AMD Ryzen 7 3800X surfaces in Geekbench, performs roughly similar to Core i9 9900K

1st) Turbo of such CPU is likely going to be 5GHz already or more therefore actual overclock to 5.3GHz will be 6% or less
2nd) intel does not even show it on their website
3rd) intel's main advantage since Zen was manufacturing process
4th) 3800X is not best of value chip in new AMD's lineup. Performance per $ is with 3700X.
5th) Expecting that they are going to deliver all core clock of 5GHz at reasonable TDP is unrealistic and one can as well take 9900K and push TDP there
= = = =
9900T (35W) - Base clock 2.1GHz => its 25W TDP-down clock is 1.6GHz
9880H (45W) - Base clock 2.3GHz
9980HK (45W binned) - Base clock 2.4GHz
9900 (65W) - Base clock 3.1GHz
9900K (95W) - Base clock 3.6GHz
9900KF (95W disabled iGPU) - Base clock 3.6GHz
All except 1st two can boost to 5GHz for shorter or longer amount of time. But staying there comes at price once all cores are to operate there.
= = = =
Thinking about 15% discount from intel before AMD's chips are even out? Rumors?
At best that expected $425 MSRP mark will belong to something like 9900/9900T which currently have MSRP of around $440. And 9900K/KF may drop to $475 to make space for $500 9900KS.
And it would be just price adjustment within their lineup and not defensive reaction to Zen2.

 

What is scary for me is that AMD needed 7 to equal Intel 14nm cpus.... which should be much better in overall giving the tech they are using. what would happen when intel jump to 10 or 7 nm ?

 

You are scared of property of transistor. And that has nothing to do with AMD as those are not their fabs.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to look at one thing only and make a conclusion around that one thing, then it is easy enough to come to the conclusion you want.

Intels 14nm has been refined so many times and the Intel architecture, has been changed back and forth a couple of times on the same 14nm.
The 7nm AMD is on its first generation and a Ryzen CPU is around 50/50% 7nm and 14nm, Threadripper and Epic has more 7nm in them, but still mixed chiplet design.

The old AM1 socket had CPU, GPU and Chipset in the same socket, making it far more advanced then anything Intel had at the time and in that price bracket.
I dont even think Intel has done anything like that yet at consumer prices.

Some of the new Ryzen laptops are beginning to overtake Intel, by delivering more performance at lower power usage, and they are still on first generation 12nm.
Speaking of laptops, Intel is selling 10nm CPUes in a couple of models but tests show, that 14nm is better allround then the 10nm, because the 10nm CPUes are still so bad quality and only available in dualcores without graphics because they have not found out how to reliably make 10nm in large numbers.

The Samsung 14nm production line that Intel wants to rent could be different then Intels own 14nm, so the production line could produce better or worse chips, then Intel themselves, you can not just compare nm and conclude anything from that.

There was a Iphone model that was sold with a CPU that came from 2 different CPU manufacturers, they where the same nm and architecture but one production line was better then the other, so if you where lucky you would get the good one with around 5% more performance and lower power usage.

 

Comparing different fab companies nm by just the number is a pointless game. Hence why when most people state that amd is already at 7nm and intel can't even get their 10nm working, people come out of the woodworks to explain how intels 10nm, if it were working correctly, is more advance and dense then TSMC's 7nm. It doesn't work that way.

 

LOL oh boy granted I've only become a bit more active on the forums again recently because I am looking to build a new PC soon as my current Intel rig is getting a bit long in the tooth but I honestly can not remember the last time I've seen this many shills (or at least magnitude of new accounts) defending a company from any camp be it Amd/Nvidia/Intel.

Ok so let's say yes the yet to be released 9900KS will be the king of all CPU's for gaming I'll still happily take less heat, better power consumption, better pricing and none of the security flaws that's associated with current Intel CPU's over a few frames difference in lower res thanks. Oh and I could be wrong but I think a lot of people do use their PC's more than just gaming.

Seriously if you're not an Intel paid shill believe me when I say there are actually better things to do than so vehemently defend a company that could not care less about you beyond the money that you're giving them.

 

Intels 7nm isn't supposed to release for another 2 years or so. Given their current track record, i'd suspect 3-5 years, but maybe they'll actually release without problems this time.

But either way, by the time Intels 7nm is "supposed" to come out, AMD has planned 5nm. Now, i'm not saying AMDs (or rather TSMCs 5nm) will be better then Intels 7nm if it arrives on time, but you act as though the competition (AMD) will sit still and not advance on their own in the next 2 years, regardless of 7nm+ or 5nm node enhancements. By that i mean, even if AMD was still on 12nm, not advancing to 7nm, there would still be then Zen2 advancements.

Also what is with this "9 year old tech" nonsense. You do know that 2010 was 9 years ago right? That'd be westmere/nehalem. Yes, i know that nehalem is 2008, not 2010, but the only release for intel in 2010 was westmere, which was mostly a server improvement of nehalem. But lets go westmere, lets go with a 6-core/12 thread core i7-980 3.33Ghz processor. Lets compare it to an i5-9500 3.0Ghz 6-core/6-thread processor, Depending on the workload, the i5-9500 gets a 15-40% better performance then the i7-980, even though it's base speed is less, and even though it lacks hyperthreading.

Now, you might say "well the i5-9500 has better boost speed", sure. So, lets see about that.

An i7-980x OC'd to 4Ghz in cinebench gets around 930

an i5-9400f with a max boost of 4.1Ghz in cinebench gets around 960

Now, i know, you may be saying "See! not a huge difference!", well, there is. 4.1Ghz max boost is not it's all core boost, with 980x OC'd to 4Ghz is its all core OC. 9400f all-core boost 3.9Ghz. So that means the 9400f at 3.9Ghz, best case scenario, beats out the 980x OC'd to 4Ghz. But wait! there's more! Also, the 9400f does not have hyperthreading! and on a benchmark like cinebench, that can improve the the score by around 30%, depending on the CPU. So, you're looking at more like a.... 710ish score for the 980x to the 9400f's 960, if you want to compare clock to clock. And that's what we're doing right?

Why did i spew all that information out?

Simple. Since AMDs IPC should be similar, if not better then Intels current IPC, and if Intels current architecture IPC is a fair bit decent to intels 9-year old tech, how exactly is AMD, as you put it..... "AMD is finally catching up with Intel 9 years old architecture". Zen was faster then, IPC wise, then Intels 9-year old tech. So yeah but uh....you're spewing a bunch of nonsense.

 

The main reason for AMD jumping on 7nm is making the chips smaller and getting more per wafer = more money, since AMD uses chiplets means there are very few chips rendered useless. Less waste = more money.

 

Here is to hoping for just that. Not letting all of the beans spill out of the bag right away.

I have so much hope in their upcoming hardware releases. Not to mention Intel needs their faces pushed in with their sorry price gouging as of late.

Them and Nvidia.

 

Except Intel's own slides show their 10nm process underperforming their current 14nm++ process. Even for Intel, a smaller process doesn't always mean better performance - the main benefit is lower power consumption and more transistor space. AMD is realizing the latter with Zen 2, creating CPUs with up to twice the number of cores at the same power.

 

True however Intel frequently when moving to a new fabrication test it in mobile to at least take advantage of lower power consumption and lower heat output where high clocks are not needed. Once matured then moves to the desktop market. Only exception to this is an entirely new architecture... which Intel haven't done in 8 years the last major leap was Sandy Bridge.

 

We'll have to see if they actually "fixed" their 10nm process with any new processors releasing, as their one and only 10nm released product so far......does not take advantage of any lower power consumption.

8121u = 10nm CPU

8130u = 14nm CPU

 

Well in all honesty i don't if i have mentioned it here or else where but i have said that their 14+++nm fabrication process appears to be better than their 10nm and this just really confirms it.