Intel Core i5 10600K + Core i9 10900K

[mlau]

Quite surprising seeing 10900k get close to 3950 in some multithreaded tests (and even surpassing it in a few).
The price/perf is great. The power draw, not so much (still very good considering it's a 14nm part).

Intel's turbo implementation is much better. The runtime of some tests is so short that the 10900 can use its turbo headroom to
full extent. the 3950x with its rather "timid" turbo algorithm has of course no chance. And I believe the superior turbo implementation
is still the sole reason why intel skylake seems to have "higher ipc" in benchmarks, especially in singlethread workloads.

[birdie]

The AMD Athlon, Athlon XP and Athlon 64 were the most performant CPUs available at least one point in their product life cycle. When Ryzen 1000 came out, it was the most performant CPU in MT loads in its class. The Ryzen 2000 series start fall a little behind, but the 3000 series came in hard and basically rocketed past Intel in just about everything except ST optimized games.

Only Athlon 64 was the fastest CPU all around. Athlon and Athlon XP were never the fastest x86 CPUs.

I use my all the cores on my 3900x on a weekly basis. I create tons of video content for my students, and am constantly encoding and editing videos. I'm not a professional, but it sure is convenient to be able to quickly encode high quality 1080p60 video. Not to mention modern games are becoming more and more highly threaded. Half Life: Alyx is barely playable on most Intel quad-core CPUs if you want to play at 120 Hz. It will take advantage of every available bit of power on an 8-core system. There is more to computing than single-threaded, mainly gaming applications.

You're a vocal minority while most AMD fans cannot even afford the Ryzen 7 3700X CPU (as indicated by the fact that the Ryzen 3600 is the most popular model).

The Athlon 64 FX-Series were always $900-1000 parts. They cost what they did not because they were marginally more performant than equivalent non-FX CPU, but because they had unlocked multipliers which were highly desirable for enthusiasts. They were enthusiast halo parts. The equivalent Intel P4 Extreme Edition ALSO cost $999, mind you.

So, if AMD is gauging is OK? Double standards any time of the week, right-o.

Intel deserves all of the flack. They pushed quad-core CPUs as high-end and dual-core parts as mainstream for nearly 7 years. There was an absolute ton of stagnation in the market. In just three years with AMD pushing core counts, we've gone from dual-core CPUs being the norm, to 6-core CPUs being entry level, and 10-16 core parts being high end. Just look at the Steam Hardware Survey. 6-core parts in less than 2 years have gone from ~4% of Steam user marketshare to over 20%. That's insane in such a short time span!

Intel had been sitting on their laurels and was abusing their position while AMD was struggling. They completely and utterly failed to innovate for those ~7 years, and their response 3 years after AMD debuted Zen is a marginally better performing lineup that costs more and consumes nearly twice the power.

I've never argued with that. In fact I was very critical of Intel from 2012 to 2018 when they kept on releasing 4 core CPUs with barely any performance increases. Secondly, it's not Intel's fault AMD was not competitive at all.

Additionally, AMD has been embracing the open source community in one way or another for an extremely long time - just as long, if not longer than Intel. The Linux community is one of the main reasons x86-64 is even a thing. AMD worked very closely with Linux developers back in 1999-2000 when developing AMD64, and those developers had a lot of input on the architecture. The first functional AMD64 Linux build was released two years before the first AMD64 hardware ever shipped!

To my knowledge AMD still sucks in terms of properly supporting Linux. Their CPUs are underperforming under Linux. Their GPUs lack most of the features exposed by their proprietary drivers. Their GPU drivers became fast enough under Linux only in the late 10s. Stop BS'ing everyone here.

You constantly berate and insult other members. Instead of arguing their points, you call them stupid in an attempt to belittle them and incite an argument. It's called ad hominem attack and it basically means you don't have a good response. So you result to attacking their person in some attempt to discredit them, or make their argument seem frivolous unimportant because they're a "lesser person". If you want people to take you seriously, you need to stop hurling insults and being disrespectful.

Those who keep on parroting BS deserve not just insults - they deserve to be silenced. Too bad everyone is allowed to speak.

Again, you first accused me of not owning an AMD system. I proved you wrong. Then you accused me of getting it for free while in real life I've paid close to my three monthly salaries (luckily I had some savings) to buy and assemble a PC based on the Ryzen 7 3700X CPU and RX 5600 XT GPU. At every point you're trying hard to prove I'm an Intel lover/shill/AMD hater when I'm just trying to remain neutral and I effing hate when people keep on roasting companies for no effing reasons, for the wrong reasons or for the reasons which have long been irrelevant.

• Intel HW vulnerabilities? Not just Intel's fault, most have long been fixed.
• AMD winning in all benchmarks? Lies, pure lies, Intel leads in many single threaded benchmarks by a large margin and those are still the most important for >95% of people out there.
• AMD being the most power efficient? Lies again as idle power consumption of Intel's CPUs is far below Ryzen 3000. Compare 9700K idling at 4W plus Z390 idling at around 5W to Ryzen 3700X idling at 17W and X570 idling at 10W and requiring active cooling.
• AMD on 7nm while Intel is still on 14nm+++++++? AMD has no factories at all. This is effing irrelevant.

And please show me a single instance when I used "ad hominem" attacks without providing very strong arguments. I dare you. Too bad you can't show nil for this because it's actually you (and other Phoronix members) who have called me an Intel shill for ... not licking AMD's anus at every turn.

[Luke_Wolf]

Why do I see this birdie guy getting into fights in every single thread?

Because he's a pathological liar that craves attention on a web forum, for reasons, and so he spews off bullshit and people fight with him over it.

[pmorph]

[*]AMD winning in all benchmarks? Lies, pure lies, Intel leads in many single threaded benchmarks by a large margin and those are still the most important for >95% of people out there.

It's mostly irrelevant though. Even many HC gamers have been quite lazy upgrading their CPUs in the recent years, as the IPC improvements have been just too small to matter much. Maybe relevant for people who need to play CS:GO @1080p/300Hz, but I doubt that is the majority.

[birdie]

Specially for Luke_I_Have_No_Arguments_But_I've_Got_a_Filthy_Mou th who keeps blaming me for lying while not providing any counter-arguments:








10 fast cores vs 16 slow cores:



Quite a lot of benchmarks and I'm only half-way through the review.

And let me repeat it for the most "brilliant" in this thread: fewer but faster cores are always better than slower but more numerous cores. Some tasks just cannot be parallelized no matter how many cores you're throwing at them. For instance the x265 codec doesn't scale beyond 16 cores. But you don't know that. You're here to lie or exaggerate about Intel, about AMD and about me.

[AmericanLocomotive]

Only Athlon 64 was the fastest CPU all around. Athlon and Athlon XP were never the fastest x86 CPUs.

The Athlon routinely outperformed the Pentium 3 early on
- https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...or,121-21.html
Later in the Athlon's lifecycle, it was neck-and-neck with the P3
- https://www.anandtech.com/show/500
The release of the Athlon Thunderbird took back the performance crown in many benchmarks
- https://www.anandtech.com/show/557/12
The Athlon XP significantly outperformed the P4 at launch, but later had issues keeping up with Intel's clock-speed increases
- https://www.anandtech.com/show/835/8

You're a vocal minority while most AMD fans cannot even afford the Ryzen 7 3700X CPU (as indicated by the fact that the Ryzen 3600 is the most popular model).

I really don't even understand what point you're trying to argue here? It seems like you're trying to frame 3600 buyers as being less important because they may not have as much money?

The Ryzen 3600 out-performs the slightly CHEAPER equivalent Intel processor in literally every single metric - both single AND multi-threaded loads.
- https://www.anandtech.com/show/15787...-selling-cpu/4

As I mentioned, these days 2c and 4c CPUs are really marginal. Many pieces of modern software, even every-day things like video games can utilize 6 and 8 core CPUs. Modern web-browsers that spawn an individual process for each tab and video container can also make great use of high core-count processors.

And let me repeat it for the most "brilliant" in this thread: fewer but faster cores are always better than slower but more numerous cores. Some tasks just cannot be parallelized no matter how many cores you're throwing at them. For instance the x265 codec doesn't scale beyond 16 cores. But you don't know that. You're here to lie or exaggerate about Intel, about AMD and about me.

Your constant cherry-picking of results doesn't help your case either. I read that same article - yes the 10900K is very performant in certain tasks. But you also left out a HUGE number of benchmarks in that review where the 3900 and 3950x handily beat the 10900k. It's not just a "you didn't get there yet in the review" thing either, since many of the benchmarks where the 10900 had a not-so-great showing came chronologically before the benchmarks you picked.

No one is saying the 10900k is a poor performing CPU. What we're going is that it has a marginal performance advantage over the competition, but it does that while being 10 months late, consuming near twice the power, being slower in many other tasks and costing more money.

So, if AMD is gauging is OK? Double standards any time of the week, right-o.

Stop straw-manning me. I never said it was okay, I was simply pointing out that at the time the Athlon 64 FX-Series CPUs existed, there was a $1000 market segment for CPUs from BOTH brands. At that time, all retail CPUs from both brands had locked speed multipliers. Intel and AMD both offered super-premium CPUs with unlocked multipliers - the P4 EE and the Athlon 64 FX. They both cost the same.

I've never argued with that. In fact I was very critical of Intel from 2012 to 2018 when they kept on releasing 4 core CPUs with barely any performance increases. Secondly, it's not Intel's fault AMD was not competitive at all.

You said "you're tired of seeing Intel getting bashed". My argument was that the bashing is deserved. What AMD did, or did not do during that era is really immaterial to Intel being anti-consumer.

To my knowledge AMD still sucks in terms of properly supporting Linux. Their CPUs are underperforming under Linux. Their GPUs lack most of the features exposed by their proprietary drivers. Their GPU drivers became fast enough under Linux only in the late 10s. Stop BS'ing everyone here.

You said "Intel was the first company to embrace Linux" in an assertion that AMD has not significantly supported Linux until recently. My argument is that AMD has been working closely with Linux developers for 21+ years. SuSE and CodeSourcery had a huge hand in developing the x86-64/AMD64 specification. There were significant layoffs and cutbacks in the late 2000s that saw significant downsizing of their Linux teams. As their enterprise sales start ramping back up, you will see their Linux and Open Source teams start to expand again. Big businesses move extremely slowly.

Those who keep on parroting BS deserve not just insults - they deserve to be silenced. Too bad everyone is allowed to speak.

Nope. The moment you start throwing insults in an argument or discussion, you immediately lose all credibility with the person you're arguing with. What you're saying to that person is that you are incapable of actually arguing against their point, so you are resulting to disparaging their character or person in an attempt to make their point just seem invalid based on that.

Again, you first accused me of not owning an AMD system. I proved you wrong. Then you accused me of getting it for free while in real life I've paid close to my three monthly salaries (luckily I had some savings) to buy and assemble a PC based on the Ryzen 7 3700X CPU and RX 5600 XT GPU. At every point you're trying hard to prove I'm an Intel lover/shill/AMD hater when I'm just trying to remain neutral and I effing hate when people keep on roasting companies for no effing reasons, for the wrong reasons or for the reasons which have long been irrelevant.

Yeah, you're getting me confused with someone else dude. I haven't made any claim of the sort or called or implied you are a shill.

And please show me a single instance when I used "ad hominem" attacks without providing very strong arguments. I dare you. Too bad you can't show nil for this because it's actually you (and other Phoronix members) who have called me an Intel shill for ... not licking AMD's anus at every turn.

Every single one of these is either a direct, or indirect ad hominem attack. There is no such thing as a justifying an ad hominem attack with a "strong argument". The moment you attack their character in any way, you have stopped arguing against their point and are trying to discredit or belittle them.

[birdie]

Every single one of these is either a direct, or indirect ad hominem attack. There is no such thing as a justifying an ad hominem attack with a "strong argument". The moment you attack their character in any way, you have stopped arguing against their point and are trying to discredit or belittle them.

Maybe you're right. I will try to refrain from using the word "hatred" and "idiots" in the context of people who mindlessly repeat something which is either wrong or has been irrelevant for a long time. The issue is that for some reasons there is a dozen times more AMD fans on the Internet than those who prefer Intel/NVIDIA (those prefer to remain silent) and a random person who decides to read comments may get the impression that Intel/NVIDIA just sucks, their CPUs/GPUs are slow/not the fastest and rife with vulnerabilities/issues, that AMD produces the best CPUs and GPUs ever invented. I'm effing tired of that. Open pretty much any popular tech website and you'll see that.

Why can't we just admit that Intel/AMD/NVIDIA have all their advantages and shortcomings without becoming a bitch to your favourite company? Why is it that "Intel is bad, bad, bad"? There's no Intel. There is a corporation and hard working people behind it. They don't deserve all the shit which is thrown in their direction from every corner from the Internet. It's not like they are not trying. They already have Ice Lake, and Tiger Lake is around the corner (with twice as fast graphics). And people who are throwing shit at them? Most of them are complete no ones who haven't invented a single effing thing in their entire lives. Why is everyone so brave behind made up nicknames? At least I don't hide my identity - you can google me up. I can stand for my words. I can apologize. I can admit my mistakes. It's not like that about most absolute people who continue bashing Intel and NVIDIA 24x7.

Speaking of Athlons. Again, quoting myself, "Only Athlon 64 was the fastest CPU all around. Athlon and Athlon XP were never the fastest x86 CPUs" and then you provide the charts where the older Athlons win some and lose some benchmarks. Are you trying to prove my point? E.g. https://www.anandtech.com/show/557/20 Sorry can't read the tomshardware review as most pictures from it don't load.

Your constant cherry-picking of results doesn't help your case either. I read that same article - yes the 10900K is very performant in certain tasks. But you also left out a HUGE number of benchmarks in that review where the 3900 and 3950x handily beat the 10900k. It's not just a "you didn't get there yet in the review" thing either, since many of the benchmarks where the 10900 had a not-so-great showing came chronologically before the benchmarks you picked.

No one is saying the 10900k is a poor performing CPU. What we're going is that it has a marginal performance advantage over the competition, but it does that while being 10 months late, consuming near twice the power, being slower in many other tasks and costing more money.

I no longer understand you. You're misquoting and misinterpreting the very message you're trying to reply to. I said that in single threaded tasks 10900K is the king and that's indisputable. I said some tasks don't parallelize well and that's indisputable. I never said anything about the price or power consumption, in fact I said earlier than AMD sells products for price-conscious people and you counter that with the fact that Intel CPUs are more expensive? Are you alright? Where was I wrong exactly? Where was I cherry picking? You cannot even quote me properly. You're objecting to the words I've never said! I'm done with this discussion. I'm OK with disputing but not when people are trying to blame me for the things I did not say or imply in any shape or form.

And yes, AMD wins in most tasks which parallelize well, e.g. 3950X has 60% more cores than 10900K for God's sake! And 3900X is roughly as fast as 10900K despite having 20% more cores. And Ryzens are produced on TSMC factories as they sold off GloFo many years ago. Finally overtaking the Intel arch from 2015 in IPC in ... 2019. Right. It would have been a total disaster if it had been otherwise. Again, I totally don't understand all the fuss about Ryzen 3000. It's a decent uArch. It's not indisputably faster. And again, Intel has already beaten AMD in terms of IPC twice with Ice Lake (+18% on top of Sky Lake) and Tiger Lake (faster than Ice Lake but currently not known how much).

And before you say AMD has made multicore accessible for end users - yes, I perfectly know that and I did blame Intel for sticking to four-core CPUs for almost eight years.

[dad_ph]

Here is my core i7 3960X @ 4 GHz (CPU released in 11/2011 ) vs r9/i9 4 CPUs including 10900K:

https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...gm=y&obr_nor=y

i9 10900K is 2.7X multi-core and 1.60X single-core. 2.6X overall geomean. Not even a 3X improvement in almost 9 years!
R9 3900X is 3.0X multi-core and 1.56X single core. 2.54X overall
R9 3950X is 3.7X multi-core and 1.58X single core. 3.04X overall

To get 2X single-core I should wait another 10 years?

[creative]

ROFL, direct touch heatpipe on the vrm's. Well X570 has a chipset fan so I guess I can't make too much fun of it.

[creative]

Will have to wait till Zen 3 comes out. Current Zen 2 is hamstring by using multiple CCX units which introduces latency issues due to Infinityfabric (the CCX units have to communicate with eachother). Zen 3 should only use a single CCX and rumours are already coming out that Zen 3 will offer a huge speed boost.

But yeah, Intel is basically winning only by allowing their CPU's to be unlocked + drawing insane amounts of power and improving the thermals by updating the IHS.

300 watts for a standard desktop CPU, even if unlocked is nuts. I am pretty sure if Zen was configured to draw so much power and had a single CCX it would probably beat Intel even in single threaded.

Running circles around even a 3600 in gaming is even debatable, if 144hz is your display and 144fps is the ballpark then around 100fps and above is good enough. From all the benches I have seen I see marginal performance gains overall.

A Zen based system is cheaper to build, just throw in a high performance video card and most should be satisfied if you are a hardcore gamer.

I will tell you why I chose to switch from Intel to AMD. I needed at least 4 more threads and wanted to avoid intels "holey" security issues. Was cheaper to switch to AMD and from what I had I am pleased with the upgrade and satisfied with it.

I don't even know if I will upgrade to the 4000 series to be honest. A RDNA 2.0 GPU a few years from now? Most likely.

I have had no quality issues at all with Zen2 so far, yes that is a big zeeero, nada, none! When I went to a kabylake system three years ago I had more issues than expected and the vulnerability things eventually pissed me off enough to switch back to AMD.

I don't expect anyone to read all my stuff in this post.