AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Annihilates Intel Core i9-10900K In Early Cinebench R20 Single/Multi-Core Tests

I get your response. My issue lies w/ the fact that, as a gamer, core counts that high are pointless. The fact that their best single core performance is locked behind their most expensive cpu is a bit baffling. You can argue for a 6 core or 8 core, even a 10 core as future proofing. A 16 core cpu though? That's overkill even for streaming and rendering for most people.

Its also going to come down to a matter of head room for oc'ing. They said these cpus will have more head room, but more compared to what? Its been shown that oc'ing zen 2 can offer very, very little or no improvement. The built in boost, w/e its called, tends to outperform even manual oc's.

Sadly, there's really no sure-fire gaming benchmark. In gaming, Intel cpus tend to marginally edge out AMD for some reason when all things are as equal as they can be. Some times even when AMD should have a clear edge. PCIe 4.0 really hasn't made itself necessary yet as really only ssds 'need' it atm. Though the real world application of even those ssds will only save you a few minutes over the course of a year.

In the end, cpu's are so far ahead of gpus that you have to be pushing insane framerates at lower resolutions to become cpu bound. At which point you should likely be looking to upgrade your display and using a higher resolution. As there is a legit argument that those actually playing at such high framerates do so more out of 'superstition' than any actual gaming performance. Much like athletes and their lucky X, refusing to shave on winning streaks, etc.
 
Funny comment. I as a customer am interested only in performance per invested dolar. So if we compare 500 euros 10900kf vs 550 euro 5900 i get like 30 % more of performance for like 10% more money. If take this further if i wanna get intel to performe as 5950 i have to buy two intel's cpus two mobs two sets of RAM two sets of gpus two psus two cases and probably the most expensive two licenses of archicad two licenses of 3ds max two licenses of vray etc. If we take those expanses to calculation you will see that AMDs 5950 is a bargain and is beating Intel.
I dont care how many cores are working for me when job is done on time. Core vs core is only interesting to cpu engineers and those fanboys like you.
 
This isn't surprising. If you look at the benchmark data in the post, it shows AMD was already slightly ahead with the 3000 series so long as the base and boost clocks were high enough on the single thread test. In the multithread test, AMD has been cleaning house on that front since the Ryzen 9 3900X launched last year.

The 8c/16t AMD 3800XT doesn't match the 10c/20t Intel part, which isn't surprising given the core deficit and lower price point. On the price front, AMD generally does better either by offering 12c/16t parts for less than Intel's 10c/20t parts or by offering 8c/16t for less than Intel does and outperforming them much of the time. The 3900X, 3900XT and 3950X beat Intel's best in the multi-thread test with ease. The 3950X, when pitted against the Core i9-10980XE does better than you'd think unless the latter is overclocked and then it's game over. When pushed high enough, it beats the 3950X across the board in virtually every test.

But as David said, comparing costs places the 3950X and 10980XE in different leagues. It's the same when you move up the stack. The 10980XE is it for Intel and it can't remotely match anything that AMD has above it. The 3960X, 3970X, 3990X etc. are all considerably faster. The baby of the third generation Threadripper line is about $400 more expensive than the 10980XE to start, but the platform costs are similar if not higher. Again, it places them in different leagues. The rest of the Threadripper line doesn't even make sense to compare to the 10980XE as the price not only doubles (or quadruples it), but the core counts are considerably greater as well.

You have the 3950X which is more expensive than anything Intel has in the mainstream segment but way less than Intel's best HEDT offering. It trounces anything but the 10980XE from Intel's HEDT product line. However, the 10980XE sort of follows suit by being way cheaper than anything AMD offers in the third generation Threadripper family. The 10980XE is probably still a little too expensive for what it is, but it sits between the 3950X and 3960X in both price and performance. Again, if price or core counts are your metric for comparison, than the 3950X and 10980XE really are islands of their own.
 
mzex said:
Funny comment. I as a customer am interested only in performance per invested dolar. So if we compare 500 euros 10900kf vs 550 euro 5900 i get like 30 % more of performance for like 10% more money. If take this further if i wanna get intel to performe as 5950 i have to buy two intel's cpus two mobs two sets of RAM two sets of gpus two psus two cases and probably the most expensive two licenses of archicad two licenses of 3ds max two licenses of vray etc. If we take those expanses to calculation you will see that AMDs 5950 is a bargain and is beating Intel.
I dont care how many cores are working for me when job is done on time. Core vs core is only interesting to cpu engineers and those fanboys like you.
Click to expand...

As a customer I tend to only care about who has the highest performance. Price per dollar is secondary. For example: The 3960X is faster than the 3950X, but the $800 increase isn't something I'd opt for given that it won't benefit me in gaming and I can't leverage the 3960X's extra performance in the non-gaming applications I run, so it doesn't make sense to pony up the extra for it. Similarly, the RTX Titan wasn't worth it to me over the cost of the RTX 2080 Ti.

Those are two examples where I didn't opt to buy something simply because it was the top of the stack. However, I generally do just that. I've bought plenty of Extreme Edition CPU's over the years. I almost always buy the fastest video card available in each generation. I've bought plenty of Titans and Ti cards in pairs for SLI. Of course, I justify that because I typically go for gaming resolutions far beyond 1080P, and every bit helps when you do that.
 
Performance per $.
Compare similar priced processors.
We are just consumers.
 
Dan_D said:
As a customer I tend to only care about who has the highest performance. Price per dollar is secondary. For example: The 3960X is faster than the 3950X, but the $800 increase isn't something I'd opt for given that it won't benefit me in gaming and I can't leverage the 3960X's extra performance in the non-gaming applications I run, so it doesn't make sense to pony up the extra for it. Similarly, the RTX Titan wasn't worth it to me over the cost of the RTX 2080 Ti.

Those are two examples where I didn't opt to buy something simply because it was the top of the stack. However, I generally do just that. I've bought plenty of Extreme Edition CPU's over the years. I almost always buy the fastest video card available in each generation. I've bought plenty of Titans and Ti cards in pairs for SLI. Of course, I justify that because I typically go for gaming resolutions far beyond 1080P, and every bit helps when you do that.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that things like FPS/Dollar or Benchmark Score/Dollar are generally useless. If this were the best metric, we'd all buy low end chips all the time, as price tends to increase exponentially with performance.

I tend to see it as this:

I have a vague picture of what I am OK with spending. That picture is slightly malleable, but not by much, at least not by a lot very quickly.

Once I've established roughly what I am willing to pay, I'll look for the fastest hardware in the workloads I care about that fits within that budget.

It's really quite simple.

That said, I do use some of these other benchmarks to help predict performance, if the workloads I care about arent well benchmarked (and based on my tastes, they rarely are, and as we all know, real world benchmarks in the actual software being run are always superior.

Provided a CPU has at least 6 to 8 cores, (I t used to be at least 4, then at least 4-6, at least 6, and now we are at at least 6-8, maybe on the border of moving towards at least 8. Not sure about that one yet.)

Anyway, I digress. Back to where I was. Provided a CPU has at least 6 to 8 cores, I find that the best predictive benchmark is one that is lightly threaded, as most games are still fairly lightly threaded.

Berfore the launch of Ryzen I used to be a huge proponent of the single threaded Cinebench benchmark as a good predictor, but Ryzen has turned that on its head, as - at least in my experience - Ryzen chips seem to be knocked out of their max boosts very easily by other things going on on the chip. So a single threaded bench tends to over-inflate things compared to reality, because in reality there is almost always something going on on another thread, that tends to knock it out of max boost.

I'd like to see a bench like Cinebench, that loads up one core 100%, loads up the second core 50%, the third core 25%, the fourth core 12.5%, fifth core 12.25%, and so on until about 8 cores or so, and then loads the rest at 1-2%.

I think that would be a pretty awesome (relative, not absolute) predictor of "the average game" performance.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra said:
I'd agree that things like FPS/Dollar or Benchmark Score/Dollar are generally useless. If this were the best metric, we'd all by low end chips all the time, as price tends to increase exponentially with performance.

I tend to see it as this:

I have a vague picture of what I am OK with spending. That picture is slightly malleable, but not by much, at least not by a lot very quickly.

Once I've established roughly what I am willing to pay, I'll look for the fastest hardware in the workloads I care about that fits within that budget.

It's really quite simple.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up what I do. I really think that's what most people actually do. I simply have higher limits for what I'm willing to spend than most people. For me, it's about $1500 or so for graphics cards not including water blocks. It's about $1100 for a CPU. I could have bought a Threadripper 3960X and wanted one, but $1,499.99 or whatever it is was more than I was willing to spend given that it wasn't going to do anything for me that couldn't be achieved by a 3950X or even a 10900K. I'm pretty good about making justifications in my mind for processors that are beyond what I actually need. After $1,100 reality sets back in and I have to give it actual thought beyond "I want that."

it's been the same ever since Intel increased the price of it's HEDT chips to $1,599 for the Core i7-6950X and then all the way up to 2K for the 7980XE. Those were simply beyond what I was willing to spend. The 6950X more because it was a bad buy since I already had a Core i7-5960X@4.5GHz. On graphics cards, I've spent upwards of $3,000 for a pair of Titan X's. So, $1,500 or so for an RTX 3090 doesn't phase me in the least.
 
Sure one thing is performance per dollar vs price point comparison. Price point comparison is very relevant of course.
 
Uvilla said:
Sure one thing is performance per dollar vs price point comparison. Price point comparison is very relevant of course.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't. That said, I think people ballpark what they are willing to spend and look at what aligns with that from each company. For example: If you only have $550 to spend on a GPU, then you aren't going to really look at 3080's. You are going to wait for the RTX 3070 and whatever AMD has to offer at the same price point.
 
I'm just weird, I wake up and decide I feel like upgrading, then I find whatever makes me feel like I'm getting a deal and buy it :). Over the summer I asked my son if his PC was still keeping up ok... he said yup, no issues. I promptly told him we needed to upgrade it anyways, the 3300x recently launched and it was faster than his 6600k, so it made sense to pair it with a cheap board. I found a B550 board (that was a PITA at this time) that had all the features I wanted for about twice what I thought I was going to spend, and 3300x was MIA, 3600 was around MSRP, 3600x was as well... 3700x was only $260 (Amazon Prime), twice what I wanted to pay, but much better deal, then found some decent ram as well since his was 2400MHz! So, I started out wanting to upgrade for like $200-250 total, ended up spending like $500. Two weeks later I looked at my lowly R5 1600 that I basically just use to post on the forums here and do a little bit of development work and every once in a while fire up a game and decided I to needed a 3700x for no good reason :). At this time, AMD was offering AC: Valhalla for free with purchase, and that's a game I would have bought anyways, so $250 for the CPU (thank's Newegg), so I ended up with a second 3700x for like $190 (in my head since $250-$60 I would spend anyways)!!! So, I mostly don't start with a budget or any real direction and buy on a whim, lol. I'm the ultimate impulse buyer, you guys and your planning and budgeting, where's the spontaneity!

ps. I wish I was joking, this is literally how my last 2 upgrades went. Kinda like how I ended up with a Vega 64 while looking for an rx 570... but I think my story was long enough as is!!
 
Dan_D said:
If I needed to feel like I was getting a deal, I wouldn't ever buy anything. Nothing is a deal in the PC world as fast as this **** depreciates.
Click to expand...
That's probably the best way I've heard it put thus far.
 
Dan_D said:
If I needed to feel like I was getting a deal, I wouldn't ever buy anything. Nothing is a deal in the PC world as fast as this **** depreciates.
Click to expand...
I guess, I felt like a brand new 3700x was a pretty good deal @ what amounted to $190. If you feel that's not a deal, then that's fine too ;). Not everyone is patient and impulsive at the same time, lol. I'm impulsive as when I find what I feel is a good deal I'll jump on it even if it's not what I was thinking about getting, but I will patiently wait for said deal and not just buy something because it's new or just came out. This is why I was on a 6600k and 1600 until this summer, I haven't felt like anything was much of a deal when I looked, but once I decided to upgrade, it was pretty much based on what the best deal was, I'd of been perfectly fine with a 3300x but I'm perfectly fine with the 3700x too.
I guess thinking something is a deal, is no the same as an investment. I don't expect to make money off of it, but I do expect to spend $ that last for a certain period of time. A 3300x would have cost 1/2 the price and probably would have lasted about 1/2 as long. Nothings perfect, and like I said, I'm probably an exception to the norm, but I do feel there are deals to be had, I've run into them plenty of times, some better than others, but paying over MSRP is not a thing for me except one time when I needed a GPU during the mining craze, I paid $10 over MSRP for a RX 560 for my daughters birthday, which at the time was actually a good deal considering they were typically 50%-100% markups, but it took me some time to wait/find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top