AMD ThreadRipper 2nd Generation, Intel i7-9600K & i9-9900K Cinebench Scores Leaked

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
19,882
AMD Ryzen ThreadRipper 2nd Generation, Intel i7-9600K and Intel i9-9900K benchmark scores were leaked by Lau Kin Lam and they are impressive. In this video posted online at the 56:13 mark, he shows them off for his live stream. Although I can't understand the video, glancing over the Cinebench scores; we clearly see new AMD ThreadRipper 2nd Generation overclocked scores in the mix and a couple of Intel chips benchmarked. I assume that the #5 score is the new i9-9900K as it is rumored to have 8 cores and 16 threads. Then the CPU in the #7 slot is most likely the i7-9600K as it also rumored to have 6 cores and 12 threads. It is unknown if the Intel chips are stock or overclocked. Take all of this with a grain of salt as these are leaks. Oh and for new AMD ThreadRipper 2nd Generation, FYI; model number is not correct.

Anyone know the picture that I showed at the end of the live video last night? - Tips: #5 #7 - #Core #i9 #i7
 

katanaD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
1,987
same chip.. threadripper.. getting higher scores at then the lower clocked version of said chip?

thats.. odd
 

Anarchist4000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2001
Messages
1,659
same chip.. threadripper.. getting higher scores at then the lower clocked version of said chip?

thats.. odd
Thermal throttling.

That chip will be well worth the money for anyone who can use all those cores. Wouldn't mind seeing how compile times hold up on that thing. That would be the defacto developer platform if all those cores worked for compiling and a remote build setup wasn't available.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,837
Woundnt mind seeing a single core vs core comparison to see how it stacks up. Even if the AMD is slightly behind that wouldn't be an issues due to the massive core count difference. Just dont want it to be very behind the intel in a single core vs core comparison.
This is my biggest concern. The leaked benchmark must be some sort of massively thread-capable workload and it is still very, impressive for TR+ . I'm also pleased to see it running up to at least 4.2ghz, but I am wondering if that is an all-core OC ? If it can go 4.2ghz across all cores without throttling (under reasonable cooling, all things considering) and possibly higher for 1 - 8 core workloads , with reasonable per-clock performance, this could be a real knockout of a chip! As I said before, I just don't want it to be another chip that is so purpose built (ie only massive multicore workloads) that enthusiasts with mixed use (ie gaming etc) won't find it serve their needs. Thankfully, it seems that at least with Ryzen+ vs Intel 8000 series, that Intel's clock rate gains don't really effect the overall experience versus AMD, whereas you can game easily on an OC'ed 4.2ghz 2700X and not feel like your performance is lacking, even in real world single/few core tasks, despite a benchmark lead for Intel in those circumstances.

If Threadripper+ is looking this great and really comes out for $1000 - $1500 for the top end model, then it will be another win for AMD, setting the stage for an even more exciting 2019 reveal on the Zen2 7nm process! In any event, I'm definitely cheering for AMD for a number of reasons... lets hope that the enthusiast cooling community makes some new Threadripper+ 32-core ready waterblocks through!
 

///AMG

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
3,277
Yea if official reviews come out great I will probably swap. The Xeon equivalents are much more expensive and after the spectre and meltdown I'm not super keen on going intel. My workloads can definitely benefit from more cores and threads at a clock speeds to boot.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I'm assuming the 9900k is overclocked. If so, it looks to OC and scale just about as well as the 8700k (highest 8700k OCed generally score ~1650 CB, so ~2200 CB for 8 cores is right in line with that). That'll give a nice 10-15% boost over the 2700X. Kind of like how the 8700k beats out the 2600X, basically.

It will be interesting to see how AMD responds to that. Probably a price cut on the 2700X, but I wonder if they have any further cherry-picked silicon to eke out a few extra MHz to get a little closer. Intel has a winner on their hands with 8 core CFL.

The 32 core TR looks to be beastly. I want one, damnit >.<
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,766
Woundnt mind seeing a single core vs core comparison to see how it stacks up. Even if the AMD is slightly behind that wouldn't be an issues due to the massive core count difference. Just dont want it to be very behind the intel in a single core vs core comparison.
32core vs 8 core. But both of those might be OC numbers. Thing is, none of the high core count Xeons are stock clocked past about 2.7Ghz, and some are only 1.9Ghz. So you might think, lets just x4 the intel result, and we get 8848, its better right? The IPC is still better, but the Ghz takes such a big hit in the high core count intel chips... so it's benched at 3.1, but if it was 32 cores, 2.1Ghz is more realistic. 2.1/3.1 for the scaling ratio, then x4, and you get 5994 score.. worse than the cheaper AMD. let's be super optimistic and say we can get 2.4Ghz out of the 32core Intel (if so, these are $10000 chips or more), then we get 6850... So the intel chips might be able to beat them if you got 10grand + to blow on a cpu...

Doesn't look good for Intel. Their stock was downgraded last week to "neutral" due to delays in them going to 10nm. Meanwhile AMD and Nvidia are likely to leapfrog them to 7nm in the next year...

Isn't competition great!
 

Anarchist4000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2001
Messages
1,659
If worried about gaming performance, restricting a TR to a single NUMA node shouldn't be all that difficult and get similar results as a single chip. Then still have the upside of all the cores for when needed. Might take some work by Microsoft, but shouldn't be all that difficult to pull off. May in fact be desirable as core counts continue to increase. Bottom line, anyone benefiting from all those cores probably doesn't mind sacrificing a little single threaded performance and the 4GHz+ numbers look nice.

Any idea if these things have the 80MB of combined cache? That alone could be huge even for single threaded apps.
 

juanrga

Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,567
AMD Ryzen ThreadRipper 2nd Generation, Intel i7-9600K and Intel i9-9900K benchmark scores were leaked by Lau Kin Lam and they are impressive. In this video posted online at the 56:13 mark, he shows them off for his live stream. Although I can't understand the video, glancing over the Cinebench scores; we clearly see new AMD ThreadRipper 2nd Generation overclocked scores in the mix and a couple of Intel chips benchmarked. I assume that the #5 score is the new i9-9900K as it is rumored to have 8 cores and 16 threads.
The i7 is 8 cores and 8 threads.
 

Hruodgar

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
79
Hexus has an interesting news blurb http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/120584-intel-core-i9-9900k-3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-results-appear/ even more interesting is a comment down below:
Interesting to see the CPU score and comparison though, considering it can run ~16% faster than the 2700X it achieves a score ~17% higher. Really goes to show the improvements AMD have made in terms of IPC and the stagnation of Intel trying to push as much out of the old architecture. Pinch of salt obviously, considering it is likely an engineering sample being compared.

Dread to think how much Intel is going to try to charge for this though, I imagine it'll be a bit higher than ~17% difference :vacant:
 

Azrak

Gawd
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
937
^^ juanrga, remember when i7 had HT? I do. Yet you state "Why?" as if it is completely obvious that i7 should not have HT at all. It's like years of history of a product line don't even exist. Hilarious. I guess it all makes sense to you, though.

My take on this:
Yep, Intel has decided that the i7 having HT is no longer the way things are going to be.
The number "7" is now tainted because of AMD and their dirty rotten Ryzen 7 series of CPUs that have HT, so the new i7's will now occupy a "high-middle tier" sort of place without HT while the new i9 will occupy the highest of the customer lines and include HT.
This expands Intel's offerings to 4 main groups: i3, i5, i7, and i9, while AMD Ryzen remains at 3 groups: Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7. I guess Threadripper doesn't count here since it is a different socket. See, now Intel has one higher class than AMD, so it's "better". 9 > 7. Amiright?
This is Intel marketing at its finest, folks. If you can't beat 'em, mess up the works and expand the product line to seem "better" to the uninformed. That or Intel marketing really does think the CPU space needs more choices. Competition is good either way, so I say: bring it!
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Why?

i9 --> 8C16T
i7 --> 8C8T
i5 --> 6C6T
I saw a list someplace that appeared to indicate what were essentially 8700k/8086k rebrands were still going to be sold under a i7 9xxx label, in addition to the lineup we've already discussed. It could be horseshit, but if I get bored enough I'll see if I can find it again.
 

tissimo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
318
I saw a list someplace that appeared to indicate what were essentially 8700k/8086k rebrands were still going to be sold under a i7 9xxx label, in addition to the lineup we've already discussed. It could be horseshit, but if I get bored enough I'll see if I can find it again.
I still think the i7 will be hyper thread (6/12). There will be a 8c/8t but will be a low i9 variant, 9800?
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I still think the i7 will be hyper thread (6/12). There will be a 8c/8t but will be a low i9 variant, 9800?
The i7-9700k is confirmed as a 8c/8t part. The discussion was about whether or not there would also be a 6/12 rebrand under the i7-9xxx label. The article up on Wccftech today seems to indicate otherwise.
 
Top