Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

300+ Benchmarks With AMD Threadripper 3960X vs. Intel Core i9 10980XE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AdrianBc
    replied
    Originally posted by reavertm View Post

    This analogy is flawed imho. Threadripper comes not just with double the cores but double the memory channels and more than double PCI-E lanes.
    Twisting your argument even further, it's overpriced compared to 3900x because it's not twice faster in single threaded appliances. They are expensive agreed, but it's not home users market anyway. Threadrippers like EPYCs are meant to pay for themselves. 3900x and 3950x are monster-enough home CPUs imho.

    No, the analogy is perfect, because 2 computers with 3900X/3950X have exactly the same number of memory channels and the same total maximum memory size as a single computer with 3960X/3870X. They also have almost the same total number of PCIe 4.0 lanes and for example you can populate them with more GPUs (6 versus 4) if you are OK with a lower PCIe transfer speed per card. The 2 computers have together about the same total power consumption as the single Threadripper computer and they have a higher single-thread clock frequency.


    So two computers with 3900X/3950X are almost completely equivalent in speed and features with a single computer with 3960X/3970X. The two computers are much cheaper and more reliable than the single Threadripper computer, but they would be slower for some tasks which require a lot of inter-process communication, which has to go over Ethernet for the double computer.


    A double computer requires a more sophisticated user, who knows how to distribute the processing tasks over a computer cluster instead of launching the applications only on his/her workstation. However someone willing to spend more than $2500 (the minimum price for a Threadripper computer) should already know how to use computers efficiently.


    Actually for me this is not theory. I have waited to see the prices of the Threadrippers, and after seeing them I have decided to buy 2 computers with Ryzen 9 3950X on Asus Pro WS X570-ACE motherboards. However, due to high demand, it seems that I will have to wait several months until the price and availability of that CPU will become normal.



















    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxxx
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    The defaults were used. Though for the most part in these workloads, generally I see minimal difference with P-State powersave vs. performance, usually it's only with gaming tests where sometimes is such a difference.
    No, I really meant a comparison between AMD & Intel with BOTH using ACPI-cpufreq 'performance'!
    It would be an eye-opener for many, since Intel's P-state CPU driver really is bad, especially in the latency department; so gaming benchmarks with a focus on minimum framerates & frame-times would be quite interesting.

    Also, do You include Google's "Web Latency Benchmark" in the PTS?

    https://google.github.io/latency-benchmark/

    Leave a comment:


  • reavertm
    replied
    Originally posted by AdrianBc View Post
    This does not change the fact that the 3960X is somewhat overpriced, because a single computer with 3960X is more expensive than 2 computers with 3900X, even if for many applications with high parallelism and little communication, e.g. for program compilation, the double 3900X will be as fast or faster. The same is true when comparing a single computer with 3970X versus 2 computers with 3950X.
    This analogy is flawed imho. Threadripper comes not just with double the cores but double the memory channels and more than double PCI-E lanes.
    Twisting your argument even further, it's overpriced compared to 3900x because it's not twice faster in single threaded appliances. They are expensive agreed, but it's not home users market anyway. Threadrippers like EPYCs are meant to pay for themselves. 3900x and 3950x are monster-enough home CPUs imho.

    Leave a comment:


  • cybertraveler
    replied
    Interesting.

    I'd be curious to see some gaming benchmarks comparing popular, high-end AMD and Intel CPUs. The tests would all use the same graphics card. Only the CPU would change. Though... it might be worth using two graphics cards: one AMD and one NVIDIA. The different drivers might yield different CPU usage characteristics.

    Leave a comment:


  • sabriah
    replied
    Very impressive! No, I didn't necessarily mean the 3960X, I meant the test and the article! Nice!

    Leave a comment:


  • nuetzel
    replied
    And again.

    Compare with 'decrippled' Intel MKL

    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...55#post1141355

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    Very nice reporting Micheal. All the whining about processor comparisons don’t mean much to me anymore. The simple fact is for a long time it wasn’t even rational to consider AMD based on performance needs. Now it is foolish not to consider AMD for just about any work load. That is a most refreshing change in the situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • betam4x
    replied
    Originally posted by Drago View Post
    This is good and all, but why compare CPUs from different price brackets? I believe intel CPU is competitor vs Highest end Ryzen processors Ryzen9 [whatever], and not TR.
    Intel's chip is HEDT, the lowest HEDT AMD CPU is the 3960X.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Pariston View Post
    Nice test. I would also like to see a comparison between CPUs with close MSRPs. Something like a 10940X vs a 3950X would be good to see.
    Unfortunately and as said in the article, I don't have a 3950X and when checking with AMD on Monday it didn't sound certain whether I would get one... I guess 3950X supplies really are tight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pariston
    replied
    Nice test. I would also like to see a comparison between CPUs with close MSRPs. Something like a 10940X vs a 3950X would be good to see.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X