Intel Cascade Lake-X HEDT vs. AMD Ryzen: Fight!

[hahahanoobs]

Profitability and ethics are 2 totally different and separate discussions. I was speaking of the latter.

All big companies have issues with ethics. In fact the biggest company, Apple, is arguably the worst.

You don't think AMD will raise prices even further if they become the number one choice in CPU's? Let's go back a couple years to where AMD tried to pull one over on its customers with obvious inferior products. The $900 FX 9590 and $1500 R9 Pro Duo. Both had massive price drops 30 days after launch, because there weren't enough excuses from the gallery to dispute them. Radeon VII was overbuilt and under priced so much so it was EOL'd in 6 months. If AMD was on top at the time, you could bet the farm it would have launched at well over $700 even if it was just to get their money back.

Zen is great now, but I don't see everything going their way just yet. And saying "wait", that could be EQUALLY said for Intel, yet everyone just says "Intel dead", and moves on.

AMD has some good stuff, but they need some consistency. Like consistent launches without troubles with RAM compatibility and boost clocks and BIOS updates. All three generations had the same problems at launch. Some people are going to know/find out about them and pass, because they don't want to deal with that crap.

AMD has exhausted the core count attack, so now is where we see what AMD can do without them, and that is where we'll see how good AMD really is. I wish them good luck. I'll definitely buy their CPU's if they can pull ahead of Intel in what their CPU's do best, which is what Zen doesn't do best. I want 8 fast physical cores. AMD isn't there yet.

Make me stop looking at the 9700K AMD, then we'll talk.

 

[Jeffrey2009]

900x has 10c/20t, 920x has 12c/24t, 940x has 14c/28t... and then, Intel murdered 16c/32t's 960x with no doubt to avoid beaten by AMD's 3950X face to face.

However, the flagship which has 2c/4t more's 980xe STILL LOSE the battle at most scenes.

Just 4 years before, Intel had the confidence to squeeze the toothpaste and its fans announce that i3 could rule them all. And now, we DIY fans finally live long enough to verify a new chapter.

 

[Evernessince]

AMD has some good stuff, but they need some consistency. Like consistent launches without troubles with RAM compatibility and boost clocks and BIOS updates. All three generations had the same problems at launch. Some people are going to know/find out about them and pass, because they don't want to deal with that crap.

AMD has exhausted the core count attack, so now is where we see what AMD can do without them, and that is where we'll see how good AMD really is. I wish them good luck. I'll definitely buy their CPU's if they can pull ahead of Intel in what their CPU's do best, which is what Zen doesn't do best. I want 8 fast physical cores. AMD isn't there yet.

Make me stop looking at the 9700K AMD, then we'll talk.

Yes, AMD needs to consistently add more security holes, like Intel!

Seriously though, Intel has had more consistency issues with getting security right, let alone supplying it's chips. In comparison, 1st gen Rzyen not clocking all sticks of RAM to their rated specs is tiny. It was also 3 years ago. Do I need to bring up Skylake cracking under heavy heatsinks? Boost clocks affect what? A number of 3900Xs and 3800X? So 3% of the AMD's CPUs? Once again, entirely different scale then what Intel has experienced. Don't know why "BIOS updates" would be an issue given many of them have added new features and improved performance. Free performance is bad?

Some people are going to know/find out about them and pass, because they don't want to deal with that crap.

You don't see to be aware that all the issues you described above are not present anymore. The 3000 series has no RAM issues. In fact it supports higher RAM speeds out of the box.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-3900x

Intel only supports 2666 while AMD supports 3200. In case you didn't know, going any higher then the supported RAM speed voids your warranty, ironically.

Boost issues for the few that had it are gone. In fact, ever since the update that fixed it many people are getting over their rated boost clocks.

AMD has exhausted the core count attack, so now is where we see what AMD can do without them, and that is where we'll see how good AMD really is. I wish them good luck.

You are sorely mistaken if you think AMD can't add more cores. An active interposer, for example, enables AMD to have 256 cores on a single chip AND improve latencies.

I'll definitely buy their CPU's if they can pull ahead of Intel in what their CPU's do best, which is what Zen doesn't do best. I want 8 fast physical cores. AMD isn't there yet.

AMD already wins in a number of single threaded applications, including cinebench and the adobe suite.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1940-amd-ryzen-9-3950x/
https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

It also wins in a majority of multi-threaded applications as well. Intel wins in gaming, that's it.

 

[wiyosaya]

Be aware the X399 platform is dead, just like Intel’s X299 platform.

Nothing new here. Just like those other X9 platforms.

And the new prices being high are certainly because Intel.

 

[ltkAlpha]

Why do I keep forgetting not to go down into the comments section?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Why do I keep forgetting not to go down into the comments section?

lol
I for one am happy about the advancements we are getting from AMD and Intel. These AMD vs Intel debates are tiresome.

 

[Irata]

If you only see positives, then you're not thinking clearly.

Huh? That was a straight forward answer that applies to a wide range of products.

Now there us also the "want vs need factor" but other than that it's a simple calculation.

 

[jpuroila]

To be entirely fair to Intel, you didn't make any benchmarks that would showcase AVX-512 performance. Not that there are many real programs that use AVX-512 extensively at the moment.

 

[krizby]

Intel hasn't done any homework these past 2 years, the release of 8700K was a welcomed one because it's 6 cores vs 4 cores 7700K for the same price, 9th gen was meh...33% more cores for 50% price hike (8700K vs 9900K); now the 10th gen looks like a dumpster fire like Kaby Lake. Seems like Intel is smoking too much weed these past 2 years...

On another news seems like Intel is asking help from Samsung fab lol
https://www.techpowerup.com/261641/samsung-scores-pc-cpu-manufacturing-order-from-intel#comments
So for next gen it's Nvidia/Samsung vs AMD/TSMC vs Intel/Samsung, quite interesting.

 

[erickmendes]

Just a couple years ago, Intel was able to sell the 9980 for $2,000 because there was no competition... Now AMD does the same with the 3970.... What will be great is when Ryzen 3 goes up against Intel's 7nm... We should get some competitive prices and outstanding performance.

You mean Ryzen 8000, Zen 9 family? Because Intel seems to be having trouble getting down there (7nm).

 

[Squid Surprise]

You mean Ryzen 8000, Zen 9 family? Because Intel seems to be having trouble getting down there (7nm).

Well, it’s on Intel’s roadmap for 2021... but even if goes to 2022, AMD better watch out... intel has shown that when nodes are equal, they win...

 

[Fabbkk]

Intel new CPU is very disappointing.
I have setup with an i7 6950x (with a 1080Ti) that I bought for just a $650 a year and half to upgrade from a 5820k especially for video editing and when I run the Premiere Pro Puget Benchmark, my export score is 76.3 which is just over the 3900x in Techspot results and my playback score is 68.1 a bit disappointing compared to Techspot results but it is the same score as Puget 10900x result...????
I was thinking to go for the 3900x or even the 3950x but the gain is not that much, it would be more significant to go for the 3960x, but the upgrade budget required isn't really worth for video editing when alreday having a 10 core...
Anyway for a new budget setup for video editing, the 3900x and 3950x are definitely the best options, Intel is past.

 

[imdarkbreeze]

What does any of this even matter, if Intel cannot manage to deliver a reasonable supply to OEMs and consumers?

 

[physill]

The benchmarks are good for showing relative performance for various general applications that are well served by HEDT type processors. However, there are never any benchmarks in similar articles that deal with math intensive applications that require use of the Intel or AMD math libraries. Intel intentionally handicaps AMD processors and reviews such as are in this article do not address this issue. I myself bought a Threadripper 2950x based on such reviews in early 2019 but I needed it to be able to work well with Matlab and Mathematica. If you had chosen some math intensive applications you would have seen the AMD chips perform very poorly. This review is inadequate in providing a proper comparison of the two processor types.

 

[neeyik]

Were you aware that Matlab and Mathematica use the Intel MKL before purchasing the Threadripper?

If so, why choose an AMD platform for software that utilises a kernel that's clearly going to favour an Intel platform? If not, have you considered switching to Maple - in general it is slower than either Matlab or Mathematic (well, it is for matrix operations at least), but as far as I'm aware, the Maple kernel is hardware agnostic.

Edit: I forgot about SageMath too! It's been a good while since I last dipped into using it, but it always seemed snappier that Matlab to me.

 

[Skjorn]

Where tf are the system specs?...
What RAM speed is AMD running? What RAM speed is Intel running? Why are we running some of these games in DX12 when know some of them run better in DX11 for both teams? What GPU is being used? It's just an OK review with all the important details left out...