AMD vs Intel Single threading?

MartinPrince · 7 Dec 2019 at 16:34

4K8KW10 said:
Very well, so well that AMD tops the charts.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,9.html

When the OP asked about Single Threaded performance why would you post a graph that refers to IPC? The two are not the same! :rolleyes:

This is the graph you should have posted...

As you can see Intel are still slightly ahead in Single Threaded performance and this is at stock. Considering the Intel CPU's will overclock relatively much higher than Ryzen then the single threaded gap will only get bigger.

4K8KW10 · 7 Dec 2019 at 16:56

MartinPrince said:
When the OP asked about Single Threaded performance why would you post a graph that refers to IPC? The two are not the same!

This is the graph you should have posted...

As you can see Intel are still slightly ahead in Single Threaded performance and this is at stock. Considering the Intel CPU's will overclock relatively much higher than Ryzen then the single threaded gap will only get bigger.

Because this graph shows relative performance based on and depending on your ability to scale the frequency of your own sample (so it's not really representative), while the IPC graph shows the performance in absolute terms.

Rroff · 7 Dec 2019 at 17:08

End of the day though you need to take real world circumstances into account - you won't be running these CPUs at identical frequencies so single core boost and how long it can be sustained relative to work load is important as well as clock for clock IPC.

MartinPrince · 7 Dec 2019 at 17:51

4K8KW10 said:
Because this graph shows relative performance based on and depending on your ability to scale the frequency of your own sample (so it's not really representative), while the IPC graph shows the performance in absolute terms.

There simply is no justification for showing an IPC chart when somebody asked about Single Threaded performance, especially when the Single Threaded performance graph is on the same page as the IPC one. :rolleyes:

The IPC chart even states at the top "...@3500Mhz", so all CPU's were run at 3500Mhz.

When the all core CPU clock of the 3900X is ~4.2Ghz (single might touch 4.6GHz briefly) and the all core of the 9700K/9900K is ~4.9Ghz/5Ghz then the only metric which can indicate what single threaded performance will be like is.... [drum roll] A Single Threaded performance chart. Most definitely not an IPC one which will only show... [another drum roll please maestro] IPC (Instructions Per Clock).

To try and extrapolate something from an IPC chart (which you are doing) other than IPC is fatuous in the extreme.

Journey · 7 Dec 2019 at 17:55

MartinPrince said:
and the all core of the 9700K/9900K is ~4.9Ghz/5Ghz

Yeah, its not.

b00merang69 · 7 Dec 2019 at 17:58

If someone asked me the question the OP asked I would say Intel is Single Thread King (I know many have heard this statement made before), that is at stock and more so with OC which Intel can do well with at least 1GHZ+ and also still ahead in gaming.

sideways14a · 7 Dec 2019 at 18:03

You have to watch out when looking at many of these performance charts as the turbo boost especially from intels side can have a massive impact.
Being ~15% faster in a single thread test is all very well but if that test completes it inside the boost bubble then its not going to show the real frequency you can sustain. There can be a very big difference once that boost drops back to closer to base or whatever.

Of course locking frequency ect can get round this but stock for stock... dont be surprised if performance plummets once the boost period finishes - many laptop builds suffer from this.

Grim5 · 7 Dec 2019 at 18:33

b00merang69 said:
If someone asked me the question the OP asked I would say Intel is Single Thread King (I know many have heard this statement made before), that is at stock and more so with OC which Intel can do well with at least 1GHZ+ and also still ahead in gaming.

AMD is a bit bit behind in clocks still. Can't be deceived by the 4.7ghz claimed boost of the box. Out of the box the 3950x will settle at 4.2ghz during gaming, while a 9900ks will stay at 5ghz. That 800mhz difference is massive and so it's very impressive how close the gaming performance between the two is.

Maldoror · 7 Dec 2019 at 18:43

4K8KW10 said:
Because this graph shows relative performance based on and depending on your ability to scale the frequency of your own sample (so it's not really representative), while the IPC graph shows the performance in absolute terms.

That's not what absolute terms means, either in common parlance or exacting. In absolute terms (IPC+clockspeed, i.e. the end result), Intel wins single threaded performance.

Maldoror · 7 Dec 2019 at 18:48

There's also no real need to source outside this forum for the answer. We have a thread that is maintained by the hard work of the members and added to by the contributors and overclockers we have here.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-official-ocuk-cinebench-r20-benchmark-thread.18849380/

The top 5 single threaded scores on OcUK:

1, Score 580: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.45Ghz, RSR
2, Score 578: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.5Ghz, Robert896r1
3, Score 569: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.4Ghz, moorhen2
4, Score 563: Intel core i9 9900K at 5.35Ghz, Nickolp1974
5, Score 559: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.36Ghz, tyler_jrb

i.e.

INTEL
INTEL
INTEL
INTEL
INTEL

And these results are backed up by those of Cine15, games, 3Dmark Cpu score, etc.

The first AMD single threaded result on this forum is on 10th place.

AMD are doing well atm but purposeful disinformation is silly and does a disservice to what this forum is, i.e. somewhere people often submit scores and personal expertise. There are no shades of grey or blurred lines - single threaded performance still belongs to Intel. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd recommend buying an Intel CPU, that would depend on your given use case. But the numbers - and hard-work of this forum - should have merit.

sideways14a · 7 Dec 2019 at 19:00

It is interesting looking at those results - this caught my eye.

9, Score 547: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Radox-0
10, Score 544: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at 4.675Ghz, TNA
11, Score 544: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.675Ghz, Shac

Shows how far AMD has come when a 5.2ghz intel chip is needed to just pass the Zen3 stuff circa half a Ghz lower in clock speed.

TNA · 7 Dec 2019 at 19:22

I am surprised that my 3600 is able to get 1st place among AMD CPU's. Still waiting for a 3950X to hit 4700mhz in this test.

Maldoror · 7 Dec 2019 at 19:23

sideways14a said:
It is interesting looking at those results - this caught my eye.

9, Score 547: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Radox-0
10, Score 544: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at 4.675Ghz, TNA
11, Score 544: AMD Ryzen R9 3900X at 4.675Ghz, Shac

Shows how far AMD has come when a 5.2ghz intel chip is needed to just pass the Zen3 stuff circa half a Ghz lower in clock speed.

Indeed, and the next generation of Ryzen may be able to push the clockspeed enough to overtake - it only needs a few hundred mhz more.

4K8KW10 · 7 Dec 2019 at 19:31

Maldoror said:
That's not what absolute terms means, either in common parlance or exacting. In absolute terms (IPC+clockspeed, i.e. the end result), Intel wins single threaded performance.

This is not true. You can OC the Ryzen to 6GHz on all cores. I don't see what's the problem to overclock one of its cores to 5.2GHz or more.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-R...a-world-record-breaking-rampage.444817.0.html
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X gets clocked at 5.75 GHz and goes on a world record-breaking rampage

AMD Ryzen 5 smashes records at nearly 6GHz
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-5-smashes-records-at-6ghz/

Martini1991 · 7 Dec 2019 at 20:07

4K8KW10 said:
This is not true. You can OC the Ryzen to 6GHz on all cores. I don't see what's the problem to overclock one of its cores to 5.2GHz or more.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-R...a-world-record-breaking-rampage.444817.0.html
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X gets clocked at 5.75 GHz and goes on a world record-breaking rampage

AMD Ryzen 5 smashes records at nearly 6GHz
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-5-smashes-records-at-6ghz/

Lol.

This isn't quite the same thing.

Intel have very marginal core for core performance advantage over AMD because their CPU's while slightly less clock per clock performance are able to clock higher on average.
Not that in todays market I think it's anything to shout out about, which is why I own a 3900X.

MartinPrince · 7 Dec 2019 at 20:39

Journey said:
Yeah, its not.

Your correct, I meant boost clock (taken from Intel's info)

Armageus · 7 Dec 2019 at 22:14

4K8KW10 said:
This is not true. You can OC the Ryzen to 6GHz on all cores. I don't see what's the problem to overclock one of its cores to 5.2GHz or more.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-R...a-world-record-breaking-rampage.444817.0.html
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X gets clocked at 5.75 GHz and goes on a world record-breaking rampage

AMD Ryzen 5 smashes records at nearly 6GHz
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-5-smashes-records-at-6ghz/

If we're going to cherry pick, then best have a near 7ghz 9900ks
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/amp/news/intel-core-i9-9900ks-world-records

4K8KW10 · 7 Dec 2019 at 22:56

Armageus said:
If we're going to cherry pick, then best have a near 7ghz 9900ks
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/amp/news/intel-core-i9-9900ks-world-records

Well, my point was that users should OC the Ryzens somehow like this:

After much tinkering (and a few crashes, due to an issue with AMD's OverDrive software loading bunk drivers), I was able to get the Ryzen 9 3950X to a stable overclock of 4.1GHz on all cores, with a maximum boost single-core clock of 5.2GHz.

Once the overclocking profile was in place (configured through a hardware-based OC via the motherboard), I ran 7-Zip again and saw an increase of 8 percent in overall all-core performance, while 3DMark scores improved only slightly, at a peak of 4.3 percent. Cinebench single-core performance saw a slightly larger gain (9.1 percent)

https://www.pcmag.com/review/371925/amd-ryzen-9-3950x

9.1% on top 213 is 232, which is higher than i9-9900KS.

Ice Tea · 7 Dec 2019 at 23:30

@sandys , @Panos

Thanks both , i didn't consider the side channel patches.

TNA · 7 Dec 2019 at 23:40

Maybe 4K8K should put his money where his unrelenting mouth is and buy a zen2 cpu and "somehow" overclock it like the article he quoted

Too funny how he cherry picks and makes it sound like it is normal.

Look at my 3600 for example. It does 4.4GHz all core at 1.275v. Why does no one else do this I wonder? He basically does not know how to use Google or interpret the results he finds. Lol.