Truth? Lie? 5.2 16 core crushes 9980xe

wouldn't be surprised if it's the results from the 5.2Ghz LN2 overclocking that was done at E3 and was uploaded later.
 
If you divide the 9980xe score to a 16 core part, both CPUs have 9.66x MT score over ST. This doesn't seem right as AMD usually has a stronger SMT. This is all assuming Geekbench scales past 16 cores.
 
Didn't AMD LN2 cool a 16 core part and break world records with it? They got it up to 5.25Ghz.
It's not representative of a retail part, just a showcase of where the maximum performance is right now. Interesting, but irrelevant for retail and consumers right now.
 
Doesn’t matter. We have about a week and a half before actual reviews are up.
 
Thatguybil said:
I would be shocked if it is real and done on ambient air temperature cooling.
Click to expand...

The results probably are real. I doubt they were done on ambient air cooling. I doubt that very much since LN2 was required to hit 5.25GHz or whatever it was.

sirmonkey1985 said:
wouldn't be surprised if it's the results from the 5.2Ghz LN2 overclocking that was done at E3 and was uploaded later.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Or at least, the results likely came from a similar configuration.
 
The MB partners have had samples for a long time now.

They have all spun up massive line ups of 570 chipset boards. If the samples they got where garbage why would they invest like that ?

Yes these benches are real... yes they are hard overclocked numbers that won't represent normal operating frequency.

Yes AMD is going to smash Intel this round. Intel is spinning internally for a reason. Intel won't have a real answer to the 3000 series for some time. Still their product is hardly junk... and it will keep the Intel hardcores happy enough. Hardcore fans will deal with the #2 spot for awhile. Its not like Intel is going to go out of business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrDoU
like this
Legitimate or not, the result is irrelevant. Geekbench is designed to run on low power processors, i.e. smart phones. The type of work it simulates, is that often carried out by these type of chips. Do you care how fast your desktop CPU can render a webpage, let alone how many times in a second? If not, then you shouldn't be paying attention to these results as they have no bearing on DESKTOP CPU performance.
 
techguymaxc said:
Legitimate or not, the result is irrelevant. Geekbench is designed to run on low power processors, i.e. smart phones. The type of work it simulates, is that often carried out by these type of chips. Do you care how fast your desktop CPU can render a webpage, let alone how many times in a second? If not, then you shouldn't be paying attention to these results as they have no bearing on DESKTOP CPU performance.
Click to expand...

Then why do they have a windows downloadable version?
 
tangoseal said:
Then why do they have a windows downloadable version?
Click to expand...
Why not?
It allows to compare stuff and of course most important thing: more platforms more chance to get money for full version

techguymaxc said:
Legitimate or not, the result is irrelevant. Geekbench is designed to run on low power processors, i.e. smart phones. The type of work it simulates, is that often carried out by these type of chips. Do you care how fast your desktop CPU can render a webpage, let alone how many times in a second? If not, then you shouldn't be paying attention to these results as they have no bearing on DESKTOP CPU performance.
Click to expand...
To put it simply: all/most Geekbench data fits into cache. Does it sums it up?
BTW. Large cache should be great for games and a lot of programs so even if Geekbench is not really stressing memory that much its scores are somewhat still representative of performance we are getting.
Besides webpage loading is important... at least if you do not use crappy LTE internet like I do :p
 
ChadD said:
Yes AMD is going to smash Intel this round. Intel is spinning internally for a reason. Intel won't have a real answer to the 3000 series for some time. Still their product is hardly junk... and it will keep the Intel hardcores happy enough. Hardcore fans will deal with the #2 spot for awhile. Its not like Intel is going to go out of business.
Click to expand...
They survived Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 and then even more crushing Pentium D vas Athlon X2 so they will survive Zen 2 also.

Actually they could just make price drop for Coffee Lake CPU's to make themselves more competitive. It is not like they do not have any headroom there...
 
XoR_ said:
They survived Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 and then even more crushing Pentium D vas Athlon X2 so they will survive Zen 2 also.

Actually they could just make price drop for Coffee Lake CPU's to make themselves more competitive. It is not like they do not have any headroom there...
Click to expand...
The difference this time is both offerings from each camp are good. Back then netburst sucked. What that means for today is everyone who is a consumer wins.
 
techguymaxc said:
LOL, that's like saying "because it exists, it must be useful!"

I would like to show you about 8000 things deep fried on a stick from my local state fair then.
Click to expand...

Ok even so. The AMD is still faster than the Intel.

If geekbench is so whack then Intel should beat the AMD especially if it's just a cell phone bench


The main point is that AMD is beating the Intel and I dont want to assume but it seems like Intel fans are just angry and so they, in typical fashion, attack the medium its self that AMD is supposedly winning on.

Its like disqualifying the Boston Marathon because your guy didnt win. Thus the whole marathon is just not areal race.

Winning is winning right? I mean if the Intel and the AMD are in fact running the same exact bench.
 
XoR_ said:
They survived Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 and then even more crushing Pentium D vas Athlon X2 so they will survive Zen 2 also.

Actually they could just make price drop for Coffee Lake CPU's to make themselves more competitive. It is not like they do not have any headroom there...
Click to expand...

I agree, it just a matter of time before Intel rebounds from this.
 
tangoseal said:
Ok even so. The AMD is still faster than the Intel.

If geekbench is so whack then Intel should beat the AMD especially if it's just a cell phone bench


The main point is that AMD is beating the Intel and I dont want to assume but it seems like Intel fans are just angry and so they, in typical fashion, attack the medium its self that AMD is supposedly winning on.

Its like disqualifying the Boston Marathon because your guy didnt win. Thus the whole marathon is just not areal race.

Winning is winning right? I mean if the Intel and the AMD are in fact running the same exact bench.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more akin to measuring the 0-60 foot time of a marathon and declaring a winner at that point. This is one benchmark. A synthetic one. Built for mobile phones. I think it's slightly premature to declare any "winners" right now.

Is Ryzen 3000 going to be fast? You bet. Is it worth buying over 9th gen Core? Probably for a lot of people. But performance is entirely workload dependent as the micro-architecture of the CPUs in question differs tremendously. IOW: they're both going to be good at different things, so people should buy whatever fits best in their budget, with their workload.
 
techguymaxc said:
I'd say it's more akin to measuring the 0-60 foot time of a marathon and declaring a winner at that point. This is one benchmark. A synthetic one. Built for mobile phones. I think it's slightly premature to declare any "winners" right now.

Is Ryzen 3000 going to be fast? You bet. Is it worth buying over 9th gen Core? Probably for a lot of people. But performance is entirely workload dependent as the micro-architecture of the CPUs in question differs tremendously. IOW: they're both going to be good at different things, so people should buy whatever fits best in their budget, with their workload.
Click to expand...


As fast as these AMDs are reported to be, I still think the 9900k is going to be brutally faster in Adobe Workloads.
 
techguymaxc said:
LOL, that's like saying "because it exists, it must be useful!"

I would like to show you about 8000 things deep fried on a stick from my local state fair then.
Click to expand...

Please do so. State Fair foods are generally both yummy and delicious. (may be redundant descriptors, but you have to apply both to state fair foods. it's the law)
 
tangoseal said:
As fast as these AMDs are reported to be, I still think the 9900k is going to be brutally faster in Adobe Workloads.
Click to expand...

It's important to note which Adobe workloads, and under what circumstances. I do a lot of Photoshop work, and frankly any modern-ish 4 core or more CPU will handle the basic Photoshop stuff at respectable speed. The perceptible difference comes in mainly when doing certain very intensive tasks, or doing batch operations. Batch operations are at least partly constrained by your SSD - and if you're doing lots of smaller actions, almost wholly constrained by the SSD. Heavy filter action depends on the specific filter(s) involved, some of which respond to multi-threading, some of which do not.

But I find in my day-to-day work the biggest perceptible differences comes when multitasking. So if I have an After Effects render/encode going on, and I move to Photoshop to do some work there (a common use case for me), then the more cores I have, the better - to a point, anyway. I have a 7700k workstation at my day job and a 2700X at home, and when doing multiple things at once, the 2700X is definitely and obviously faster. I know that the 7700k is almost certainly technically faster when not multitasking like that - and probably by a lot - but I don't notice it, because these are things both CPUs can do relatively fast.

Now that's 8 cores vs 4 cores, so I'm not sure how much 12 cores vs. 8 cores will change the calculus for my usage pattern (though I am curious to find out!), or where I stop seeing perceptible differences. But it's very rare for me to have only one Adobe product open at one time, and it's pretty common for me to have some background render/encode/compiling activity going on while I'm working in Photoshop, Illustrator, etc...
 
tangoseal said:
Firstly, be careful even typing that name that begins with J. I simply mention the name, which I wont, and I get troll warnings, ban warnings, red marks, flags, go down the list. Someone is either robo reporting anything that is said about him bad or good. Or he is robo reporting any mention of his name. The guy that starts with a J which I will not spell.

Here is the problem with statements and assumptions like you are making.

This forum has a serious problem with discrediting every single thing that wcc does with a fervor.

Now in the spirit of not sounding like a hypocrite, I was not claiming WCC made a lie, my question was the overall information as being truthful or a fabrication by its very source.

Let me add this ... (now I am going to verify this claim my self that WCC is making) - EDIT** It seems I should have never made this thread because now I am answering my own question.

View attachment 170441

Unless someone hacked Geekbenches website database I am not sure how you would upload a unverified bench result such as this. And if this is so then we have a real winner of a CPU on our hands. And it pains me to have to wait to get that chip. Damn AMD no reason to wait any longer. Just sell the stupid thing on the 7th. I am sitting here using a damn APU because I have sold everything else (modern) to upgrade to 3000 series chips. Damn this APU is slow compared to my old 2950x.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13669966
Click to expand...


Lies. You haven't sold your body yet.
 
XoR_ said:
They survived Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 and then even more crushing Pentium D vas Athlon X2 so they will survive Zen 2 also.
Click to expand...
Yeah by going dirty...

GJwhwJO.png


Wonder what tricks they will make up this time.
 
Last edited:
Lepardi said:
Yeah by going dirty...

Wonder what tricks they will make up this time.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows the P4 sucked. What's your point? It's ancient history now. As for Intel's business practices - these are companies competing for our hard-earned money, not sports teams or political parties for you to cheer for. If I'm going to give one of them my money I want it to be for the best product my money can buy. This fanboy nonsense about "poor AMD being exploited by the evil Intel" is just childish.
 
I like having AMD around. Competition results in better/cheaper shit for us. But I'm under no illusions that they are morally better than Intel - nor do I particularly care. Intel will defend its turf - that is to be expected. And AMD will try to gain turf - again, to be expected. Both companies will use whatever means they can legally (and sometimes they'll skate the illegal side a bit if they can get away with it) to win marketshare. Nature of business.

I just want both companies to be healthy-ish, so we don't get a stagnant quasi-monopoly situation, like we had in the Bulldozer days, and like might be forming in the GPU market right now.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-36...tels-i9-9900k-in-single-threaded-performance/

Silly season has commenseth. While I am still taking this with a cautious pinch of salt, it is nevertheless fun to see how off the rails people get about it
Click to expand...

One benchmark that isn't particularly useful doesn't tell us much. However, when you take the various leaked benchmarks we've seen so far together, it paints a picture of overall single core performance probably roughly equal to Intel. Within 5% maybe - possibly within the margin of error, or even slightly better in some particular part vs. part match ups.

BUT this is still leaked/early shit. So keep your salt handy. Still exciting stuff, though.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
One benchmark that isn't particularly useful doesn't tell us much. However, when you take the various leaked benchmarks we've seen so far together, it paints a picture of overall single core performance probably roughly equal to Intel. Within 5% maybe - possibly within the margin of error, or even slightly better in some particular part vs. part match ups.

BUT this is still leaked/early shit. So keep your salt handy. Still exciting stuff, though.
Click to expand...

If you believe this "leak" I've got a bridge for sale... No way has AMD overcome Intel's IPC AND clock speed leads to produce these faster benchmark results, while still somehow being slower in games. Put all the information together and it doesn't add up.
 
techguymaxc said:
If you believe this "leak" I've got a bridge for sale... No way has AMD overcome Intel's IPC AND clock speed leads to produce these faster benchmark results, while still somehow being slower in games. Put all the information together and it doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
They're different workloads. it's entirely possible, though not necessarily likely. It's like comparing a compression benchmark and a pi benchmark and saying it's impossible for the results to be so different. it's not true because they use different parts of the cpu, which might be able to perform more operations per clock than on another processor, or a different op on the same processor.
 
These leaks are fun but pinch of salt indeed. I do expect AMD to beat Intel on perf though.
 
Nobu said:
They're different workloads. it's entirely possible, though not necessarily likely. It's like comparing a compression benchmark and a pi benchmark and saying it's impossible for the results to be so different. it's not true because they use different parts of the cpu, which might be able to perform more operations per clock than on another processor, or a different op on the same processor.
Click to expand...

They use different parts of the CPU do they? Do you have the compiler output for each application to back up that statement, or is this just your opinion?
 
techguymaxc said:
They use different parts of the CPU do they? Do you have the compiler output for each application to back up that statement, or is this just your opinion?
Click to expand...
No, yes, though it's based on knowledge about how games work vs how productivity applications work. Yes, some will mirror each other, but games and productivity applications are very different. Whereas games are heavy in algorithms for ai and have lots of loops waiting for input or checking bounds, productvity applications tend to have a flatter codebase with more if statements than loops. Productivity apps are more likely to utilize advanced processor optimizations, whereas a game might use them but will avoid some for portability.
 
techguymaxc said:
Everyone knows the P4 sucked. What's your point? It's ancient history now. As for Intel's business practices - these are companies competing for our hard-earned money, not sports teams or political parties for you to cheer for. If I'm going to give one of them my money I want it to be for the best product my money can buy. This fanboy nonsense about "poor AMD being exploited by the evil Intel" is just childish.
Click to expand...

I've never understood people who prostrate themselves before a brand name in which they have absolutely no stakes. I get it that a stockholder would want their holdings to do well, but the average consumer defending to their last breath a multinational corporation that couldn't give less of a shit about them is just creepy.
 
viivo said:
I've never understood people who prostrate themselves before a brand name in which they have absolutely no stakes. I get it that a stockholder would want their holdings to do well, but the average consumer defending to their last breath a multinational corporation that couldn't give less of a shit about them is just creepy.
Click to expand...

Some even put it in their signatures and get their poofs customized :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: viivo
like this
techguymaxc said:
If you believe this "leak" I've got a bridge for sale... No way has AMD overcome Intel's IPC AND clock speed leads to produce these faster benchmark results, while still somehow being slower in games. Put all the information together and it doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

You know, I thought I was pretty clear when I opened my reply with: "One benchmark that isn't particularly useful doesn't tell us much." But since apparently that wasn't clear enough...

I neither believe nor disbelieve this leak/benchmark/whatever so much as I think one result in one benchmark that is of marginal utility doesn't tell us anything.

My comments after were explicitly referring to all of the leaks we've had so far, which paint a picture of single thread performance near-equal to Skylake/CFL.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Some even put it in their signatures and get their poofs customized :D
Click to expand...

Fanboyism is like picking a sports team to gush over. Some people like doing that sort of thing. Others think it's stupid.

It amuses me, because when I post on CPUs, I'll get accused of being an AMD fanboy sometimes. But crossover into the GPU topics, and I'm accused of being an AMD hater. I'm neither. I happen to think AMD is doing well in CPUs right now, and so I have a lot of interest here. In GPUs... not so much, lol. *shrug* Is what it is.
 
I have money set aside just in case one of the new release CPUs seems intriguing enough.

We'll know in 6 days
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top