10900K vs 3950x

[hunuman]

and the winner in gaming is 10900K
Intel Rocks Amd Shocked!

[xSOSxHawkens]

引用自 whistlepandey：

and the winner in gaming is 10900K
Intel Rocks Amd Shocked!

Lol... +5 FPS.... +100W TDP...

Yeh... I will take AMD...

Only thing shocking is Intels Power Draw...

250W under full load, 200+ for the 5Ghz + turbo's...

Meanwhile over in AMD land there is such a thing as a (mostly) respected TDP...

I will gladly drop 5FPS for half the power draw *AND* a third better multi-core/multi-tasking load ability. lmao

Intel fanbois these days are just as silly as die hard AMD fanbois that said FX was the best ever made. It was good *for what it was*... Just like the 10900K is good *for a 14nm part*... I like the FX lineup, thought it bourght good value if not great performance, would feel the same about intels 10th gen, if it were priced a third cheaper than it is to compete with its shortcomings.

But as is, its just a pricey heathouse with little to offer beyonf last gen Intel *or* current gen AMD.

Frankly, its just as bad by comparison to AMD as the FX line was vs SandyBridge. And the over the top power draws that are being intentionally hidden behind lables by Intel are just the cherry on top of the crap cake for Intel. I mean, at least when the FX was hitting 5Ghz AMD was claiming it was a solid 220w+ TDP like they should intead of blatantly mislabeling a product to make it seem better than it is as intel is doing now with is 250W 10900K...

Just lolz.

[r.linder]

引用自 xSOSxHawkens：

引用自 whistlepandey：

and the winner in gaming is 10900K
Intel Rocks Amd Shocked!

Lol... +5 FPS.... +100W TDP...

Yeh... I will take AMD...

Only thing shocking is Intels Power Draw...

250W under full load, 200+ for the 5Ghz + turbo's...

Meanwhile over in AMD land there is such a thing as a (mostly) respected TDP...

I will gladly drop 5FPS for half the power draw *AND* a third better multi-core/multi-tasking load ability. lmao

Intel fanbois these days are just as silly as die hard AMD fanbois that said FX was the best ever made. It was good *for what it was*... Just like the 10900K is good *for a 14nm part*... I like the FX lineup, thought it bourght good value if not great performance, would feel the same about intels 10th gen, if it were priced a third cheaper than it is to compete with its shortcomings.

But as is, its just a pricey heathouse with little to offer beyonf last gen Intel *or* current gen AMD.

Frankly, its just as bad by comparison to AMD as the FX line was vs SandyBridge. And the over the top power draws that are being intentionally hidden behind lables by Intel are just the cherry on top of the crap cake for Intel. I mean, at least when the FX was hitting 5Ghz AMD was claiming it was a solid 220w+ TDP like they should intead of blatantly mislabeling a product to make it seem better than it is as intel is doing now with is 250W 10900K...

Just lolz.

If you overclock the 10900K to 5.3 GHz all-core, it can exceed 300W under heavy or max load pretty easily.
Keep in mind, at stock settings under normal gaming loads, it'll use around 130W, though that's still bad since that's basically the draw of a 3900X at max load.

[iceman1980]

引用自 Escorve：

引用自 xSOSxHawkens：

Lol... +5 FPS.... +100W TDP...

Yeh... I will take AMD...

Only thing shocking is Intels Power Draw...

250W under full load, 200+ for the 5Ghz + turbo's...

Meanwhile over in AMD land there is such a thing as a (mostly) respected TDP...

I will gladly drop 5FPS for half the power draw *AND* a third better multi-core/multi-tasking load ability. lmao

Intel fanbois these days are just as silly as die hard AMD fanbois that said FX was the best ever made. It was good *for what it was*... Just like the 10900K is good *for a 14nm part*... I like the FX lineup, thought it bourght good value if not great performance, would feel the same about intels 10th gen, if it were priced a third cheaper than it is to compete with its shortcomings.

But as is, its just a pricey heathouse with little to offer beyonf last gen Intel *or* current gen AMD.

Frankly, its just as bad by comparison to AMD as the FX line was vs SandyBridge. And the over the top power draws that are being intentionally hidden behind lables by Intel are just the cherry on top of the crap cake for Intel. I mean, at least when the FX was hitting 5Ghz AMD was claiming it was a solid 220w+ TDP like they should intead of blatantly mislabeling a product to make it seem better than it is as intel is doing now with is 250W 10900K...

Just lolz.

If you overclock the 10900K to 5.3 GHz all-core, it can exceed 300W under heavy or max load pretty easily.
Keep in mind, at stock settings under normal gaming loads, it'll use around 130W, though that's still bad since that's basically the draw of a 3900X at max load.

You will be at the mercy of infinity fabric running at 1.8Ghz on the AMD chip. Why does IF remind me of a much shorter connection QPI?

[r.linder]

引用自 Product ∏：

引用自 Escorve：

If you overclock the 10900K to 5.3 GHz all-core, it can exceed 300W under heavy or max load pretty easily.
Keep in mind, at stock settings under normal gaming loads, it'll use around 130W, though that's still bad since that's basically the draw of a 3900X at max load.

You will be at the mercy of infinity fabric running at 1.8Ghz on the AMD chip

That, aside from the fact that the way AMD designed Zen architecture basically limiting overclockability with every additional core even more than Intel's architecture, is why AMD isn't kicking ass. Their architecture is good, but it's far from good enough.

[iceman1980]

引用自 Escorve：

引用自 Product ∏：

You will be at the mercy of infinity fabric running at 1.8Ghz on the AMD chip

That, aside from the fact that the way AMD designed Zen architecture basically limiting overclockability with every additional core even more than Intel's architecture, is why AMD isn't kicking ass. Their architecture is good, but it's far from good enough.

If you want reliability with most applications and the option to have a replacement plan go the 10900K.

If you do a lot of multicolored workloads. Virtual machines, photo batch processing, or anything that can leverage lots of cores go the 3950X.

Intel's PCI-E controller implementation is more reliable. AMDs storage caching is pretty bad (StoreMI)

[r.linder]

引用自 Product ∏：

引用自 Escorve：

That, aside from the fact that the way AMD designed Zen architecture basically limiting overclockability with every additional core even more than Intel's architecture, is why AMD isn't kicking ass. Their architecture is good, but it's far from good enough.

If you want reliability with most applications and the option to have a replacement plan go the 10900K.

Don't get me wrong, both brands are reliable, but if you put in the dough for Ryzen 9, it is better than most Intel CPUs in the majority of applications. Where it fails is merely the ability to push ahead of Intel in everything and lacking certain instructions. But Ryzen 9 also supports ECC RAM.

[iceman1980]

引用自 Escorve：

引用自 Product ∏：

If you want reliability with most applications and the option to have a replacement plan go the 10900K.

Don't get me wrong, both brands are reliable, but if you put in the dough for Ryzen 9, it is better than most Intel CPUs in the majority of applications. Where it fails is merely the ability to push ahead of Intel in everything and lacking certain instructions. But Ryzen 9 also supports ECC RAM.

StoreMI vs Optane is another factor. StoreMI is flakey.

[r.linder]

引用自 Product ∏：

引用自 Escorve：

Don't get me wrong, both brands are reliable, but if you put in the dough for Ryzen 9, it is better than most Intel CPUs in the majority of applications. Where it fails is merely the ability to push ahead of Intel in everything and lacking certain instructions. But Ryzen 9 also supports ECC RAM.

StoreMI vs Optane is another factor. StoreMI is flakey.

I doubt most people even use StoreMI to begin with, I sure don't, because it's not exactly SSD/OS drive friendly.

Just checked, and StoreMI was discontinued, it's not available anymore.

[iceman1980]

引用自 Escorve：

引用自 Product ∏：

StoreMI vs Optane is another factor. StoreMI is flakey.

I doubt most people even use StoreMI to begin with, I sure don't, because it's not exactly SSD/OS drive friendly.

Just checked, and StoreMI was discontinued, it's not available anymore.

The 3950X also has more L1,L2, and L3 cache.

[r.linder]

引用自 Product ∏：

引用自 Escorve：

I doubt most people even use StoreMI to begin with, I sure don't, because it's not exactly SSD/OS drive friendly.

Just checked, and StoreMI was discontinued, it's not available anymore.

The 3950X also has more L1,L2, and L3 cache.

Part of that is an offset for CCX and CCD latency. Pretty interesting but ultimately too flawed design. The 3300X has everything on a single CCD and CCX and it can surpass Ryzen 5 CPUs when you overclock it, which it can overclock well above 5 GHz if you have the cooling for it.

[iceman1980]

引用自 Escorve：

引用自 Product ∏：

The 3950X also has more L1,L2, and L3 cache.

Part of that is an offset for CCX and CCD latency. Pretty interesting but ultimately too flawed design. The 3300X has everything on a single CCD and CCX and it can surpass Ryzen 5 CPUs when you overclock it, which it can overclock well above 5 GHz if you have the cooling for it.

Infinity fabric very much reminds me of QPI.

[r.linder]

引用自 Product ∏：

引用自 Escorve：

Part of that is an offset for CCX and CCD latency. Pretty interesting but ultimately too flawed design. The 3300X has everything on a single CCD and CCX and it can surpass Ryzen 5 CPUs when you overclock it, which it can overclock well above 5 GHz if you have the cooling for it.

Infinity fabric very much reminds me of QPI.

Also not sure why, but my board has FCLK (fabric clock) options going well above 1900 MHz ( the official limit last I heard) and it's been like that since AGESA 1.0.0.4 B, so it seems like AGESA can extend the limit of the FCLK

[iceman1980]

引用自 Escorve：

引用自 Product ∏：

Infinity fabric very much reminds me of QPI.

Also not sure why, but my board has FCLK (fabric clock) options going well above 1900 MHz ( the official limit last I heard) and it's been like that since AGESA 1.0.0.4 B, so it seems like AGESA can extend the limit of the FCLK

QPI could run at 4.8Ghz in some instances. This tells me if intel wants to, they could easily switch to a IF like system.

[xSOSxHawkens]

引用自 Product ∏：

引用自 Escorve：

Part of that is an offset for CCX and CCD latency. Pretty interesting but ultimately too flawed design. The 3300X has everything on a single CCD and CCX and it can surpass Ryzen 5 CPUs when you overclock it, which it can overclock well above 5 GHz if you have the cooling for it.

Infinity fabric very much reminds me of QPI.

So, though I admit that IF impacts can be seen in specific games, as well as in synthetics...

HWUnboxxed or GN (dont remeber which) did an interesting comparison awhile back.

They put Ryzen chips at the same clocks, then compared 4c (single CCD) to 6 core (single CCD) to 8 cores (single CCD) to 8 Cores (4 per CCD across IF).

In that test, the 3900x with 8 c in a 4+4 over IF comparison for whatever reason pulled consistently higher FPS and minimums across the board compared to the 3800x with a single CCD sollution.

It suprised the testers too.

Im getting ready to leave the house, but if no one else has linked the vid I will try and pull ip up for you all when I get back.

[iceman1980]

引用自 xSOSxHawkens：

引用自 Product ∏：

Infinity fabric very much reminds me of QPI.

So, though I admit that IF impacts can be seen in specific games, as well as in synthetics...

HWUnboxxed or GN (dont remeber which) did an interesting comparison awhile back.

They put Ryzen chips at the same clocks, then compared 4c (single CCD) to 6 core (single CCD) to 8 cores (single CCD) to 8 Cores (4 per CCD across IF).

In that test, the 3900x with 8 c in a 4+4 over IF comparison for whatever reason pulled consistently higher FPS and minimums across the board compared to the 3800x with a single CCD sollution.

It suprised the testers too.

Im getting ready to leave the house, but if no one else has linked the vid I will try and pull ip up for you all when I get back.

But just like QPI which can scale quite happily "realtime" tasks is falls short. I mean I'd use 3950X because I use photoshop, blender rendering and Octave(Open Source matlab), and I also compile code.

Yep that confirms it QPI had a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 25.8GB/s Infinity fabric tops out at 41.9GB/s Infinity Fabric is just HyperTransport integrated into the actual chip.

Ryzen 9 3950X is the better bet at this point in time. The new i9-10900K's draw a lot of power.