1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 13, 2019.

  1. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    28
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    Not true at all. CPU is the limiting factor when aiming for high fps. I can easily be CPU bound in games with my 1080 Ti at 1440p. Tested and tried. I have also tested several Ryzen rigs and have one myself, currently in my server tho. Performance was too weak for my gaming rig. I demand 100 fps minimum, pref 120+ and Ryzen can't deliver.

    I would NEVER buy Ryzen 1000 or 2000 series for a high fps gaming rig. Zen 2 hopefully will improve the lacking performance here, combined with faster memory.

    Please stop spreading missinformation. No AMD CPU currently out will match Intel in gaming when CPU is the limiting factor. It's a fact. Serious and competitive gamers are using Intel CPU's for a reason

    Frametimes are generally better with Intel. PC Perspective tested this not too long ago. Better 99th procentiles across the board.

    Tried emulating Zelda BOTW using CEMU on a Ryzen CPU...? Even old i5's will beat up 2700X here.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
  2. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,025
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    PICNIC and lies. Plain and simple. Sadly for you I came from i5-2500K @4.5GHz fixed on all cores. And I objectively stated that achievable fps went up only by 5~10%, but smoothness turned form night to day.
    At the end I had big issues with i5-2500K unless I severely limited fps. But that's 4C/4T and desire to have much more than 60fps. I think that today 4C/4T may suffer in some games even on 60fps.
    But CPUs with more cores/threads are still alive in that category.
     
  3. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    28
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    I know the truth is hard to accept for a Ryzen owner.
     
  4. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,474
    Likes Received:
    2,699
    GPU:
    1080Ti @h2o
    Can you help me find this please? I wanted to read up and educate myself, and couldn't find that article... was it a CPU review? A podcast?
    Sadly that site isn't really easy to browse or search (always offers oldest tag hits first...) and google wasn't helpful either.
     

  5. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    94
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 6G Armor
    @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.
     
    Fox2232 likes this.
  6. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    28
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    You would be perfectly fine with a Ryzen Rig.

    Remember to test for frameskipping when OC'ing monitors.

    Vsync adds alot of input lag tho
     
  7. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    28
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    Sadly for me? My last quad core CPU was 4C/8T and that was many years ago.

    3770K at 4.8 GHz. Also had 3930K at that time

    5930K @ 4.5 -> Shortly had Ryzen 1700 @ 4.15 (now in my server, underclocked and undervolted) -> 8700K @ 5.1 -> 9900K @ 5.2 (Free Upgrade, Thanks Boss)

    My 1080 Ti got severely gimped by that Ryzen 1700 in 9 out of 10 games. In CPU bound scenarios.
    The Ryzen 1700 gaming performance were not anywhere near 8700K or 9900K. And this is why I know this for a fact.

    I can do nothing but smile when people claim Ryzen 1000/2000 can match Intel 6C+ in CPU bound gaming. They are not even close.

    Something I hope Zen 2 will improve alot on - Because current Ryzen is simply MEH unless you're a 60 fps GPU bound gamer.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
  8. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    94
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 6G Armor
    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)
     
  9. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,025
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.
     
  10. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    94
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 6G Armor
    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.
     

  11. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,025
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.
     
  12. Kool64

    Kool64 Master Guru

    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    76
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1070
    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.
     
  13. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,229
    Likes Received:
    720
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    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?
     
    Fox2232 likes this.
  14. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    28
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    What claims. I know for a fact that Intel destroys Ryzen completely in CPU bound / high fps gaming at both 1080p and 1440p. AMD is not even close when looking at the overall picture, AMD is doing decent in some games, Overwatch for example, yet in other games the performance is terrible.

    I'd never use (or recommend) Ryzen 1000 / 2000 series for high fps gaming, that's for sure.

    Competitive and serious gamers won't use Ryzen for a reason. Massive fps loss across the board.

    Hopefully Zen 2 will do much better in CPU bound gaming.
     
  15. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    94
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 6G Armor
    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.
     

  16. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,025
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.
     
    carnivore, BlackZero and Loophole35 like this.
  17. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,229
    Likes Received:
    720
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    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).
     
    carnivore, BlackZero and Fox2232 like this.
  18. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    94
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 6G Armor
    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.
     
  19. geogan

    geogan Master Guru

    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1070 XTREME
    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!
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  20. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    94
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 6G Armor
    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 :D

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019

Share This Page