16 ms·
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Beats Intel’s Core i7-9700K in Cinebench
- criley2 7y agoI'm happy that AMD really seems to be surging again. It was finally time for the ol' mobo+cpu+ram rebuild for me recently, and I ended up replacing my second generation core i5 2500k with a new Ryzen 5 and I could not be happier. The price was spot on compared to how much more I would have paid for an intel chip and board. I believe I got the Ryzen 5 2600, so one generation back from this 3600 I assume.
- Sileni 7y agoDid a 2600x / Vega 56 build recently, and I'm honestly impressed with the value. Total under $1k after tax. I would have spent that before getting a GPU if I had gone Intel.
- noir_lord 7y agoI went from a 2500K with HD6950 to a 2700X and a RTX2080. That was a slight jump. Yep the 2600 is Zen+, 3600 is Zen 2, decent uplift in IPC (about 10%) on its own not worth upgrading. That 3900X looks tempting though to replace my 2700X. 50% more faster cores than an already very fast processor, AMD are on fire at the moment.
- std_throwaway 7y agoI'll wait till the embargo is lifted and detailed benchmarking will be available. The date is rumored to be the 7th of July.
- neogodless 7y agoIt's not even a rumor. They announced the date.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y agoCalling it a rumor makes the knowledge sound more exciting. Similar to how product details are no longer "announced" or "released", but rather "leaked".
- koolba 7y agoAny plans for AMD to release first party NUC form factor devices with Ryder chips? I bet I’m not the only one that both loves that form factor and also amazed at the perf numbers and core counts of these CPUs.
- opencl 7y agoASRock's Deskmini A300 is as close as you are getting anytime soon. It's a nice machine but not quite as small as the NUC at 155 x 155 x 80 mm. Though note that the chip in this article is not going in a NUC form factor because it does not have integrated graphics. The Ryzen chips with integrated graphics top out at 4 cores and the new ones are still based on the older Zen+ microarchitecture.
- BubRoss 7y agoYou can already build small form factor PC's but there are two major issues. First is that you need a gpu, so the chips just announced aren't going to work. The second is heat dissipation. It's easy to think any heat sink and fan will work, but the reality is that an integrated gpu and dynamic clocking can generate a lot of heat. The computer will still function, but can end up laggy and much less capable because it is being throttled. Then there are bios options to be aware of. Dynamic overclocking generates a lot of heat for little gain. The defaults also throttle too soon. Relaxed temperature throttling runs hotter but gives a much better experience. CPUs run just fine at 50C anyway. This is all to say a small PC is possible now and a NUC might be possible later, but they are still tricky to really get right.
- rb808 7y agoIntel nucs use lower powered U-series mobile CPUs, which AMD isn't so great at. Hopefully soon though.
- bizarref00l 7y agoNot sure if mini-itx fits your taste but epyc 3000 may be an option. https://www.servethehome.com/supermicro-m11sdv-8ct-ln4f-review-with-amd-epyc-3201-in-mitx/ https://www.servethehome.com/supermicro-m11sdv-8ct-ln4f-revi...
- xupybd 7y agoThis is good news but how many daily tasks come close to being represented by Cinebench? Is Ryzen a better choice for a daily driver?
- theon144 7y agoDepends on your daily driving :) For web browsing and playing video (i.e. 99% of all users' "daily driving"), I don't think it even matters to consider these sorts of benchmarks. I do edit video and work with 3D graphics almost daily though, so this is sort of comparison is very relevant.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoNot worth considering these benchmarks because there’s no effect, or because the system requirements for browsing the web are too low overall for there to be a perceptible difference? In other words, of you were to actually measure page load speed, are you saying the measirements would correlate with the benchmarks?
- lunchables 7y agoMy guess is that a 10ms difference in network latency would be a bigger impact on page load times than the latest Zen2 vs Intel CPU. In reality I think for general web browsing the difference, if it exists at all, in either direction, would not be perceptible. I know that's not EXACTLY what you're asking, but I think it's worth mentioning the practical aspect as well.
- jxcl 7y agoThat seems to have been the "common wisdom" for a while now, but I'm not so sure that it holds so much today. With everybody coming out with bloated SPAs is it possible that faster processors will start to be required for normal web work?
- fock 7y agobut then, anyone with a recent(ish) Macbook is up-to-date for web-browsing and playing video (on the internet). Any post-Lynnfield Desktop-Process is quite a bit faster (starting at 3GHz) and since Haswell, even the video-playing is no problem (in higher resolution).
- wil421 7y agoAnyone have any experience with AMD and ECC memory? I was going to do an AMD build for a NAS but the support for ecc was kinda like: “We enabled it but didn’t test it and we don’t guarantee it will work.”
- std_throwaway 7y agoUsually it works without problems. Check with the mainboard manufacturer if it supports ECC memory. Most do, some don't.
- nsxwolf 7y agoIt works, but does it “work”? As in, does it error correct? Supposedly errors are so rare I’m not even sure how you could test this.
- agsamek 7y agoRowhammer comes handy ;)
- vbezhenar 7y agoSome people overclock the memory. It'll make errors at some point.
- opencl 7y agoYes it does actually work. The easiest way to intentionally trigger memory errors is overclocking. https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/75030-ecc-memory-amds-ryzen-deep-dive.html https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-revie...
- wil421 7y agoIf you look closely at what AMD says it might make you question it. They specifically say they don't disabled it on their desktop chips but they don't test it. Basically a YMMV statement.
- juergbi 7y ago
- mrb 7y agoSince 2000, AMD has often beaten Intel on multi-threaded workloads, but never single-threaded (at comparable clocks). This bench shows AMD beating Intel on both! That's what's incredibly notable here. The last time it happened was 20 years ago with the AMD K7. Now Zen 2 seems to overall beat Intel on every metric: single-threaded perf, multi-threaded perf, perf/dollar, perf/watt. No matter how you look at it, Zen 2 comes out on top.¹ Very impressive. Man the folks at Intel must feel the heat. ¹ Except perf/socket when competing with the Xeon 9200, but that's just a PR stunt no one cares about: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1135766935667240960 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113576693566724096...
- leetcrew 7y agoiirc, amd was beating intel on single thread in the pentium 4 era with way lower clocks.
- opencl 7y agoThe FX-60 from 2006 I think was the last AMD CPU that held this crown. 2.6Ghz and it beat Intel's top chip at 3.5Ghz. The only thing on the market with higher single threaded performance was their own FX-57 which was single core with a slightly higher clock speed. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1920 https://www.anandtech.com/show/1920
- gothroach 7y agoI still have my old FX-60 in an antistatic clamshell. I just could never bring myself to get rid of it, I loved that processor so much. That and XPx64 held me for a very long time.
- nolok 7y agoThat's when Intel "let's go faster" made them meet the 4Ghz barrier head on for the first time. More than a decade later and we're still pretty much there. One has to wonder how things would have gone if they didn't have the Core-M architecture on the side back then.
- akbT 7y agoIs it known yet whether the 32-core Threadripper will be discontinued or whether a potential 32-core 7nm Epyc will run at higher clock rates? I'm searching for the fastest C++ compile machine, that includes linking (which is single core).
- cma 7y agoThere will apparently be a 64 core threadripper.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wmf 7y agoAMD said Threadripper 3000 is coming; I speculate there will be 24/32/48/64-core SKUs.
- tracker1 7y agoThat'd be my guess as well... I wouldn't that be surprised to see a 16 core entry too (get onto TR platform and upgrade later option). Though the $750 for a 3950X is already pushing my budget, I might consider a 24-32 core for under $1200 if that's where it lands. System budget around $3500.
- keldaris 7y agoThe default answer is the new Threadripper - which doesn't have a confirmed release date yet, but should be out within the next 3-6 months. However, if you really care about optimizing for that workload, the exact answer depends on the codebase(s) you're dealing with because the time spent linking varies significantly. For instance, if you're working on a large C++ codebase with incremental compilation, rarely do full recompiles and heavily rely on link time and profile guided optimizations, I can see a case where a heavily tuned Cascade Lake X makes a lot of sense (overclock the mesh, tune the memory latencies and get enough cooling to sustain the single core boost as high as you can). It's actually one of the few usecases (AVX-512 being another) where I still see a niche for Intel CPUs purely based on technical merit... saying that still feels weird, but that's where we are now.
- Nursie 7y agoSo it looks like the 3700X should be reasonably expected to be on a par with or better than the i9-9900K? And that's very much in the middle of the zen 2 offerings... and at a significantly lower price.
- Ratiofarmings 7y agoYes. The only question left is single thread perf. Over a range of applications. That's what everyone is waiting to see. Part of that will include how well it handles fast memory. Currently intel is in a different league when it comes to that.
- Nursie 7y ago> The only question left is single thread perf I thought this benchmark was about single thread perf? From the article - "However, according to a Cinebench score shared by Videocardz on Twitter, the 3600 levels with the Core i7-9700K in the single threaded test." Whilst this is only one benchmark, it's looking like they've caught up or even overtaken on single thread performance too.
- imtringued 7y agoThe IPC is almost identical. The biggest difference will be the maximum clockspeed. Overclocked Intel CPUs can easily reach 5GHz but AMD CPUs usually are between 4.4 to 4.7.Ghz which still is a 10% difference.
- Nursie 7y agoOverclocked CPUs are not exactly a mass-market thing are they? I mean, outside of a few niches, does anyone bother?
- vbezhenar 7y ago9900K has 5GHz turbo boost out of box, you just need to have enough cooling. I would say that best CPUs are not a mass market anyway and if you're talking about mass market, you should think about performance per buck and AMD beats Intel there since Zen introduction.
- kitchenkarma 7y agoI need single core performance and I am maxing out 9900K @ 5.1. If AMD proves to be faster than that, show me where to pay.
- vbezhenar 7y agoDid you account for all the vulnerabilities paches in Intel? Some benchmarks might now show it, but in real life you'll get that performance hit (or you'll need to disable those protections and some people don't like it).
- iaml 7y agoIf your priority is single-threaded performance, why did you choose 9900k? I was under impression 9700k is single-thread king.
- Ratiofarmings 7y agoThat impression is wrong. 9900k clocks higher by default and usually overclocks a little higher aswell. Thus it's also single- thread king.
- iaml 7y agoInteresting. Is it still faster with latest mitigations for spectre etc?
- DiabloD3 7y ago9600k, 9700k, and 9900k are all single threaded king, effectively, at least until Zen 2 launches on 7/7. 9600k has a 3.7ghz stock base clock, 9700k and 9900k have identical base clocks of 3.6; in order, their stock single core turbos are 4.6, 4.9, and 5.0. Now, you could be asking yourself "but Diablo, in single threaded, the 9900k is 8.6% faster, and the 9700k is 6.5% faster than the 9600k, respectively". They're all k parts, just overclock it the tiny bit of the way for a fraction of the price ($230 vs $410 vs $490), and the 9600k has far more thermal and power budget per-core to play with than the other two do. I almost built a new desktop with a 9600k, the $230 6/6 part that shames (in both single and multithreaded) the highest end $340 or $350 4/8 parts from the previous four generations (4770k, 4790k, 6700k, 7700k); vs the $360 8700k (6/12), it performs identically in single threaded, and illustrates that hyperthreading only gains you about 25% extra performance if you can saturate all 12 threads. Remember, these are desktop chips, you are very unlikely to ever need more than 8 threads (and use them effectively), even if you game. If you happen to have a use case where you can easily saturate >8 threads, anything LGA115x is probably inappropriate for you anyways. However, with the 9000 series release, Intel admitted AMD scared the fuck out of them, and re-released Coffee Lake at a lower price with some tweaks in speed and core/thread count because they were afraid of Zen 2 being a success; their fears were warranted. The $250 3600x (a 6/12 part) beats the 9600k in single threaded, widely beats it in multithreaded, and has PCI-E 4.0, with an extra 4 CPU-bound PCI-E lanes (20 vs 16 on AM4 vs LGA115x), and uses a higher DDR4 clock (stock 3200 vs 2666, with an effective maximum of possibly over 5000 vs around 4133; AMD's IMC seems to continue to be effective at lower CAS latency than Intel's is). Side note: 4790k, a Devil's Canyon part, is Intel's stand-in for the non-existent 5700k. Devil's Canyon is a Haswell Refresh part that got a second set of 4000 series model numbers instead of 5000 series. Haswell Refresh was a Broadwell core paired with a DDR3 controller, fabbed at Haswell's node size; there are no architectural changes between Broadwell and Haswell in the core, only major changes was the decrease in node size and the swap to DDR4, the core design remained nearly identical. Broadwell largely ignored the desktop, focusing on LGA2011 and mobile parts instead, leaving Haswell Refresh to fill in the gap with the desktop and Xeon E3s, and the only notable exceptions being a small set of Iris Pro GPU parts.
- flyinghamster 7y agoI must say, I've been quite happy with my now "old" 7/1700. Between it and the NVMe SSD, it's been quite a snappy machine. Even before Zen, I preferred AMD for my builds just for the bang-for-the-buck. It's great to see that they're cranking up the performance per dollar to new heights.
- 127 7y agoSince nobody yet mentioned it, just going to remind everyone that a 16 core, 32 thread desktop chip for Zen 2 will exist, and be priced under 800 dollars.
- baybal2 7y agoThey will surely push 12 cored ones first. They glue 2 downgraded dies and get ones CPU that costs more than 2 defective dies sold separately. Just brilliant
- DiabloD3 7y agoThey are 8 core dies of a higher bin that would have been clocked the same (or possibly lower) in an equivalent 4 die Epyc part. Given the fact that it is a higher bin, they are rare. What part of that illustrates they're defective, or that it legitimately costs more than if it was sold separately?
- baybal2 7y agoVery likely 6 cored dies simply have 1 or 2 defective cores that were either damaged during manufacturing or failed test. As for frequencies, modern day finfets can clock way way higher than planar devices, and are more limited by thermals than anything else.
- paulmd 7y agoThat's the fairy-tale but most chips come off the line with all cores functional and the manufacturer disables some of the cores. Taken to the extreme - there just aren't that many chips with, say, 4 broken cores and yet the rest of the chip still works. Demand is highest for these cheap parts and supply is lowest, so you disable cores. The other thing is, these 12Cs are actually clocked significantly higher (and have much more cache enabled) than the lower-end parts. So these are not simply "bad silicon". Really this is a misnomer in general since there is a variety of ways silicon can be "bad". Bad clocks, damaged cache, damaged cores, etc etc. Binning gives you the opportunity to pick the best cores on a chip too. So if a chip had two cores that could only do 4 GHz but the rest of them could do 4.4 GHz or whatever, then all of them might be functional yet it might fail binning as a fast 8C chip, but you could disable the two derpy cores and ship it as a very fast 6C chip. The binning process is a deeply trade secret kinda thing, but is undoubtedly much more complex than people generally believe. It's not "top X% silicon becomes Epyc, next X% silicon becomes threadripper", etc. All that is known for sure is that AMD is very efficient at using every part of the buffalo.
- studmuffin650 7y agoJim Keller strikes again. I swear every place this guy goes, groundbreaking chip architecture work is done.
- Roritharr 7y agoIt must be scary, imagine being this influential to the global economy. His advances literally dictate the efficiency of 2% of the worlds power output, and that's just one metric of influence.
- Wheaties466 7y agoIt looks like he left AMD in 2015 and as of last year works for intel... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_(engineer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_(engineer)
- eatbitseveryday 7y agoYes, he’s head of our architecture group now. Source: I work at Intel currently.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- fibers 7y agodoes this mean they broke the embargo for 7/7??
- trynumber9 7y agoThe source, Videocardz, deals in leaks. Someone broke the NDA but I don't see anything in the picture that would reveal who.
- harry8 7y agoAnyone know where to find an inter-thread latency benchmark comparison?
- wmf 7y agoShhhh, you're killing the narrative. Nobody wants to talk about CCXs.
- harry8 7y agoActually I'm not doing anything, I just want to see some numbers. Nobody has anything? Is there any public access to a shell on one of these things to run your own benchmark?
- wmf 7y agoThey won't be released for two weeks, so we're mostly seeing cherry-picked benchmarks that favor Zen because they have no core-to-core communication.
- vkaku 7y agoI'm quite excited with what AMD has pushed on socket AM4 over the last three years. Come September they're going to release the 3950x,and if folks can wait a bit, you get 16 cores/32 threads on one socket. But even on a budget, the 3600G looks like a great buy with Navi 20+3600 on chip. The deal is that they have reasonable spectre mitigations working since last few gens, and Intel has to fix this if they need to be competitive. Not to mention standardizing a chipset.
- BorRagnarok 7y agoI haven't seen that 3600G. I've seen announcements for a 3400G and a 3200G, and although I'd love a APU with 20 Navi cores in it, I don't think it'll happen this time around. Maybe in a year or so.
- tracker1 7y agoIIRC the 3000 G series is 12nm Zen+ with some extra tweaks, not Zen2... same for the 3000 mobile series.
- BorRagnarok 7y agoThat's true. Same amount of cores, same amount of Navi cores. Clock speeds are better and iirc cache is bigger. I'm curious as to what AMD will put in their APU's once they move them to 7nm.
- toast0 7y agoNote that AMDs mobile/APU are this year's series number and last year's CPU architecture. If you really like the IPC gains for Zen2, you may be disappointed with an APU that only has Zen+. Intel runs things the other way lately, mobile gets released first, then desktop, then server.
- ivl 7y agoSeeing that screenshot and how high well the i7-6900k hangs with much more recent hardware impresses me. I'm quite glad I went with Broadwell E. Probably means I'll be looking to upgrade around Zen 2+.
- jcelerier 7y agoas the owner of a 4.3ghz 6900k which I already find way too slow... cries
- ivl 7y agoI've had my 6850k stable at 4.2ghz and I'm not finding it too slow, but I've also got a pair of servers I offload anything I can to, so that has definitely had an impact on my perception of how fast it is. But I'd say it's far from being too slow. The boot times and load times for most software is fine for my use cases. It was just too expensive of a build to justify an upgrade so soon.
- andy_ppp 7y agoI want to see performance between Zen 2 and Intel with security mitigations enabled on Intel (AMD don't need any with Zen 2). Should be interesting and I suspect on even games AMD will be 10%+ ahead.
- pingec 7y agoAre the Intel scores from these benchmarks with meltdown, spectre etc. mitigations enabled or disabled?