$749 Ryzen 9 3950X Beats $2000 Intel Core i9-9980XE(18-core) in Geekbench Test

@Fox2232

I overclock my monitors to 72/75Hz (depends on the monitor) and I use v-sync. I will always limit the fps if the game allows it (yes, even if V-sync is enabled) because there will just be less heat coming from PC. So perhaps, from my personal experience, I am not the best person to attack/defend these stutter and high fps positions people take because I just use V-Sync and don't have problems of the sort either way. But watching comparison videos of various CPUs next to each other in recorded footage I came to conclusion that most of the time neither AMD or intel suffers form stutter issues (that would show in 99th percentile?) except sometimes one or the other will have some dips in a certain title. But the comparisons are usually of newer CPUs, not sandy bridge.
Also, having Single Rank memory modules helps A LOT, and Ryzen only works with those sooo....yea.

 

I test for frame skipping of course (there is none on Dell monitors over DP). And Vsync adds less lag than what some monitor panels add. All in all we are talking microseconds, milliseconds at worst and my "ping" for online games is 50ms anyway, having even ~20ms (which would be radical) of input lag, it happens before I get response from server....
Also, I bought i5 9400f paired it with some nice 3200 single ranks. No AMD for me, thanks. (not bashing AMD, it is just my personal preference and it's cheap, no drivers to worry about and I laugh at security exploits for intel)

 

Yes, sadly for you. Since you make claims which are utter BS. Because you make them about HW which I did own and make comparison to HW I own now.
In other words I know perfectly what could that older HW do, how it behaved and I know same thing about that new one you make claims about.

 

you said you had sandy bridge. Ivy is different enough (in so that it supports PCIe 3.0 compared to SB PCIe 2.0 among other things) that Ivy i5 is comapred to SB i7 in gaming.
Just sayin'

PS. I am still waiting for Ias to send at least one link supporting his claim, since it seems extraordinary and contradictory to everything that I, and probably everyone else has seen so far.

 

Sandy's i5 deficiency did not come from PCIe 2.0, but from having just 4C. Sandy i7 did continue to perform well in games. And I even tested PCIe 2.0 with Ryzen.

 

I don't think anyone here is saying any 1k or 2k Ryzen is beating Intel. However the 3k series will give a very good run for the money. I personally upgraded from an i7980 to a Ryzen 1600X and I've been very happy minus the early adopter memory troubles.

 

Yep up until 2 years ago my 2600k @ 4.8 was doing just peachy but I was finally starting to see Cpu bound scenarios with it (needed more cores). I have my 8700k @ 5.1 right now but would love to go to the 3900x IF it matches out of the box performance of my 8700k in games. Who wouldn't want to double their core count and keep the same SC IPC?

 

I didn't imply that it directly did, I implied that they made things better. If you look at benchmarks that include SB and IB you will see that IB is just faster. To end user - does it matter why? Especially i5 IB vs i7 SB...Also, Haswell is faster than both and also has 4 cores. So it's not just the cores. Hell, If I had Haswell i7 I wouldn't bother upgrading to anything available today, as far as gaming is concerned at least.

 

Ivy's best friend was better IMC. I often laughed at intel's gains per generation saying:
"And how would that do against Sandy if both were limited by let's say 1600MHz memory."

I wonder how would Sandy do if it had IMC capable to deal with 3200MHz DDR4 ram.

 

That was called Skylake. Since sandybridge there really hasn't been any real improvement in actual performance of the cores from Intel. Most of the gains have come from die shrink, instruction sets, cache, clock speed and memory controller improvements. The core design has remained mostly unchanged (which explains the vulnerabilities).

 

in gaming they perform similar/same @1333 (what I am using on my Z68 board from day one. I can post links. DDR3 1600MHz on those old series meant very little and was hardly worth the extra money.

 

Whaaaatt!?!? Unplug USB?? SATA drives disappearing?? I can't belileve this. I have never owned a "consumer" board, still on HEDT Rampage II board... but I would be seriously pissed off if spending €1000+ to upgrade motherboard/ram/CPU to latest greatest gaming motherboard/9900K that I get stuff like this happening!

 

some lanes are shared. ie. if you use m.2 X slot you cant use regular SATA X slot, and so on. m.2 nvme uses 4 lanes so theoretically if you use 2 m2 slots, you are using 8 lanes, can't use several SATA connectors (out of at least 8) and you have lanes to spare since you have at LEAST 24 (from the chipset) of them on above the average systems. Lanes for m.2 are provided via motherboard chipset.
Latest and greatest 9900K provides the same number of PCIe lanes as i5 2500K. Want more? No problem. Go for Extreme Edition and HEDT, if 40 lanes (24+16) isn't enough for you,
or some Ryzen + board combo that will have enough lanes for your lame (too much redundant stuff) setup lol

edit: it's not that big of a deal. As far as motherboard is concerned, when you reach the limit of lanes it provides for your nvme and/or SATA drives, it starts dropping the lanes needed. Only SATA 3 needs 2 lanes (sata 600) sata 2 (sata 300) needs only 1. You'd be challendged to notice the difference between the two if you used drives and didn't know which is at which SATA version.

 

OK... clear as mud... "m.2 nvme uses 4 lanes so theoretically if you use 2 m2 slots, you are using 8 lanes, can't use several SATA connectors (out of at least 8)" .... still no idea .

If a board i buy has 8 x SATA connectors then I want to be able to use them now or in future... sharing lanes is a pain. So if there is one m2 drive in a 9900K setup, does that disable 2 x SATA connectors??

 

that depends on the board, that's why I wrote with "wide brush". On my board, if I use first m.2 slot, I cant use sata 0 port. If I use the second m.2 slot, then I cant use another sata port, but that's fine because I have 6 of them. But on some boards you can use m.2 and not loose sata port...So like I said, it depends on the chipset and then the board design itself.