AMD Ryzen 3600XT, 3800XT and 3900XT Review

systemBuilder

Posts: 7   +5
To calculate cost per frame you should add $30 for a CoolerMaster cooler to the cost of the new XT chips to have a fair comparison!

Also to have a fair comparison you should compare the XT chips against a prebinned chip from a binning company! They are a great value in that respect!
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,321   +3,424
As for the rising prices, AMD has their reason on top of other reasons. I see they no longer want to be the cheaper alternative. And they need to earn a lot more to pay for their former debts, R&D etc. Intel is losing Apple but they still are strong with the OEM contracts. AMD needs more OEMs.
AMD has huge loans to pay off I think they have earned our respect and $$$.
AMD is earning HPC (supercomputer) contracts with Epyc. As I see it, that is where the money is, and from my point of view, that is the market that they wisely targeted from the start with Zen; if they were targeting the enthusiast market, they would have gone for better gaming performance rather than productivity or multi-threaded performance.

I am not saying that they should not earn money off of what they sell. My take is that they stand a great chance of engaging in the same business practices as sIntel presently does.

In sIntel's case, those practices lead to complacency and allowed AMD to sneak up on them with a side-effect of causing people to despise sIntel. If AMD continues to follow this same path, people will despise them as much as they currently do sIntel.

Because sIntel paved the way for them does not mean that they should follow in sIntel's footsteps.

For me, I'm a value buyer, and I will remain a value buyer. I bought the 3800X against recommendations from sites like TS because at the time I bought it, it was $10 more than the 3700X. For me, they should charge for the relative performance; not the hubris of the brand.

But I am sure we will hear people saying things like I bought a YYYYXT because money is no object and it is the highest performing part.

I have bought AMD for years starting the the Athlon days. In all these years, I built only one sIntel Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge system; however, I will definitely not do another sIntel build at any time soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HardReset
AMD is back to its bad old ways - looks like success is getting to their heads!

When a product's USP is just a slight overclock over its previous product, then it can be seen as merely a marketing exercise. There isn't an once of technical or engineering merit to these products. They are just meant to squeeze a bit more money out of their supporters and enthusiasts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

Puiu

Posts: 3,942   +2,450
Why are you rushing to AMDs defence? I don’t get it? These are multi billion dollar American corporations who have generally always treated us the same. And we will see about whether all users actually will get to upgrade. What worries me is that AMD will only allow these XT chips to go into B450 and X470, meaning you don’t really get future compatibility.

Also I made no complaint about AMDs “price hike” for mobos. I agree that generally yes you get a price hike but also an upgrade. To complain about the price hike is to me the same as people who complained that the RTX 2080 cost the same as a GTX 1080 yet performs the same but with more features. It’s only a complaint if you expected to get the same for less



Not just Intel fanboys. I would suggest that many tech enthusiasts would also buy a new motherboard everytime and not complain. In fact I would say most do. If you’re an “enthusiast” why wouldn’t you be interested in the new features on a new motherboard? Or are things like fast M2 storage, PCIe4, USB C, Thunderbolt, faster memory support, better overclocking, better connectivity and RGB/fan controllers not things that a tech enthusiast would want? I’ve always bought a new board, for both AMD and Intel builds over the years. In fact in some cases I’ve even upgraded the board and not the CPU. Never have I looked at an ageing motherboard I’ve owned with no modern features and wished I could keep it.
And shouldn't I try to use facts to disprove some comments? Is it really that bad to defend AMD when other people are saying things that make no sense?

Your own words "raise their prices" - for what? mobos? because the CPUs are still cheap from what I've seen in the market now, baring the XT models that they just released at the end of this gen's life cycle. They didn't remove the non-XT models. Thus I concluded that must be talking about the mobos and I also told you the legit reason.

FYI No, tech enthusiasts don't buy a new mobo for every new CPU. The mobo is always the last thing to get upgraded unless he got a really cheap one that can't handle higher end models. With Intel you were pretty much forced to buy a new mobo if you wanted to skip a generation or you already had the 2nd gen CPU on that mobo. Most socket changes were intentionally made so that you are forced to buy new mobos not for any real tech reason.
 
Last edited:

trieste1s

Posts: 25   +27
TechSpot Elite
Not just Intel fanboys. I would suggest that many tech enthusiasts would also buy a new motherboard everytime and not complain. In fact I would say most do. If you’re an “enthusiast” why wouldn’t you be interested in the new features on a new motherboard? Or are things like fast M2 storage, PCIe4, USB C, Thunderbolt, faster memory support, better overclocking, better connectivity and RGB/fan controllers not things that a tech enthusiast would want? I’ve always bought a new board, for both AMD and Intel builds over the years. In fact in some cases I’ve even upgraded the board and not the CPU. Never have I looked at an ageing motherboard I’ve owned with no modern features and wished I could keep it.
So what's that complaint about socket compatibility again?
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 758   +447
And shouldn't I try to use facts to disprove some comments? Is it really that bad to defend AMD when other people are saying things that make no sense?

Your own words "raise their prices" - for what? mobos? because the CPUs are still cheap from what I've seen in the market now, baring the XT models that they just released at the end of this gen's life cycle. They didn't remove the non-XT models. Thus I concluded that must be talking about the mobos and I also told you the legit reason.

FYI No, tech enthusiasts don't buy a new mobo for every new CPU. The mobo is always the last thing to get upgraded unless he got a really cheap one that can't handle higher end models. With Intel you were pretty much forced to buy a new mobo if you wanted to skip a generation or you already had the 2nd gen CPU on that mobo. Most socket changes were intentionally made so that you are forced to buy new mobos not for any real tech reason.
I haven’t said anything inaccurate and No, tech enthusiasts definitely prefer to buy new motherboards. Tech enthusiasts enjoy buying hardware funnily enough. The price raising I’m talking about is for the lineup. AMDs cheapest parts cost not that much less than Intel’s top core i7s 5 years ago. It’s impressive from AMD, they sell the most expensive CPUs on the market and all their fans defend them for it. (Im aware it’s good value, it’s still expensive). Intel doesn’t change the socket to “force” you to buy their new parts. You really think they would do that to make a relatively tiny bit of money? Come on use your brain. They do it to prevent confusion, AMD have all that fun to come as compatibility is quite grey for socket AM4. Many users will expect to upgrade and can’t many users will buy a CPU that won’t work until a BIOS update. Intel want to save that hassle and ask people to just buy a new motherboard because the vast majority of people do anyway.
 
Last edited:

Gastec

Posts: 11   +8
I was expecting these CPU's to have better TIM and lower temperatures, maybe a better cooler/fan. Else, what's the point? I mean, why should I buy any of them?
 

HardReset

Posts: 783   +327
Intel doesn’t change the socket to “force” you to buy their new parts. You really think they would do that to make a relatively tiny bit of money? Come on use your brain. They do it to prevent confusion, AMD have all that fun to come as compatibility is quite grey for socket AM4. Many users will expect to upgrade and can’t many users will buy a CPU that won’t work until a BIOS update. Intel want to save that hassle and ask people to just buy a new motherboard because the vast majority of people do anyway.
Oh yeah, remembering Intel has released 4 different sockets for LGA775 and two different for LGA1151. "Preventing confusion" when using same socket name for motherboards with totally different compatibilities :D

Looking at LGA1151 for modern example. There are no technical reasons why LGA1151 v2 CPU's (Coffee Lake) cannot fit for LGA1151 v1 (Skylake/Kaby Lake) motherboards. Even socket is same and that has caused lot of confusion as people are putting Coffee Lake on LGA1151 v1 motherboards only to know it doesn't work. Even BIOS update doesn't help. Only reason for this is to sell more chipsets. Intel causes more confusion than AMD and same time tries to make more money.

Now your points have been proven to be invalid.

I was expecting these CPU's to have better TIM and lower temperatures, maybe a better cooler/fan. Else, what's the point? I mean, why should I buy any of them?
What's problem with non-XT TIM?
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,470   +1,442
TechSpot Elite
I haven’t said anything inaccurate...
AMDs cheapest parts cost not that much less than Intel’s top core i7s 5 years ago.
Oops. AMD's cheapest current gen part is the R3 3100 at $99. 5 years ago the i5-4790K was $340, the i7-5575R was $350 and the i7-5960X was $999. I'm sure you had a different point here but I'm just taking it at face value.

It’s impressive from AMD, they sell the most expensive CPUs on the market and all their fans defend them for it. (Im aware it’s good value, it’s still expensive).
See above. AMD could have sold the 3950X for $999 (or $1723 like the i7-6950X) as there is no Intel competition but it still sold for $750 which was a reasonable markup. That's why people like AMD for that.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 758   +447
Oops. AMD's cheapest current gen part is the R3 3100 at $99. 5 years ago the i5-4790K was $340, the i7-5575R was $350 and the i7-5960X was $999. I'm sure you had a different point here but I'm just taking it at face value.



See above. AMD could have sold the 3950X for $999 (or $1723 like the i7-6950X) as there is no Intel competition but it still sold for $750 which was a reasonable markup. That's why people like AMD for that.
Yes since the 3100 and 3300 released and the 3600 had a price cut then it’s now cheaper. But my point still stands, AMD charges more for today’s consumer grade stuff than Intel did for consumer stuff before Ryzen came along. By quite some way. My top end i7 Was £240 in 2014. This wouldn’t even get you a mid range a Ryzen part today.

And I knew you would defend them for it. You cannot resist jumping in and making a counter point that it’s got more cores or whatever. Yes I agree it’s better value. It still expensive. Also AMDs top end chip is the most expensive consumer grade CPU ever from any manufacturer btw.

But most consumers are not like you. Most of them do not “like” AMD, they just buy their products And won’t typically jump to their defence whenever they see another person offering criticism, even if it’s reasonable. Which is exactly what you have done here. I’m not sorry if my criticism of AMD has triggered you.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,470   +1,442
TechSpot Elite
Yes since the 3100 and 3300 released and the 3600 had a price cut then it’s now cheaper. But my point still stands, AMD charges more for today’s consumer grade stuff than Intel did for consumer stuff before Ryzen came along. By quite some way. My top end i7 Was £240 in 2014. This wouldn’t even get you a mid range a Ryzen part today.

And I knew you would defend them for it. You cannot resist jumping in and making a counter point that it’s got more cores or whatever. Yes I agree it’s better value. It still expensive. Also AMDs top end chip is the most expensive consumer grade CPU ever from any manufacturer btw.

But most consumers are not like you. Most of them do not “like” AMD, they just buy their products And won’t typically jump to their defence whenever they see another person offering criticism, even if it’s reasonable. Which is exactly what you have done here. I’m not sorry if my criticism of AMD has triggered you.
Lol, you're too funny. You make assumptions about me using words like 'triggered' yet I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the top of my post, when you were comparing a $340 part to a $99 one.

I disagree with your opinion that AMD's parts (now "mid range" you say, not "cheapest") are more expensive than Intel's previous top end stuff. If AMD is much more expensive in the UK then that makes sense but you provided no information to back that opinion up.

If you like to point out that Intel has no competition for the R9 3950X and therefore AMD charges more than Intel's lesser parts, then that's great and also makes sense.

You know what I like? Value. As do most people, which is why AMD holds the top CPU spots on Amazon. And the Intel CPUs sprinkled in there are also good for gaming value. And guess what? I use an Intel CPU, which I bought because it was and in fact still is the best value for my uses. I hope you were sitting down for that.

I however can recognize that AMD offers better value for most people which is why the other 2 machines I built were AMD. They were the right tool for the job, like my Intel is the right tool for my uses.
 

Gahl1k

Posts: 44   +41
If I was buying a new CPU right now it would be the 10900K

Thanks for the benchmarks. It affirmed what I already expected.

AMD does great at workstations but Intel KILLS on gaming.

Not hating on AMD tho...I do invest in their stock.
I fail to see the point of i9 in terms of gaming performance. i7-10700K is much better value for the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puiu

Puiu

Posts: 3,942   +2,450
Yes since the 3100 and 3300 released and the 3600 had a price cut then it’s now cheaper. But my point still stands, AMD charges more for today’s consumer grade stuff than Intel did for consumer stuff before Ryzen came along. By quite some way. My top end i7 Was £240 in 2014. This wouldn’t even get you a mid range a Ryzen part today.

And I knew you would defend them for it. You cannot resist jumping in and making a counter point that it’s got more cores or whatever. Yes I agree it’s better value. It still expensive. Also AMDs top end chip is the most expensive consumer grade CPU ever from any manufacturer btw.

But most consumers are not like you. Most of them do not “like” AMD, they just buy their products And won’t typically jump to their defence whenever they see another person offering criticism, even if it’s reasonable. Which is exactly what you have done here. I’m not sorry if my criticism of AMD has triggered you.
TL;DR
It's simple dude. No, AMD doesn't charge more than what Intel did. It isn't true now and it wasn't true in the past either. How can you say your point "stands"? O_o

The long version:
Your top of the line i7 Haswell CPU was about 350$ (which is 380-390$ in today's money). Better performance can be had for under 150$ now (140$ for the 2600 on amazon) and you can buy a 3800x for 320$ --> If this is a "mid-range" CPU then I guess the 170$ 3600 must be one of those crappy dirt cheap low end OEM CPUs that nobody wants.

Need I remind you that the 7700k was still offering 4 cores/8 threads at the same price point?

Seriously now, what is your problem? Why are you trying to argue with people in terms of pricing when pricing has always been what AMD did well with for their CPU lineups? Perf/$ has always been the thing that people praised even when performance wasn't good enough for high end builds.

It's like you are intentionally ignoring the entire CPU history, reviews and benchmarks and then putting a sick twist on everything... nobody is going to believe such blatant lies. People aren't "triggered", they are just trying to explain to you simple facts and correct some of your weird mistakes.

You don't seem capable of giving a compelling argument to support your statements which makes it easy for others to respond to you. At least try to make sound arguments about performance or specific cases where it's better to buy Intel. There is no need to try and force silly arguments like the price one.

"Many users will expect to upgrade and can’t many users will buy a CPU that won’t work until a BIOS update"
If an BIOS update is available then they can use the old installed CPU to update it. Upgrading to a new CPU isn't hard. Only new system builders need to be careful if they are buying a mobo model that doesn't have the new bios from factory.

And I don't see the point of this argument. Are you trying to say that it's better to block all upgrades like Intel is doing? O_o You do realize that this isn't a good pro Intel argument that you should use when you try to bash AMD with, right?
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,321   +3,424
Oh yeah, remembering Intel has released 4 different sockets for LGA775 and two different for LGA1151. "Preventing confusion" when using same socket name for motherboards with totally different compatibilities :D

Looking at LGA1151 for modern example. There are no technical reasons why LGA1151 v2 CPU's (Coffee Lake) cannot fit for LGA1151 v1 (Skylake/Kaby Lake) motherboards. Even socket is same and that has caused lot of confusion as people are putting Coffee Lake on LGA1151 v1 motherboards only to know it doesn't work. Even BIOS update doesn't help. Only reason for this is to sell more chipsets. Intel causes more confusion than AMD and same time tries to make more money.
Don't forget the two LGA 2011 sockets. LGA 2011-3 (which is the second revision of this socket) had no technical reason to change it from what it was. The change amounted to moving lines to different pins even though functionality was identical.

And that socket also supported Xeons and Xeons are, generally, sold to the workstation/server market - which is the most lucrative market.

IMO, some people generally do not want to believe that sIntel would purposefully change sockets to sell more chipsets. However, with all the shenanigans that sIntel has played, it should be considered the only reason sIntel changes sockets, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HardReset

Rjmachine

Posts: 53   +28
5% gains for double the price to go intel way.
you sir of crazy
This is just not true.
My 9900K runs at 5.2 GHz and have been doing this since late 2018.

I can say for sure that the difference is way more than 5% when you're not GPU bound, since I've had a Ryzen 3700X testbench, which had a 2700X before it using 3200/C14 memory, they ran 4.2 GHz (2700X) and 4.3 (3700X) all-core. I'm a 1440p/165Hz user and I aim for 120 fps minimum in all games. Ryzen simply makes this much harder to optain. 3000 series does way better than 1000/2000 tho. I don't think 4000 is going bring much, tho. Going from 12nm GloFo to 7nm TSMC was the "big jump". You saw 100% more cores and slightly better clockspeeds - You won't see more cores on 4000 series and I don't think clockspeeds will increase much - Just look at XT models, binned or not, maxes out at the same clockspeed pretty much. Intel has an edge in gaming thanks to ringbus. Intel consumer chips beat Intel HEDT chips in gaming because of this, too. A 6-10 core chip using ring bus with high clockspeeds is simply as good as it gets for gaming, emulation and most programs.

In some games, the difference is more like 10-25%, when you are using a high-end GPU and aims for high fps. Every single fps matters when you're trying to max out a high refresh rate monitor.

Problem with AMD is that SOME games simply run bad. Some run decent, but SOMETIMES you'll end up playing a game where Intel is simply miles better.

This is the same with AMD GPU's. In some games performance simply is not there either and Nvidia performs much better in comparison. Especially in lesser known titles, or early access titles. Compare Bannerlord for example, on an Intel/Nvidia rig vs AMD/AMD rig. You'll see what I mean. Night and day difference.

I also use my PC for emulation, and I can soundly say that Intel performs much better in most (or.. pretty much all) emulators. Many of these still rely on single thread perf and/or demands high clockspeed in 2-4 cores, and this won't change anytime soon. In CEMU, emulating Zelda BOTW, my 9900K beat the 3700X like 75-125% depending on area. The 3700X barely hold 60 fps with dips to low 30s at times, the 9900K did 120-160fps most of the time, barely dipped below 80 - lowest minimum fps was like 75. API didnt matter. Tweaking didnt matter.

Besides, Intel is not double the price. A 8700K from 2017 with OC is going to beat a 3950X with OC in 99% of games. i7-10600K beats 3950X in pretty much all games, and is much cheaper. It will also beat 3700X, and 10600K is cheaper. Same price if you need a cooler (and then you can OC to ~5 GHz all-core and beat it even more).

Ryzen is good value, and I use it in my server now but I'm so tired seeing people claim that they are on par in games, or "only a few percent slower", because they are not, unless you are a 100% GPU-bound gamer using 60 Hz, maybe. Then CPU won't matter much. Obviously.

For high refresh rate gamers, CPU brand still matters. I hope Ryzen 4000 will catch up, but Intels new arch is coming too with IPC increase. Even if Rocket Lake "only" gets 8C/16T with 25% improved IPC - AMD is in for a hard time when it comes to gaming, emulation and "regular" workloads, that most people actually do, at home.

Don't get me wrong I love that AMD is competitive again. This is my own experience tho.

Consumer market is a small market really - in terms of money. AMD is way more competitive in HEDT/Enterprise, where the money actually are. So this is good.

Consumers mostly care about bang for buck -or- top-end performance for gaming. And Intel are still competitive here. Intel are in much bigger trouble when it comes to HEDT and Enterprise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Puiu and HardReset

Puiu

Posts: 3,942   +2,450
This is just not true.
My 9900K runs at 5.2 GHz and have been doing this since late 2018.

I can say for sure that the difference is way more than 5% when you're not GPU bound, since I've had a Ryzen 3700X testbench, which had a 2700X before it using 3200/C14 memory, they ran 4.2 GHz (2700X) and 4.3 (3700X) all-core. I'm a 1440p/165Hz user and I aim for 120 fps minimum in all games. Ryzen simply makes this much harder to optain. 3000 series does way better than 1000/2000 tho. I don't think 4000 is going bring much, tho. Going from 12nm GloFo to 7nm TSMC was the "big jump". You saw 100% more cores and slightly better clockspeeds - You won't see more cores on 4000 series and I don't think clockspeeds will increase much - Just look at XT models, binned or not, maxes out at the same clockspeed pretty much. Intel has an edge in gaming thanks to ringbus. Intel consumer chips beat Intel HEDT chips in gaming because of this, too. A 6-10 core chip using ring bus with high clockspeeds is simply as good as it gets for gaming, emulation and most programs.

In some games, the difference is more like 10-25%, when you are using a high-end GPU and aims for high fps. Every single fps matters when you're trying to max out a high refresh rate monitor.

Problem with AMD is that SOME games simply run bad. Some run decent, but SOMETIMES you'll end up playing a game where Intel is simply miles better.

This is the same with AMD GPU's. In some games performance simply is not there either and Nvidia performs much better in comparison. Especially in lesser known titles, or early access titles. Compare Bannerlord for example, on an Intel/Nvidia rig vs AMD/AMD rig. You'll see what I mean. Night and day difference.

I also use my PC for emulation, and I can soundly say that Intel performs much better in most (or.. pretty much all) emulators. Many of these still rely on single thread perf and/or demands high clockspeed in 2-4 cores, and this won't change anytime soon. In CEMU, emulating Zelda BOTW, my 9900K beat the 3700X like 75-125% depending on area. The 3700X barely hold 60 fps with dips to low 30s at times, the 9900K did 120-160fps most of the time, barely dipped below 80 - lowest minimum fps was like 75. API didnt matter. Tweaking didnt matter.

Besides, Intel is not double the price. A 8700K from 2017 with OC is going to beat a 3950X with OC in 99% of games. i7-10600K beats 3950X in pretty much all games, and is much cheaper. It will also beat 3700X, and 10600K is cheaper. Same price if you need a cooler (and then you can OC to ~5 GHz all-core and beat it even more).

Ryzen is good value, and I use it in my server now but I'm so tired seeing people claim that they are on par in games, or "only a few percent slower", because they are not, unless you are a 100% GPU-bound gamer using 60 Hz, maybe. Then CPU won't matter much. Obviously.

For high refresh rate gamers, CPU brand still matters. I hope Ryzen 4000 will catch up, but Intels new arch is coming too with IPC increase. Even if Rocket Lake "only" gets 8C/16T with 25% improved IPC - AMD is in for a hard time when it comes to gaming, emulation and "regular" workloads, that most people actually do, at home.

Don't get me wrong I love that AMD is competitive again. This is my own experience tho.

Consumer market is a small market really - in terms of money. AMD is way more competitive in HEDT/Enterprise, where the money actually are. So this is good.

Consumers mostly care about bang for buck -or- top-end performance for gaming. And Intel are still competitive here. Intel are in much bigger trouble when it comes to HEDT and Enterprise.
I agree, if high FPS while using 144Hz monitors in competitive games is what you want then Intel is a better choice if you plan to OC it to +5GHz.

As for Rocket Lake, it will still be on 14nm so don't expect any serious performance boost beyond its new iGPU. It will have higher IPC, but the clocks are down so it kinda cancels out.

As for the 25% number you mentioned it's actually from the Willow Cove architecture which is slated for 2022. Tiger Lake is rumoured to have "Cypress Cove" cores which seem to be a backport to 14nm of Willow Cove (maybe this is why they are having trouble with the number of cores and clock speeds).

If Intel doesn't deliver a more than 10% overall improvement in single core perf with Tiger Lake then they are in trouble, especially if this architecture tops out at 8-10 cores and it is also launching later than AMD's 4000 series in 2021.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mosu and wiyosaya

Rjmachine

Posts: 53   +28
I agree, if high FPS while using 144Hz monitors in competitive games is what you want then Intel is a better choice if you plan to OC it to +5GHz.

As for Rocket Lake, it will still be on 14nm so don't expect any serious performance boost beyond its new iGPU. It will have higher IPC, but the clocks are down so it kinda cancels out.

As for the 25% number you mentioned it's actually from the Willow Cove architecture which is slated for 2022. Tiger Lake is rumoured to have "Cypress Cove" cores which seem to be a backport to 14nm of Willow Cove (maybe this is why they are having trouble with the number of cores and clock speeds).

If Intel doesn't deliver a more than 10% overall improvement in single core perf with Tiger Lake then they are in trouble, especially if this architecture tops out at 8-10 cores and it is also launching later than AMD's 4000 series in 2021.
The Rocket Lake chip we saw earlier was an ES sample which always have low clocks. If Intel can get these to around 5 GHz boost, a 25% IPC uplift is going to be pretty big.

Rocket Lake should deliver a 25% IPC uplift compared to Skylake.

Sunny Cove: 18% uplift
Willow Cove: 25% uplift
Golden Cove: 50% uplift
Ocean Cove: 80% uplift

Talk is cheap but that is what rumours say.
Rocket Lake should feature backported Willow Cove IIRC.

I'm not replacing my i9-9900K @ 5.2 GHz anytime soon thats for sure. I will replace it when we see a big leap and DDR5 has matured, in some years. All I need till then is GPU power, starting with Nvidia 3000 series in a few months. Can't wait.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,470   +1,442
TechSpot Elite
The Rocket Lake chip we saw earlier was an ES sample which always have low clocks. If Intel can get these to around 5 GHz boost, a 25% IPC uplift is going to be pretty big.
There's some evidence that argues that won't happen.

Have a look at the only next gen CPUs 10nm that Intel currently sells, compared to their previous Gen 14nm CPUs, in the laptop field. Here's what happened:

14nm: higher clock speeds, old Skylake IPC (also up to 8 cores)
10nm *lower* clock speeds, higher IPC (only 4 cores max, though could have been 8 I suppose)

The net is that with the same 4-core count, the processors are about the same speed with the IPC gains being pulled back by the clock speed. They run more like AMD parts now. This probably happened because Intel has had 5 years to optimize 14nm and they've done a damn good job of it. 10nm is not nearly as well optimized, though it may get there eventually. But for now there are no gains thanks to lower clocks.

Perhaps the desktop CPUs will fare better but right now I'm betting on lower clocks with higher IPC, with a small overall performance bump thanks to desktop CPUs not needing to fit into a specific power envelope like laptops.

Sunny Cove: 18% uplift
Willow Cove: 25% uplift
Golden Cove: 50% uplift
Ocean Cove: 80% uplift

Talk is cheap but that is what rumours say.
Yeah that reads like a pipe dream, even Sandy Bridge to Skylake didn't give those kinds of improvements. While we've been stuck for 5 years now I'm sure the design team has kept busy even if the fab side has had problems, but I assume you need actual working designs to improve upon and those have been thin on the ground.
 

Puiu

Posts: 3,942   +2,450
The Rocket Lake chip we saw earlier was an ES sample which always have low clocks. If Intel can get these to around 5 GHz boost, a 25% IPC uplift is going to be pretty big.

Rocket Lake should deliver a 25% IPC uplift compared to Skylake.

Sunny Cove: 18% uplift
Willow Cove: 25% uplift
Golden Cove: 50% uplift
Ocean Cove: 80% uplift

Talk is cheap but that is what rumours say.
Rocket Lake should feature backported Willow Cove IIRC.

I'm not replacing my i9-9900K @ 5.2 GHz anytime soon thats for sure. I will replace it when we see a big leap and DDR5 has matured, in some years. All I need till then is GPU power, starting with Nvidia 3000 series in a few months. Can't wait.
Let's hope, for Intel's sake, that they do get 25% IPC with a 5GHz boost. :) People can dream. Competition will keep prices down.
 

Cvearl

Posts: 6   +3
If I was buying a new CPU right now it would be the 10900K

Thanks for the benchmarks. It affirmed what I already expected.

AMD does great at workstations but Intel KILLS on gaming.

Not hating on AMD tho...I do invest in their stock.
i9-10900K = $550
Ryzen 9 3900XT = $498
Ryzen 9 3900X = $429 <- Easily best value

10900K is on average 5% faster in games for 28% more money than the 3900X. And by the same margin the 3900X is faster in production tasks on average for 28% less $$$. The value is off the charts. It has 2 more physical cores!

5% faster in games is not "killin it". Back in the i7 7700K days they were "killin it". Not anymore. If you run at 1440P the margin is slimmer.

I do agree if someone already has a 3000 series chip and they mainly game... Wait for the 4000 series. It will match or beat current Intel family in games. Of course I am specuating based on the gen over gen IPC bumps we have been seeing since 1000 series coupled with the faster memory and lower fabric latency. My bet is that the 4000 series will be 10% - 15% faster in games part vs part and gen vs gen within same pricing segments.

Mark my words... The 4700X will be the darling CPU when it comes out. ;)

Charles.
 
Last edited by a moderator: