That represents batch exporting, which is multithreaded process and something I never do. A better indicator is the Photoshop graph in the Gamers Nexus Ryzen 3900X review.
You really are not reading this right are you?? Its nothing to do with more cores - the 8C Ryzen 7 3700X is significantly faster than the 8C Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i9 9900K. Its beating 12C and 16C CPUs.
A 12 core Ryzen 9 3900X is faster than an 18 core Core i9 9980XE.
The performance is obviously not just down to more cores,as its more cores which is not at play here,its cache,etc.
Edit!!
It can't be cache either as the Core i9 9980XE has a ton of it too.
I looked at the GN review,too which matches the other review I saw with Adobe PS by the same amount with an overclocked Intel CPU which was around 10% or thereabouts.
Overclocked to its literal end,there is barely a 9% difference in Adobe CC,between a 5.2GHZ Core i9 9900K and a stock clocked Ryzen 9 3900X in a relatively lightly threaded photo task.
The issue is this is not just a simplistic measure of single core performance.
Look at the 5.1GHZ Core i5 9600K - it is barely matching a Ryzen 9 3900X which does not even turbo to 4.6GHZ consistently. The Stilt at best managed 4.575GHZ with a BIOS released today and he works with Asus. Most reviews had it hit a 4.4GHZ wall.
A stock Core i7 9700K is actually behind a stock Ryzen 9 3900X.
Looking at the Ryzen 5 3600 numbers,its even more amazing. A stock Ryzen 5 3600 is beaten by around 10% by a Core i5 9600K overclocked to 5.1GHZ or thereabouts. At stock the Ryzen 5 3600 is faster and its sub 4.3GHZ IIRC.
This is more than what the Anandtech IPC measurements are showing.
Zen+ was roughly approximate to Broadwell level IPC,with SMT which appeared to scale better than Intel. Zen 2 is
slightly better than Intel but its under 5% looking above. It can't explain some of these performance figures.
