Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Ryzen 9 3950X vs. Core i9 9900KS In Nearly 150 Benchmarks

[yeeeeman]

You could've at least include a similarly priced to 3950X CPU from intel in this comparison...For sure 9900k is beaten by a 16 core cpu.
Also, I don't see the point in using 9900ks, since this product is a special one released for OC-ing.
The scaling is not amazing tbh. 27% more performance for 50% more cores with 3900x? 47% more performance for 100% more cores with 3950x? Sure, prices/performance make the difference but given AMD fights a 5 year old process and architecture here, this is not an amazing result.

[rene]

The AMD 3950X performance is just amazing: https://youtu.be/AB9EJcOGGaw?t=361

[milkylainen]

I can literally hear Intel rectals talking: "Holy Astringent Plum-Like Fruit Batman!"

[willmore]

I have a Ryzen 1800X system and I've been thinking of plopping a 3900X into it - without upgrading the motherboard. I don't really need the PCIe 4.0 and the things I have read say that performance is pretty good on the x370 motherboards.

My board (ASRock x370 Taichi) does have the 3900X on the compatibility list and articles like this just encourage me.

As the owner of a 3700X, I can't fault your reasoning.

[caligula]

There is literally no reason to buy intel here in 2020.

Higher single core performance in FPS games ? If you play e-sports and need a system with 800x600 pixel CRTs @ 500 Hz?

[betam4x]

You could've at least include a similarly priced to 3950X CPU from intel in this comparison...For sure 9900k is beaten by a 16 core cpu.
Also, I don't see the point in using 9900ks, since this product is a special one released for OC-ing.
The scaling is not amazing tbh. 27% more performance for 50% more cores with 3900x? 47% more performance for 100% more cores with 3950x? Sure, prices/performance make the difference but given AMD fights a 5 year old process and architecture here, this is not an amazing result.

There isn't one. You have to step up to HEDT in order to get a better CPU from Intel. At that point, you'd want to include Threadripper results, and well...there you go.

EDIT: Get used to it. By the time Intel launches a desktop part on 10nm, AMD will be transitioning to 5nm. By the time Intel hits 7nm, AMD will be on 3nm.

[StephenL]

You could've at least include a similarly priced to 3950X CPU from intel in this comparison...For sure 9900k is beaten by a 16 core cpu.
Also, I don't see the point in using 9900ks, since this product is a special one released for OC-ing.
The scaling is not amazing tbh. 27% more performance for 50% more cores with 3900x? 47% more performance for 100% more cores with 3950x? Sure, prices/performance make the difference but given AMD fights a 5 year old process and architecture here, this is not an amazing result.

First... Where are you going to find a similarly priced 16 core Intel CPU?!?! And pricing wise the comparison is very fair Ryzen 9 3900X is $499, the Core i9 9900KS is $649, the Ryzen 9 3950X is $749. (If anything it's not fair to the Ryzen 9 3900X, but as you can see it more than handles the competition.)

As for the scaling it's less to do with the processors than the software. Some software scales better (handles more cores) than others. Some software will only utilize a couple threads, so regardless if you give it 4 or 24 it's going to perform the same (at the same clock speeds).

That's what you're seeing, not poor performance scaling from the AMD CPUs, but a mix of software that scales well, and scales poorly.

Ex.
SVT-HEVC v1.4.11080p 8-bit YUV To HEVC Video Encode

Core i9 9900K - 49 FPS
Ryzen 9 3900X - 78 FPS
Ryzen 9 3950X - 102 FPS

...Near perfect scaling per cores.

As opposed to...
x265 v3.1.2H.265 1080p Video Encoding

Core i9 9900K - 60 FPS
Ryzen 9 3900X - 62 FPS
Ryzen 9 3950X - 64 FPS

...Not so much on the scaling.

[smitty3268]

You could've at least include a similarly priced to 3950X CPU from intel in this comparison...

Such as? I think comparing the highest end desktop cpus from AMD and Intel makes for a fair comparison.

Otherwise, you're talking about bringing in HEDT processors from Intel, which is a completely different market. And not necessarily one that's going to help Intel in the comparison, either, as it would still be behind in core count and would also be clocked slower than the 9900ks so less likely to win the single-threaded tests.

[PinkyDemon]

You could've at least include a similarly priced to 3950X CPU from intel in this comparison...For sure 9900k is beaten by a 16 core cpu.

It is beaten by a 12 core and by a far margin, which is cheaper and needs the same amount of power. It is not Michael's fault that this is the maximum intel can provide, and trust me you don't want to go to HEDT.

The scaling is not amazing tbh. 27% more performance for 50% more cores with 3900x? 47% more performance for 100% more cores with 3950x?

Actually, this is pretty good scaling in average, especially if we consider the limited memory bandwidth.

AMD fights a 5 year old process and architecture here, this is not an amazing result.

This was the best intel could offer in 2019 and that was not 5 years ago. Where are the newer ones?

[wizard69]

I would like AMD to delay Zen3 for their own good. Just reap every dollar they can from Zen2, so they have the cash to fight intel/nvidia when the time comes.

actually they need to do the opposite. Especially with NVidia They can't afford to take it easy.