They do not last long. I got really lucky
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Core i7-11700K beats Ryzen 9 5950X by 8% in Geekbench 5 single-core benchmark
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,577
That is exaggerated nonsense as the vast majority of programs I use for work and hobbies outside of gaming can not fully utilise more than 8 cores or threads.
You should be aware that even asking can lead to a suspension.
Well you're a sack of interesting fun aren't you? And I don't particularly care if you personally can or cannot utilise cores outside of your very small use case of a computer.
16 cores for £750-850 is a lot better value than probably, knowing Intel, 8 cores for £500 with security flaws, patches and more that will mitigate performance furthermore and consume probably an easy 300W+.
Bet new year's was a joy with you lad.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 37
Regardless of either sides argument. Its going to be a back and forth battle for next few years. Intel has these chips coming in what March? Then AMD will drop revision of Zen3(Warhol) few months after late (3rd early 4th Q) to take back lead. The Intel will do same few moths later....etc. Competition is good. Keeps things moving and price stable.
As far a stability issue with AMD that's user error or some other odd problem. I have built four system in last two years with no stability issues. AMD is solid. Intel is a stable platform also, it just depends on your preference. Really the systems are for differnt uses. AMD has been more multi-core(24-32 thread) heavy work loads where Intel had been geared for lower thread higher performance. The gap has been closed on IPC this last gen. Now Intel has to spend some of that $$$$$ on R&D to get a quick turn around and off the 14nm tit. They cant get much more out of node. power/ core/ IPC/ frequency are at limit.
As far a stability issue with AMD that's user error or some other odd problem. I have built four system in last two years with no stability issues. AMD is solid. Intel is a stable platform also, it just depends on your preference. Really the systems are for differnt uses. AMD has been more multi-core(24-32 thread) heavy work loads where Intel had been geared for lower thread higher performance. The gap has been closed on IPC this last gen. Now Intel has to spend some of that $$$$$ on R&D to get a quick turn around and off the 14nm tit. They cant get much more out of node. power/ core/ IPC/ frequency are at limit.
You don't know what they'll cost so you have no way of knowing whether they will be poor value or not. Number of cores is irrevelant. Performance for your use case is all that matters.
So what if they were the ones intel tended to win? I've already said I'm not interested in 1080p benchmarks. I only mentioned them because a couple of people here have latched on to them for some reason.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2015
- Posts
- 385
- Location
- Wokingham
It's really good that Intel are competing again. Good for us consumers, good for the industry.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,579
- Location
- Rutland
1080P benches are widely abused to show a difference between CPUs that is simply not important in the real world, that's the reason.
There is really no development in the monitors' and gaming resolutions' world, TBH:
Steam Hardware & Software Survey (steampowered.com)
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,577
Whether I am or fun or not has nothing to do with the simple fact you were spewing exaggerated nonsense when you said...
I can see you are also a photographer as you have a Canon EOS R5 (nice camera). This is a list of some of the photographic software that I use that unless in batch mode rarely uses more than 8 cores. You might use some yourself. In all of them my 8 core Intel 9700K is faster than my 16 core 3950x, when just using the CPU (and not GPU where possible).
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Lightroom
DX0 Photolab
Nik Tools
ON1
Topaz Gigapixel
Topaz Denoise
PIPP
RegiStax 6
Sequator
AutoStakkert
The simple fact, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that the vast majority of software outside of video and rendering etc can not take full advantage of more than 8 cores.
Adding the obvious truism to your statement, that Ryzen is still much better value, doesn't negate the nonsense of your previous statement.
I see it might be a while before you reply with more of your puerile quips as you failed to heed my advice and got yourself suspended. Ah well...
Last edited:
These programmes need Ryzen fixes / patches in order to get the performance right.
Like in this - 2.7 times the performance:
PassMark - AMD Ryzen 9 3950X - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
PassMark - Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
Only Intel with its shenanigans and its octopus tentacles achieves to buy the software developers in order to make slower CPUs appear faster!
Like in this - 2.7 times the performance:
PassMark - AMD Ryzen 9 3950X - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
PassMark - Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
Only Intel with its shenanigans and its octopus tentacles achieves to buy the software developers in order to make slower CPUs appear faster!
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,577
No they don't. Stop making stuff up. Do you use the programs in question or are you just going to post up benchmarks and charts that have no bearing whatsoever on my point - why on earth are you posting up a fully threaded benchmark?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
lol one guy posts his real life experience and software behavior and counter to that is more synthetics. Averaging 1000 posts a year and still no grasp of the hobby. Kinda impressive.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 37
Almost all the programs you listed can benefit from more cores or higher IPC. Currently, the fastest cpu for almost all those are the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 9 5900X, and Ryzen 9 5950X. Unless a program has been specifically optimized for Intel then most of the time AMD higher IPC and core count will perform better. I not going to sit here and list a ton of benchmark charts and/or debate it. Just stating facts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,577
This may well be case though my 9700K is at 5.3Ghz with tuned RAM at DDR4000 CAS15.Almost all the programs you listed can benefit from more cores or higher IPC. Currently, the fastest cpu for almost all those are the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 9 5900X, and Ryzen 9 5950X. Unless a program has been specifically optimized for Intel then most of the time AMD higher IPC and core count will perform better. I not going to sit here and list a ton of benchmark charts and/or debate it. Just stating facts.
I should be getting a 5800X before the end of the month (the 5000 series bios for my motherboard is finally out) and I will be testing it for myself. I'm expecting a tuned 5800X to be faster than my tuned [email protected] but I'd like to see by how much for myself - benchmarks often don't give me the full picture for my setups.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 37
Yes true. Also having O/C and tuned system changes numbers. I will say that having a high number of cores (8+) typically only helps with tasks like exporting and generating. The CPU speed and architecture makes a bigger impact than the raw number of cores.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
Sure, and unless your use case is "current games that don't scale to all cores very well", then 8C is not going to cut it, performance-wise. Mine (general use, software development, AI/ML experimentation, cryptography and crypto-cracking) will of course see even more benefit.
You're right that core count is not that interesting on its own, 64 Pentium 2 cores at 233MHz wouldn't match up to a single modern i7 core. But when the individual cores are performing more or less the same within a couple of percent, as AMD and intel are at present, then having more adds up to a more capable chip. As a result the upcoming i9 is competing with the 5800X, not any of the higher core parts.
Intel's "best for gaming" line was largely based on these unrealistic benchmarks, that's why people keep bringing it up.
Absolutely true and I agree, but I don't think games will scale past 8 cores (16 threads) in any meaningful way even in the lifetime of new platforms due next year. Single threaded performance will always be relevant and will always be a potential bottleneck (albeit sometimes in contrived scenarios).
So, it's fair to say that if you're using the pc mainly for gaming, then you don't need lots of cores and in any case, it's diminshing returns from a value for money proposition. There are also some cases where processors with less cores can maintain a higher boost clock.
But Intel was best for gaming. And at the moment Amd is best for gaming. Also, average framerates are a silly metric as already pointed out, when frametime analyis tells you the whole story.
In any case, they are only benchmarks and you can draw your own conclusions as long as you have access to the full data set and the testing methodology is documented.
I don't think I've read any decent review sites where they use 1080p gaming as a single selling point for a processor. Most of the analysis is far more balanced than that.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
I think that it's only a matter of time before they make use of an arbitrary number of cores. They are unlikely to scale absolutely horizontally, as they are so tightly bound to pumping out frames as fast as they can, but by the time developers have 8C/16T to play with, it would seem odd to me (as a developer) to target a specific number.
I think it's fair to say that since Zen2 that was a very tenuous claim. That's all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,577
Yes that is the case as then those can be done in batches which takes advantage of the extra cores.
I just ran the 0.92 Puget benchmark and scored 1149, though that is with 32Gb compared to their 64Gb and from an old 256gb SSD compared to their NVME. Though I do use a 3090 compared to their slightly slower 3080. I will run it again from my NVME and also my 3070 to see how much effect they have.
So, who is right and who is not?
It seems your Core i7-9700K with 8 threads and no HT is not faster than the 32-thread Ryzen 9 3950X.
An app which can utilise only 10 threads will unleash more performance than your old CPU.
Almost all the programs you listed can benefit from more cores or higher IPC. Currently, the fastest cpu for almost all those are the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 9 5900X, and Ryzen 9 5950X. Unless a program has been specifically optimized for Intel then most of the time AMD higher IPC and core count will perform better. I not going to sit here and list a ton of benchmark charts and/or debate it. Just stating facts.