[Technopat] Ryzen R9 3950X Breaks WR's Cinebench15/20 & Geekbench4 - Page 8 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[Technopat] Ryzen R9 3950X Breaks WR's Cinebench15/20 & Geekbench4

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #71 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-13-2019, 11:28 PM
Professional Proletariat
 
magnek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Калифорния
Posts: 5,656
Rep: 478 (Unique: 192)
Quote: Originally Posted by The Robot View Post
Oh, and what's with all those cores? Developers don't have any time to catch up! It's a waste of silicon, I want 6Ghz so I can play Dota at 999fps/720p.
Those cores are glued together m8. G-L-U-E-D together. Just let that sink in for a second.

- 4930K @ 4.5 GHz | Asus X79-Deluxe
- MSi 980 Ti Gaming @ 1500/8000
- 4x4 GB Dominator Platinum 2400 MHz
- 2x 850 Pro 2TB
- Seasonic PRIME Titanium 850W
- Phanteks Enthoo Primo
- Custom watercooling (420+360+240)
- XB270HU 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS
magnek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #72 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 01:18 AM
Meep
 
Gilles3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,990
Rep: 297 (Unique: 219)
Quote: Originally Posted by skupples View Post
i just said it in another thread, whoever sells us the most lanes @ the lowest cost will get many of our $$$$$

why? cuz of the above. We wanna run 1-2 GPUs @ 16x each + 2-4 NVMe @ 4x each... Why? Cuz some of us like to keep a ton of ultra-fast data on our gaming PC & are tired of the now old & tired SATA SSD raid solutions.

not to mention most of us in the above are @ resolutions where 1-2% CPU nonsense means nothing.
If you just want a ton of lanes, a TR 1900X and ASRock X399 phantom Gaming 6(3x x16; 3x x4; 1x x2) can already be had for less than €500 if you buy at the right time, I don't see 62 lanes getting much cheaper any time soon.
Gilles3000 is offline  
post #73 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 01:42 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
guttheslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,659
Rep: 109 (Unique: 64)
Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
"AMD has been sandbagging increasing IPC and core count beyond 16/32 on mainstream for ages now!"

Intel have much bigger resources than you might think, if they have to dump their SSD department and others investment and fully focus on coming out with killer CPUs, they will do it.


But first, they need to retrench the bunch of useless and greedy ppl at the top management.

guttheslayer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #74 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 02:51 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
SwitchFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 747
Rep: 14 (Unique: 11)
My Turkish is non-existent nowadays. Anyone know and want to translate or has it all been covered by sources?

The RAM OC strikes me as something that may affect those scores. However, the clock is not right, and I suspect this is an engineering sample. One of the leaks I saw of this mystery processor long before Dr. Su announced it at E3 had an A0 stepping, which I've concluded meant an ES processor. I've played with Intel ES processors in the past bought in bulk that were A1 stepping and thus not meant for mass production.

Quote: Originally Posted by guttheslayer View Post
Intel have much bigger resources than you might think, if they have to dump their SSD department and others investment and fully focus on coming out with killer CPUs, they will do it.


But first, they need to retrench the bunch of useless and greedy ppl at the top management.
You're quite correct, mate. They have immense resources. They spend several times over AMD's total R&D budget each year for their CPU division let alone all other divisions at Intel. How's that worked out for them the last 8 years? Is the 2600K one of the great processors that stood the test of time, or is it simple a good processor when compared to pitifully churned out product since Sandybridge?

You can use Google's custom search settings to look for Intel 10nm being brought up way back in late 2011, early 2012. I suspect Core and later revivals were just very lucky incidences for Intel and they chose to untap as much performance as they could from an architecture.


Last edited by SwitchFX; 06-14-2019 at 02:59 AM.
SwitchFX is offline  
post #75 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 03:09 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
SwitchFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 747
Rep: 14 (Unique: 11)
Quote: Originally Posted by elmor View Post
Highest R15 scores on LN2 below

1950X @ 5370 MHz = 4514cb
https://hwbot.org/submission/3622692..._1950x_4514_cb

2950X @ 5489 MHz = 4758cb
https://hwbot.org/submission/3921708..._2950x_4758_cb

9960X @ 5928 MHz = 5320cb
https://hwbot.org/submission/4168151..._9960x_5320_cb

Compared to:

3950X @ ~5400 MHz = 5344cb


Slightly higher frequency than Zen1 but over 18% higher performance. Slightly lower frequency than Zen+ but over 12% higher performance. Same performance as Intel Core i9-9960X but at 9% lower frequency.
I'm not one to nitpick at others representations, but using percent here feels a bit disingenuous to most consumers even though this is an enthusiast site. As you pointed out, there is a large, significant difference in score from the TR1 chip, however, for the Intel processor, there's over a 400 Mhz difference which shows just how much of an IPC improvement there is with Zen 2 over Intel. I'm not sure if this comes down to using the TSMC process or because 12nm and 14 nm on GloFlo was a highly modified mobile platform on licensed tech from Samsung. Unfortunately, that stuff is way out of the breadth of knowledge I know so I'm open to anyone who knows it to explain why apart from that and the modification of how IF works that AMD managed to best Intel, obviously based on what we know and not third party benches.

SwitchFX is offline  
post #76 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 03:22 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
SwitchFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 747
Rep: 14 (Unique: 11)
Quote: Originally Posted by Alex132 View Post
uh?
He's joking that OCN has astroturfers who are paid by Intel to spread lies. OTOH, I'm sure they do for Reddit.

SwitchFX is offline  
post #77 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 03:31 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
SwitchFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 747
Rep: 14 (Unique: 11)
Quote: Originally Posted by J7SC View Post
I keep on hearing that TR3 will eventually come to market, including a 32c with 'monolithic' RAM. AMD however may want to see what the new Intel HEDT line will bring to the table, and probably move TR3 upmarket a bit more... and the 3900X and 3950X are opening important segments and price points already, anyhow.

There's also the fact that between 8c and 16c Ryzen 3k and the lucrative $erver-chip market (7nm Epyc, facing increasing demand), a lot of binned 8c chiplets will already be spoken for. Still, like other posts above, I prefer / need at least quad channel RAM and more PCIe lanes than 3950X offers (ie. partial productivity work w/ extra raid cards, Intel network server cards etc)
The ice maker and water chilling system from any zoo that has a polar bear exhibition?

SwitchFX is offline  
post #78 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 06:34 AM
Hey I get one of these!
 
KyadCK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,259
Rep: 304 (Unique: 214)
Quote: Originally Posted by m4fox90 View Post
The nerve of moving of to 7nm and putting all their 14/12nm specialized engineers and production lines out of work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The funny thing is they didn't put them out of work, the IO dies, x570 chipset, and Zen+ APUs are still all made on 12/14nm.

Quote: Originally Posted by SwitchFX View Post
I'm not one to nitpick at others representations, but using percent here feels a bit disingenuous to most consumers even though this is an enthusiast site. As you pointed out, there is a large, significant difference in score from the TR1 chip, however, for the Intel processor, there's over a 400 Mhz difference which shows just how much of an IPC improvement there is with Zen 2 over Intel. I'm not sure if this comes down to using the TSMC process or because 12nm and 14 nm on GloFlo was a highly modified mobile platform on licensed tech from Samsung. Unfortunately, that stuff is way out of the breadth of knowledge I know so I'm open to anyone who knows it to explain why apart from that and the modification of how IF works that AMD managed to best Intel, obviously based on what we know and not third party benches.
He used all percentages correctly, taking both clock speed and score into account for all three comparisons. Nothing about it is disingenuous, it is fact.

AMD covered the changes made in Ryzen 3. Anand goes into depth. Skip to page 6 for arch overview;
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14525...-and-epyc-rome


tl;dr, cores are made up of lots of parts. AMD shored up on some of those parts weak points so the core can operate more efficiently and get fed/process data faster, such as expanding cache to reduce cache misses.

It's like fixing that one intersection that causes a traffic jam, just... for data. Yes, now another intersection that didn't used to be a problem is now a bottleneck, but overall traffic is moving faster. They can address those new problems next time and make it even faster. Intel has been doing this for a long time, that is where you see "3% IPC increase", etc. The difference is AMD hit 10-15% (in this case, +18% in Cinebench over Ryzen 1), not the 3-5% Intel has been doing.

Forge
(18 items)
Forge-LT
(7 items)
CPU
AMD Threadripper 1950X
Motherboard
Gigabyte X399 Designare
GPU
EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid
GPU
EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid
RAM
32GB G.Skill TridentZ RGB (4x8GB 3200Mhz 14-14-14)
Hard Drive
Intel 900P 480GB
Hard Drive
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB
Power Supply
Corsair AX1200
Cooling
EK Predator 240
Case
Corsair Graphite 780T
Operating System
Windows 10 Enterprise x64
Monitor
2x Acer XR341CK
Keyboard
Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB
Mouse
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB
Audio
Sennheiser HD700
Audio
Sound Blaster AE-5
Audio
Audio Technica AT4040
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp
CPU
i7-4720HQ
Motherboard
UX501JW-UB71T
GPU
GTX 960m
RAM
16GB 1600 9-9-9-27
Hard Drive
512GB PCI-e SSD
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
4k IPS
▲ hide details ▲
KyadCK is offline  
post #79 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 08:07 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
elmor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 821
Rep: 333 (Unique: 146)
Quote: Originally Posted by SwitchFX View Post
I'm not one to nitpick at others representations, but using percent here feels a bit disingenuous to most consumers even though this is an enthusiast site. As you pointed out, there is a large, significant difference in score from the TR1 chip, however, for the Intel processor, there's over a 400 Mhz difference which shows just how much of an IPC improvement there is with Zen 2 over Intel. I'm not sure if this comes down to using the TSMC process or because 12nm and 14 nm on GloFlo was a highly modified mobile platform on licensed tech from Samsung. Unfortunately, that stuff is way out of the breadth of knowledge I know so I'm open to anyone who knows it to explain why apart from that and the modification of how IF works that AMD managed to best Intel, obviously based on what we know and not third party benches.

Not sure I get your point, I clearly state 9% lower frequency than 9960X but yielding about the same score? 5400/5928 = 0.91 or 91% of the 9960X frequency or 9% lower.
elmor is offline  
post #80 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 08:29 AM
Overclocking Enthusiast
 
ozlay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,568
Rep: 274 (Unique: 219)
Why not use IF to connect the chipset to the CPU? Instead of using pcie Lanes.

In Loving Memory Of Kassandra

Kaby
Rikka
(9 items)
CPU
Intel I5-7600k
Motherboard
Asrock Z270M Extreme 4
GPU
Titan X
RAM
Gskill Royal
Hard Drive
970 Evo
Hard Drive
Optane 900p
Power Supply
Seasonic Prime Snow
Case
enthoo evolv matx tempered glass
Operating System
windows 10 pro
▲ hide details ▲
ozlay is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off