intel isn't cheating any more than anyone else, AMD got lucky. Cascade Lake and the latest Coffee Lake (and Comet…

Last I read AMD processors aren't affected by the Meltdown bug. And the overall performance hit was 9x as large for Intel.

However, if that’s wrong I would love to read about it.

Post reply on HN