5 ms·

> but also the lacklustre performance of Intel Current-gen Intel & AMD processors are pretty much neck-to-neck in both performance and price.

Jonnax 6y ago
How about power consumption? Or PCIe Gen 4 support? I wouldn't say Intel has anything worth looking into if you want 32 or 64 cores on the desktop.
- modzu 6y ago
  well, the Intel chips actually exist
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  Gamers Nexus found negligible impact from PCIe 4, using RTX 3080 and 4K games to saturate bandwidth so could be a different story from other types of workloads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKVVtirNM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKVVtirNM8
  - tw04 6y ago
    I generally don't buy a new PC every year and there's something to be said about future proofing. PCIe 4 may be negligible today, I doubt that will be the case in 2 years when we've been through at least one full graphics card lifecycle and maybe 2, depending on how heated the competition becomes. Even if I were to buy a new CPU, I don't want to buy a new motherboard too just to have access to 4.0 slots.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      I think the integrated graphics in AMD APUs are way beyond adequate for a large number of people. Unless you're running games from the last few years you don't even need a graphics card, never mind a dedicated PCIe slot. 3.0 should provide good performance on NVME drives and WiFi.
  - extrememota 6y ago
    However, if you do any kind of GPU computation PCIe4 is the thing to have. Same goes for RTX 3080 etc.
  - sdflhasjd 6y ago
    As I understand, that is to be expected because PCIe GPUs get 16 lanes, which is more than enough. There's more to PCIe than just graphics cards. SSDs, Thunderbolt, 10G Ethernet, USB 3.1-2 are some bandwidth demanding applications that could benefit PCIe NVME drives only get 4 lanes through the m.2 port, and drives run close to the bandwidth limits on 3.0, I think I've seen benchmarks showing 30% improvements on 4.0 compared to 3.0 I'd also be interested in what difference there is running a PCIe 4.0 graphics card with only 8 lanes on 4.0 vs 3.0
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > I'd also be interested in what difference there is running a PCIe 4.0 graphics card with only 8 lanes on 4.0 vs 3.0 it's measurable, but not very significant. take a look at these charts: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/27.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-p... (pcie 2.0 x16 is equivalent to or slightly worse than pcie 3.0 x8)
simion314 6y ago
>Current-gen Intel & AMD processors are pretty much neck-to-neck in both performance and price. I think this is only if you ignore multi-threading but I might be wrong, did Intel release better multi core CPUs or cut down the prices?
- lhl 6y ago
  The newest Intel 11th-gen i9-11900K actually reduces core count from 10 (on the i9-10900K) to 8, although leaked performance numbers point to the new chip matching last-gen's multi-threaded performance due to a huge single-threaded performance bump. It's worth pointing out that their new chips aren't out yet ("Q1") and Intel has completely given up on matching AMD's 12C or 16C parts.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  Here's the i9-10900k 10-core vs AMD 5900x 12-core. Intel comes in at about $52/core, and AMD at $46/core (assuming you can find a 5900x, good luck). https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-5900X-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10900K/4087vs4071 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-5900X-vs-I... This chart from Tom's Hardware shows a similar story: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/auqNuTshdmehuqLXX32BBF-970-80.png.webp https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/auqNuTshdmehuqLXX32BBF-970... AMD Zen3 has a lead on Intel 10th gen, but the cost/performance story has shifted.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    So AMD is still cheaper but somehow "story has shifted"? AMD is still ~12% cheaper per core and has more cores. Also, 2nd image you linked, AMD has better performance per core.
beezle 6y ago
While I don't think you should be downvoted, I think you are probably wrong - there is quite a bit difference in the passmark ratings. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+9+5900X&id=3870 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+9+5900X&i... https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i9-10900K+%40+3.70GHz&id=3730 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i9-10900...
- totalZero 6y ago
  I think the comment to which you replied is definitely true for laptops, and it is yet to be clarified for desktops. Also, not to be overly pedantic but technically that 10900K is not the current generation (see the "10" at the beginning of the model designation); the 11th-gen Rocket Lake is coming out imminently.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    the IPC boost might be enough to take back the single-thread crown. I highly doubt the 8-core top SKU is going to beat the 12-core 5900X in parallel workloads, but we'll see soon enough.
neogodless 6y ago
https://www.techspot.com/review/2188-amd-ryzen-5980hs/ https://www.techspot.com/review/2188-amd-ryzen-5980hs/ For example, Cinebench R20: Ryzen 9 5980HS (35W) scores 4517, Core i9-10980HK scores 3484. Other benchmarks follow suit, but that's the first one listed. > With Ryzen 5000, and by extension the Ryzen 9 5980HS, AMD is delivering much better single-thread performance. The 5980HS provides a ~20% gain versus the 4900HS, which is significant for an architectural improvement on the same process node. This takes the 5980HS above Intel’s 10th-gen H-series in all workloads, and allows Zen 3 to trade blows with Intel’s Tiger Lake featuring Willow Cove CPU cores Tiger Lake is competitive in single core, but I believe they currently top out at 4-core CPUs. > The Ryzen 9 5980HS is by far the fastest mobile processor available in the 35W power class, and easily offers 20-30% more performance than Intel’s best chip, the Core i9-10980HK, at a lower power level.

Jonnax 6y ago

How about power consumption? Or PCIe Gen 4 support? I wouldn't say Intel has anything worth looking into if you want 32 or 64 cores on the desktop.

modzu 6y ago
well, the Intel chips actually exist
tomnipotent 6y ago
Gamers Nexus found negligible impact from PCIe 4, using RTX 3080 and 4K games to saturate bandwidth so could be a different story from other types of workloads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKVVtirNM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKVVtirNM8
- tw04 6y ago
  I generally don't buy a new PC every year and there's something to be said about future proofing. PCIe 4 may be negligible today, I doubt that will be the case in 2 years when we've been through at least one full graphics card lifecycle and maybe 2, depending on how heated the competition becomes. Even if I were to buy a new CPU, I don't want to buy a new motherboard too just to have access to 4.0 slots.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    I think the integrated graphics in AMD APUs are way beyond adequate for a large number of people. Unless you're running games from the last few years you don't even need a graphics card, never mind a dedicated PCIe slot. 3.0 should provide good performance on NVME drives and WiFi.
- extrememota 6y ago
  However, if you do any kind of GPU computation PCIe4 is the thing to have. Same goes for RTX 3080 etc.
- sdflhasjd 6y ago
  As I understand, that is to be expected because PCIe GPUs get 16 lanes, which is more than enough. There's more to PCIe than just graphics cards. SSDs, Thunderbolt, 10G Ethernet, USB 3.1-2 are some bandwidth demanding applications that could benefit PCIe NVME drives only get 4 lanes through the m.2 port, and drives run close to the bandwidth limits on 3.0, I think I've seen benchmarks showing 30% improvements on 4.0 compared to 3.0 I'd also be interested in what difference there is running a PCIe 4.0 graphics card with only 8 lanes on 4.0 vs 3.0
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > I'd also be interested in what difference there is running a PCIe 4.0 graphics card with only 8 lanes on 4.0 vs 3.0 it's measurable, but not very significant. take a look at these charts: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/27.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-p... (pcie 2.0 x16 is equivalent to or slightly worse than pcie 3.0 x8)

simion314 6y ago

>Current-gen Intel & AMD processors are pretty much neck-to-neck in both performance and price. I think this is only if you ignore multi-threading but I might be wrong, did Intel release better multi core CPUs or cut down the prices?

lhl 6y ago
The newest Intel 11th-gen i9-11900K actually reduces core count from 10 (on the i9-10900K) to 8, although leaked performance numbers point to the new chip matching last-gen's multi-threaded performance due to a huge single-threaded performance bump. It's worth pointing out that their new chips aren't out yet ("Q1") and Intel has completely given up on matching AMD's 12C or 16C parts.
tomnipotent 6y ago
Here's the i9-10900k 10-core vs AMD 5900x 12-core. Intel comes in at about $52/core, and AMD at $46/core (assuming you can find a 5900x, good luck). https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-5900X-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10900K/4087vs4071 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-5900X-vs-I... This chart from Tom's Hardware shows a similar story: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/auqNuTshdmehuqLXX32BBF-970-80.png.webp https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/auqNuTshdmehuqLXX32BBF-970... AMD Zen3 has a lead on Intel 10th gen, but the cost/performance story has shifted.
- darkwater 6y ago
  So AMD is still cheaper but somehow "story has shifted"? AMD is still ~12% cheaper per core and has more cores. Also, 2nd image you linked, AMD has better performance per core.

beezle 6y ago

While I don't think you should be downvoted, I think you are probably wrong - there is quite a bit difference in the passmark ratings. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+9+5900X&id=3870 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+9+5900X&i... https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i9-10900K+%40+3.70GHz&id=3730 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i9-10900...

totalZero 6y ago
I think the comment to which you replied is definitely true for laptops, and it is yet to be clarified for desktops. Also, not to be overly pedantic but technically that 10900K is not the current generation (see the "10" at the beginning of the model designation); the 11th-gen Rocket Lake is coming out imminently.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  the IPC boost might be enough to take back the single-thread crown. I highly doubt the 8-core top SKU is going to beat the 12-core 5900X in parallel workloads, but we'll see soon enough.

neogodless 6y ago

https://www.techspot.com/review/2188-amd-ryzen-5980hs/ https://www.techspot.com/review/2188-amd-ryzen-5980hs/ For example, Cinebench R20: Ryzen 9 5980HS (35W) scores 4517, Core i9-10980HK scores 3484. Other benchmarks follow suit, but that's the first one listed. > With Ryzen 5000, and by extension the Ryzen 9 5980HS, AMD is delivering much better single-thread performance. The 5980HS provides a ~20% gain versus the 4900HS, which is significant for an architectural improvement on the same process node. This takes the 5980HS above Intel’s 10th-gen H-series in all workloads, and allows Zen 3 to trade blows with Intel’s Tiger Lake featuring Willow Cove CPU cores Tiger Lake is competitive in single core, but I believe they currently top out at 4-core CPUs. > The Ryzen 9 5980HS is by far the fastest mobile processor available in the 35W power class, and easily offers 20-30% more performance than Intel’s best chip, the Core i9-10980HK, at a lower power level.