6 ms·
The progress is ok, just incremental. AMD had been playing catch up, until Ryzen/Threadripper. Just for comparison, here are the numbers from my GeekBench 4 r
by GiorgioG 7y ago
The progress is ok, just incremental. AMD had been playing catch up, until Ryzen/Threadripper.
Just for comparison, here are the numbers from my GeekBench 4 run:
Single-Threaded: 4,746
Multi-Threaded: 34,586
According to a leaked benchmark, the Threadripper 3000's numbers are:
Single-Threaded: 5,519
Multi-Threaded: 68,279
The multithreaded benchmark is 2x, that's a no-brainer since it's likely to have 32 cores vs the 1950x's 16 cores. Now, I will say that TR3000 benchmark is not overclocked (3.6ghz.) But from what I've read, it seems like there's not much room for these latest chips to be overclocked. So, despite being the 3rd iteration, the TR3000 is only 16% faster in single-threaded benchmarks than my 1950X.
Intel's 9900K (overclocked) gets a single-threaded GB4 score of ~7,000. That (or its successor) may be my next machine.
- x3sphere 7y agoHonestly, that seems rather low. It looks like a lot of Ryzen 3900X's are doing well over 6000 on Geekbench? Ie. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14151649 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14151649 Is the Threadripper 3000 test also from Geekbench V4? I noticed they added V5. I don't see why it should be so far behind the Ryzen in single thread... unless the boost isn't working properly or something, could be disabled if it's a test chip.
- GiorgioG 7y agoYep, it's from GBv4. It could be that the 3900X is clocked higher than the TR3000. Given that they're packing more cores on the chip, it's possible that they can't dissipate heat as well and limit the single-core top-end speed on the TR3000s more than on the Ryzen 3000 series.