3 ms·
This is comparing an unreleased CPU to a two year old one. But more importantly, it gives no information on how the Intel CPU was configured and we have no ide
by esmi 7y ago
This is comparing an unreleased CPU to a two year old one.
But more importantly, it gives no information on how the Intel CPU was configured and we have no idea what kind of memory it was paired with.
It's just comparing two random user submissions. Here's another i9-9980XE where Intel scored 7700 in single core.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12111208 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12111208
- zamadatix 7y ago> This is comparing an unreleased CPU It comes out in 10 days, does it really matter? > to a two year old one. The 9980XE launched Q4 2018, did you mean 2 quarter old? This also seems to imply Intel has something else better is due for release in the next year, there is nothing on the roadmap. > It's just comparing two random user submissions. Here's another i9-9980XE where Intel scored 7700 in single core. Because that's an extreme OC bench at +800 MHz and this was a stock run. Check the .gb4
- craftyguy 7y ago> It comes out in 10 days, does it really matter? Yea it does, because no one in the public can reproduce the results to verify them.
- shereadsthenews 7y agoThe 9980XE is just a really large/fast Skylake CPU. Skylake is years old. If you wanted this level of performance from Intel you could have ordered the Xeon Gold 6154 way back in 2017. It seems fair to call this a 2-year-old part. A more comparable part would be the i9-9980HK.
- leetcrew 7y ago> A more comparable part would be the i9-9980HK not really, that's an eight core CPU (and also a mobile part). I'm very interested to see how the lower core count Ryzen 2s compare to their Intel counterparts in single-thread, but part of what's so impressive about the (early) 3900X/3950X results is that they offer this kind of performance with more cores and at a consumer-friendly price point. you're right that Skylake is an old design at this point, but intel invites this kind of comparison when they can't manage to ship an HCC version of their latest tech. entirely fair, imo.
- shereadsthenews 7y agoTrue, Intel's part numbering scheme has passed beyond all reason. Think about the i9-9900K/KF. Existing SKU, in stock at Newegg for $479. You don't get quite as many cores but you get a lower price and higher single-core performance, and it exists right now instead of being unobtainable hypeware.
- leetcrew 7y agolike I said, I'm very interested to see the head-to-heads, especially the overclocking results. my use case is c++ compilation and csgo so it looks like it'll be a tough choice.
- shereadsthenews 7y agoSeems like for C++ builds you are always going to want the most cores for the money, even if the single core performance is a little worse.
- justsid 7y ago> The 9980XE is just a really large/fast Skylake CPU. Skylake is years old. Unfortunately larger and slightly refined Skylakes is all that Intel ships these days on Desktop. If it’s unfair to compare Ryzen CPUs to that, then I’m afraid there is no fair comparison that can be made until Intel gets around making actually new CPUs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vkaku 7y agoThe deal is that Intel is still trying to sell expensive CPUs and there's no reason for a customer to be buying them - they could be putting that money into other components - or using it for something else.
- imtringued 7y agoOlder CPUs generally are a better deal because they have seen a few iterations of price decreases. A 1800x costs $200, a 2700X costs $260. Both have the same core count. Most likely the latest 8 core will cost more than $300.