AMD vs Intel Single threading?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Dec 2019 at 11:57

MartinPrince said:
Actually yes you're right. I remember doing that on my Xeon 24 core system, though to get the cores to load up I had to select at least 6 simultaneously. The problem was that quite a few would error and then it became a chore to go and find which ones and then redo them, which in turn would offset the export into Lightroom which just meant more work for me in the end.

I'll try the batch export again for v3 which has recently come out to see if it's any better as then the 3900X will come into it's own and that gives me another option.

Well I know the version last year didn't have that problem but I was only running two at the same time,in batches of 50 pictures.

MartinPrince · 14 Dec 2019 at 10:01

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well I know the version last year didn't have that problem but I was only running two at the same time,in batches of 50 pictures.

Two is rarely a problem it is when you start to go 4+, which is what I generally need to do to keep the cores loaded and maximise speed.

sandys · 14 Dec 2019 at 10:16

Well I dropped in my tr2 I always knew it was a weak move from tr1 hence not jumping on it last year when launched, but wow after a few benches including this one its performance really is nothing to write home about, barely any quicker than what I had before, at least I got it cheap and added a few more cores, will help mt race encodes next year, thought the extra clockspeed and cache might give me more in games but meh. Couldn't even do any better on the RAM, so lame.

Got me down to 18s on this application mostly by virtue of its 4.4ghz clock.

4K8KW10 · 16 Dec 2019 at 21:10

So much that intel gives more....

12 Core CPU Battle – AMD Ryzen 9 3900X at 5.62 GHz Beats Intel Core i9-9920X at 5.92 GHz, Claims World Record
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-12-core-cpu-world-record-core-i9-9920x-6-ghz/

HangTime · 17 Dec 2019 at 16:36

humbug said:
Haven't watched this yet but the Thumbnail says it all....

Edit: Look around you HangTime, Ryzen everywhere.....

LePhuronn said:
Um, have you not been paying attention since July? You don't consider Zen 2 to be annihilating Intel?

OK then...

I'm not talking about sales, it's about my perception of performance relative to what has come before, and referencing the stats that were quoted. And no, I don't consider Zen 2 to be annihilating Intel or Zen+ for that matter (perhaps you have lower expectations than I - I already noted performance increases of <10% at the same clock speed across multiple generations and an absence of massive clock speed increases); they are good cpus but as I said it's not giving me that same wow feeling as an A64 or Core2. We're still seeing those incremental improvements rather than a sea change - being the best isn't good enough to win my ANNIHILATOR badge.

Joxeon · 17 Dec 2019 at 16:46

HangTime said:
I'm not talking about sales, it's about my perception of performance relative to what has come before, and referencing the stats that were quoted. And no, I don't consider Zen 2 to be annihilating Intel or Zen+ for that matter (perhaps you have lower expectations than I - I already noted performance increases of <10% at the same clock speed across multiple generations and an absence of massive clock speed increases); they are good cpus but as I said it's not giving me that same wow feeling as an A64 or Core2. We're still seeing those incremental improvements rather than a sea change - being the best isn't good enough to win my ANNIHILATOR badge.

The 12 and 16 core desktop parts are more than a 10% bump from what was available previously. Massive clock increases are a thing of the past as they cannot really go much higher than 5ghz, core count however can keep increasing but the software needs to advance to keep up.

humbug · 17 Dec 2019 at 17:23

HangTime said:
I'm not talking about sales, it's about my perception of performance relative to what has come before, and referencing the stats that were quoted. And no, I don't consider Zen 2 to be annihilating Intel or Zen+ for that matter (perhaps you have lower expectations than I - I already noted performance increases of <10% at the same clock speed across multiple generations and an absence of massive clock speed increases); they are good cpus but as I said it's not giving me that same wow feeling as an A64 or Core2. We're still seeing those incremental improvements rather than a sea change - being the best isn't good enough to win my ANNIHILATOR badge.

AMD's fastest CPU.
1, Score 17824: AMD Threadripper 3970X at 4.05Ghz, g0th2000

Intel's fastest CPU.
7, Score 11660: Intel Core i9 10980XE at 5.0Ghz, RSR

A performance difference of 54% to AMD.

This is AMD's fastest mainstream.
1, Score 10439: AMD Ryzen R9 3950X at 4.35Ghz, jordand77

What we are seeing here is Intel's best HEDT is only competitive with AMD's best Mainsteam, Intel get hammered in HEDT and they ain't even trying.

LePhuronn · 17 Dec 2019 at 18:13

HangTime said:
We're still seeing those incremental improvements rather than a sea change

Well that's just a ridiculous opinion, pig-headed almost, and should be called out as such.

MartinPrince · 17 Dec 2019 at 18:22

Let's keep it on topic folks

sandys · 17 Dec 2019 at 20:16

MartinPrince said:
Let's keep it on topic folks

Indeed multicore cinebench has no relevance in a topic regarding single threaded performance.

Robert896r1 · 21 Dec 2019 at 23:26

Speaking of single thread, Geekbench 3 is good: https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8832940

That's my 9900k 52/47 and tuned RAM. C17/ 4133 1T

Tuned Bdie on a good Z390 board unlocks good performance on intel also. The learning curve is a bit steeper though as you're not limited by IF ratios so lots of combos you can do.

sandys · 22 Dec 2019 at 12:42

I have not used 3 but have used geekbench 5 to compare my devices, interesting to see how strong smartphones are becoming, I think the iPhone has stronger single core, makes me sad that my laptoop has stronger cpu single thread than my desktop, wht a waste

Some of my machines below.

sandys · 22 Dec 2019 at 13:20

Robert896r1 said:
Speaking of single thread, Geekbench 3 is good: https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8832940

That's my 9900k 52/47 and tuned RAM. C17/ 4133 1T

Tuned Bdie on a good Z390 board unlocks good performance on intel also. The learning curve is a bit steeper though as you're not limited by IF ratios so lots of combos you can do.

Its safe to say that is a fair bit quicker than mine by some ~23%

https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/compare/8833068?baseline=8832940

MartinPrince · 29 Feb 2020 at 12:31

Robert896r1 said:
Speaking of single thread, Geekbench 3 is good: https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8832940

That's my 9900k 52/47 and tuned RAM. C17/ 4133 1T

Tuned Bdie on a good Z390 board unlocks good performance on intel also. The learning curve is a bit steeper though as you're not limited by IF ratios so lots of combos you can do.

Just an update. After just having my memory at 2666Mhz C15 I thought I'd get some better RAM at least as good as my 3900X as that would be an even fairer comparison as my 3900X had tuned 3733 C14 RAM.

I got the same result as you with the 9700K @ 5.2Ghz (& 5.3Ghz) doing it in a constant 15secs.

I don't know if I've missed any but so far the results seem to be:

Intel [email protected] 15secs Robert896r1
Intel [email protected] 15secs MartinPrince
ThreadRipper 3960X 18secs amigafan2003
Ryzen 3900X 18secs MartinPrince
Threadripper 2920X 22secs sandys
Ryzen 3600 24secs humbug
Intel [email protected] 24secs MartinPrince
Ryzen 2700@4Ghz 25secs CAT-THE-FIFTH(mate)
Ryzen 2600 27secs CAT-THE-FIFTH
Intel 4790s 38secs MartinPrince
Intel [email protected] 44secs MartinPrince

It would be interesting to see what somebody with a 3700X/3800X gets.
Though this is not strictly 'single' threaded I suspect it is indicative of how software that does not constantly max out 8/16+ will behave.

humbug · 29 Feb 2020 at 12:47

Hows this for a quick dirt run on a £155 CPU with junk RAM on an £80 3 year old motherboard?

ST 4861
MT 28279

Not bad eh?

https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8847989

MartinPrince · 29 Feb 2020 at 13:29

humbug said:
Hows this for a quick dirt run on a £155 CPU with junk RAM on an £80 3 year old motherboard?

ST 4861
MT 28279

Not bad eh?

https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8847989

That's no bad at all, especially when you consider the total cost of the components, this is where Ryzen is king.

Though I do seem to remember you saying that you're 3600 was faster than my 9700k in this realm.

The reality is that my 9700k is ~37% faster. Compared to your Geekbench 3 my 9700K is ~25% faster.

humbug · 29 Feb 2020 at 13:32

MartinPrince said:
That's no bad at all, especially when you consider the total cost of the components, this is where Ryzen is king.

Though I do seem to remember you saying that you're 3600 was faster than my 9700k in this realm. The reality is that my 9700k is ~37% faster. Compared to your Geekbench 3 my 9700K is ~25% faster.

I don't remember saying that, i do remember saying that the 3600 and 8700K are probably better for longevity given the thread count difference.

Also, why are we running a Geekbench version that was released in 2013?

PS: what speed is that? that must be around 5.4Ghz.

Edit: its 37% or 25%, it can't be both and its 25% where did the 37% come from?

sandys · 29 Feb 2020 at 16:15

MartinPrince said:
Just an update. After just having my memory at 2666Mhz C15 I thought I'd get some better RAM at least as good as my 3900X as that would be an even fairer comparison as my 3900X had tuned 3733 C14 RAM.

I got the same result as you with the 9700K @ 5.2Ghz (& 5.3Ghz) doing it in a constant 15secs.I don't know if I've missed any but so far the results seem to be:

Intel [email protected] 15secs Robert896r1
Intel [email protected] 15secs MartinPrince
ThreadRipper 3960X 18secs amigafan2003
Ryzen 3900X 18secs MartinPrince
Threadripper 2920X 22secs sandys
Ryzen 3600 24secs humbug
Intel [email protected] 24secs MartinPrince
Ryzen 2700@4Ghz 25secs CAT-THE-FIFTH(mate)
Ryzen 2600 27secs CAT-THE-FIFTH
Intel 4790s 38secs MartinPrince
Intel [email protected] 44secs MartinPrince

It would be interesting to see what somebody with a 3700X/3800X gets.
Though this is not strictly 'single' threaded I suspect it is indicative of how software that does not constantly max out 8/16+ will behave.

Its all about clockspeed and latency I think for this one, so will more depend on how a system is tuned over anything else, hence my gen 1 Ryzen being so close to much faster TR3 chips.

my 22s was a stock TR1900x @3.9, I got 19s with 4,2 on 1900x, when I put the TR 2920x in I only managed 18s with 4.4Ghz but memory couldn't run as aggressive timings as I did on 1900x. It ran quicker with SMT off.

Robert896r1 · 1 Mar 2020 at 10:04

humbug said:
Hows this for a quick dirt run on a £155 CPU with junk RAM on an £80 3 year old motherboard?

ST 4861
MT 28279

Not bad eh?

https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8847989

Single core is low and about 1100 below a tuned 9 series. Whether that hurts you is dependent on your workloads.

You also have the ram latency and frequency limitation due to 1:1 ratio to deal with.

BigEars · 1 Mar 2020 at 10:48

humbug said:
and its 25%

Probably closer to 17% if both are run on 64-bit or 32-bit. Comparing 32-bit runs against 64-bit runs is a no no unless explicitly wanting to see the difference between them.