You realize that 1 GHz from Intel does not equal 1 GHz from AMD? Are you honestly comparing clock speeds of products with differing IPC? Good grief! Why wouldn't you want equivalent single core performance at a lower clock speed and thus lower power and heat? Man, Intel loves suc... customers like you!
That's not true. Zen 2 has higher IPC than Skylake. They're neck and neck in Single threaded performance because Intel's current chips higher clockspeed offset the IPC deficit. It's a different story when it comes to anything multithreaded though as Zen 2's SMT and multicore implementation is clearly superior to what Intel currently offers.
Looking at gaming benchmarks the 9700k and 9900k do scale pretty linearly vs the 3700 ghz for ghz. Im not saying that zen2 is bad. Zen2 is the better value by far until you need the utmost highest fps possible.
I'm just tired of rabid amd fanboys trying to make points that really aren't valid to defend a product which should stand on it's own as the hands down best value in cpu and hands down best performance in multicore.
I am just tired of rabid Intel fanboys parroting about higher frequencies and the best FPS numbers. When you look at absolute numbers and how exactly things work - there is more to it than just frequency. And yes, that is the only thing that people are doing is gaming.
9900K has no noticable performance advantage in games, over 3700X. Unless you are splitting hairs over 5-10% which honestly is completely unnoticable when both parts are in the triple digits often enough.
Ok, idk if I even want to get involved here... But we are talking about leading edge technology from 2 competitors... of course we as the enthusiasts will “split hairs”! If the F1 race car from Mercedes is 5-10% better than the one from Ferrari then that means it’s the champion! This isn’t an emotional judgement about which we like more... many people like the Ferrari more than the Mercedes for example. But you can’t call yourself an enthusiast if you argue against the validity of 5-10% margins! Let’s just be real and judge these products together for what they are worth and learn what tasks they are best at.
Correction: AMD Zen 2-based Ryzen 3000 processors have higher IPC meaning they get approximately the same frame rates at slightly lower frequencies than Intel Skylake-based products. See the latest AMD Ryzen 5 3500X reviews that are trickling onto the web for a prime example of. The 3500X is clocked identically to the Core i5-9400F and yet it gets higher frame rates chiefly because its IPC is higher than Intel's.
More expensive chip, more expensive board, more power consumption, zero upgrade path to next generation and a small performance advantage in a few corner cases = no thanks
you are not locked into just x570 motherboard. You can have any x470 or even x370 mobo. As tests show, you are only losing PCIe gen 4 when using much cheaper mobo from previous gen.
Please do not be stupid. LGA 1151 is essentially EOL, AM4 is not. A user buying AM4 now, can expect to be able to drop a 4000-series Ryzen CPU in it later, which will humiliate the 9000 series, even more than the 3000 series is already doing. WIth Intel, you are stuck having invested in a dead-end platform with security flaws until you can fork out for a new platform that is coming next year.
How people can defend Intel these days is absolutely beyond me.
The difference between 5 GHz 9900K 1T and 4.4 GHz 3700X 1T is tiny. It is single digit percent. The former costs 75% more, consumer stupidity is why Intel still managed to command such a premium when it is now obvious they are the second-tir brand.
Intel's asleep at the wheel. If they weren't so desperate to ship every chip with half the space dedicated to an onboard GPU, they wouldn't have this problem. AMD's 16-core chip is smaller (even combining all modules) than Intel's 8-core.
yep.. thats why intel also makes you buy a new board after 2 or 3 years, if not sooner, cause their upgrade path sucks. X99 only lasted 2 cpus, before it was replaced...
Every Intel chipset was supported two generations of CPU ()and vice versa), since Sandy Bridge the better part of a decade ago. Pulling the "quelle surprise" act fools nobody.
As for Ryzen: while the idea to support more generations on AM4 is laudable, in practice the first-gen X300, A300 and A320 already do not support Zen 2 CPUs, and X570 does not support gen 1 CPUs. More than two generations support has already become a 'maybe' rather than a guarantee.
B350, B450, X370, X470 and x570 do support all the generations. If you look those chipsets will be the majority of mobos sold. Also, A320 got support for 3rd gen CPUs however in the begging it was said that they will not do that. X300 chipset - was it even released as the intended use for ITX was taken by Xx70 chipset.
THey have a huge amount of cost to make up for in the R and D of their process. AMD uses an off the shelf process from GloFo and now, TSMC. It is vastly cheaper for AMD to make Zen than Intel to make Skylake. THe profit from each chip made (BOM, etc) may seem high, but in the long-term development costs of the design and its process (Intel 14nm is the best of its class in the world), are enormous. Long-term profitability may not be as huge as some people think.
AMD can easily drop prices to respond to that. Intel has to pay for its own fabs, too, so they cannot afford to sell them so cheaply, AMD can. This is not a fight Intel can win (value proposition)
Zen 2 is a multi-chip module. 16 cores is 2 74mm² cores and a simple control module that's fabbed on the old 14nm² process (125mm²).
What this boils down to is that you get a lot more viable 74mm² cores on a wafer than you do on one monolithic 174mm² core. As such your comment is total nonsense.
" Under what workload and specific conditions do they even get 127watt TDP " probably when the chip is running at base clocks and barely doing anything, once you put a good load on the chip, up goes the power usage as well.
I know this will require more power than AMD, but it would be nice to see full power used from wall with all components. It seems AMD has much higher power usage at idle or light usage. So if you avg out a day of browsing, playing some games, doing some content work, including taking breaks away from computer, what would the avg power look like between systems?
10% increase in performance (at best, if not limited by buses etc) for 33% increase in power (KS vs KF). As expected on the high end of the frequency curve. Sad that they essentially are stuck where 45nm had reached 10+ years ago...
It is time for venerable Von Neumann's invention to go to greener pastures. I doubt today's Intel managers understand that though - they are all about "diversity and inclusion", and marketing, not about innovation.
Diversity and inclusion may not be the roadblocks to innovation that you seem to imagine. The Nazis eliminated both and got the opposite result: secondary school / university academic levels, and technical innovation, dropped radically under their rule. While it is thoughtful of you to drag in coded support for anti-liberalism and racism, we probably don't need to try those again.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
Back to Article
bug77 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Yawn, 8c/16t from the other camp can be had for like $300.azfacea - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
@ 65 watts + pcie gen4 + RGB box cooler[email protected] - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
8c/16t at only 4.4GHz peak? No thanks.cwolf78 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
You realize that 1 GHz from Intel does not equal 1 GHz from AMD? Are you honestly comparing clock speeds of products with differing IPC? Good grief! Why wouldn't you want equivalent single core performance at a lower clock speed and thus lower power and heat? Man, Intel loves suc... customers like you!Gondalf - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
According with this site Zen 2 and Skylake are pretty neck to neck in IPC. What is your point??Tek92010 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
That's not true. Zen 2 has higher IPC than Skylake. They're neck and neck in Single threaded performance because Intel's current chips higher clockspeed offset the IPC deficit. It's a different story when it comes to anything multithreaded though as Zen 2's SMT and multicore implementation is clearly superior to what Intel currently offers.Opencg - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Looking at gaming benchmarks the 9700k and 9900k do scale pretty linearly vs the 3700 ghz for ghz. Im not saying that zen2 is bad. Zen2 is the better value by far until you need the utmost highest fps possible.I'm just tired of rabid amd fanboys trying to make points that really aren't valid to defend a product which should stand on it's own as the hands down best value in cpu and hands down best performance in multicore.
Karmena - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
I am just tired of rabid Intel fanboys parroting about higher frequencies and the best FPS numbers. When you look at absolute numbers and how exactly things work - there is more to it than just frequency. And yes, that is the only thing that people are doing is gaming.Korguz - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Opencg at least the amd cpus, dont use 150+ watts of power to reach those clock speeds, when they are listed as using 95 watts.AshlayW - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
9900K has no noticable performance advantage in games, over 3700X. Unless you are splitting hairs over 5-10% which honestly is completely unnoticable when both parts are in the triple digits often enough.Nanosection - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Ok, idk if I even want to get involved here... But we are talking about leading edge technology from 2 competitors... of course we as the enthusiasts will “split hairs”! If the F1 race car from Mercedes is 5-10% better than the one from Ferrari then that means it’s the champion! This isn’t an emotional judgement about which we like more... many people like the Ferrari more than the Mercedes for example. But you can’t call yourself an enthusiast if you argue against the validity of 5-10% margins! Let’s just be real and judge these products together for what they are worth and learn what tasks they are best at.Hifihedgehog - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Correction: AMD Zen 2-based Ryzen 3000 processors have higher IPC meaning they get approximately the same frame rates at slightly lower frequencies than Intel Skylake-based products. See the latest AMD Ryzen 5 3500X reviews that are trickling onto the web for a prime example of. The 3500X is clocked identically to the Core i5-9400F and yet it gets higher frame rates chiefly because its IPC is higher than Intel's.yeeeeman - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
According to this site zen2 has between 5-10% ipc compared to Skylake. Do you need glasses?Karmena - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
he is using buldozer @5.5GHz highest frequency = THE BEST CPUDug - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
And AMD can't boost all cores to advertised frequency like this can. Who's the love suc.Korguz - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
obviously, you havent read this : https://www.anandtech.com/show/14873/reaching-for-...DrKlahn - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
More expensive chip, more expensive board, more power consumption, zero upgrade path to next generation and a small performance advantage in a few corner cases = no thanksDug - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Not much different than getting a top of the line amd and x570 motherboard. No upgrade path with intel- you are correct.Karmena - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
you are not locked into just x570 motherboard. You can have any x470 or even x370 mobo. As tests show, you are only losing PCIe gen 4 when using much cheaper mobo from previous gen.AshlayW - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Please do not be stupid. LGA 1151 is essentially EOL, AM4 is not. A user buying AM4 now, can expect to be able to drop a 4000-series Ryzen CPU in it later, which will humiliate the 9000 series, even more than the 3000 series is already doing. WIth Intel, you are stuck having invested in a dead-end platform with security flaws until you can fork out for a new platform that is coming next year.How people can defend Intel these days is absolutely beyond me.
bug77 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
For the price difference, I can almost get another 8c/16t :DAshlayW - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
The difference between 5 GHz 9900K 1T and 4.4 GHz 3700X 1T is tiny. It is single digit percent. The former costs 75% more, consumer stupidity is why Intel still managed to command such a premium when it is now obvious they are the second-tir brand.Flunk - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Intel's asleep at the wheel. If they weren't so desperate to ship every chip with half the space dedicated to an onboard GPU, they wouldn't have this problem. AMD's 16-core chip is smaller (even combining all modules) than Intel's 8-core.Great_Scott - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Intel can come back from this. All they'd need to do is drop prices by 33% and they'd be the best option.Of course, it's an open question whether Intel can actually profitably sell CPUs at those prices...
Gondalf - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
But yes 177 mm2 of 14nm silicon is very cheap today.Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
if 14nm is so cheap as you say.. then why does intel charge so much for its products ???ilt24 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
@Korguz ... "if 14nm is so cheap as you say.. then why does intel charge so much for its products"Because they want to make a lot of profit.
Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
yep.. thats why intel also makes you buy a new board after 2 or 3 years, if not sooner, cause their upgrade path sucks. X99 only lasted 2 cpus, before it was replaced...edzieba - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Every Intel chipset was supported two generations of CPU ()and vice versa), since Sandy Bridge the better part of a decade ago. Pulling the "quelle surprise" act fools nobody.As for Ryzen: while the idea to support more generations on AM4 is laudable, in practice the first-gen X300, A300 and A320 already do not support Zen 2 CPUs, and X570 does not support gen 1 CPUs. More than two generations support has already become a 'maybe' rather than a guarantee.
Karmena - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
B350, B450, X370, X470 and x570 do support all the generations. If you look those chipsets will be the majority of mobos sold. Also, A320 got support for 3rd gen CPUs however in the begging it was said that they will not do that. X300 chipset - was it even released as the intended use for ITX was taken by Xx70 chipset.AshlayW - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
THey have a huge amount of cost to make up for in the R and D of their process. AMD uses an off the shelf process from GloFo and now, TSMC. It is vastly cheaper for AMD to make Zen than Intel to make Skylake. THe profit from each chip made (BOM, etc) may seem high, but in the long-term development costs of the design and its process (Intel 14nm is the best of its class in the world), are enormous. Long-term profitability may not be as huge as some people think.boozed - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Intel is ridiculously profitableAshlayW - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
AMD can easily drop prices to respond to that. Intel has to pay for its own fabs, too, so they cannot afford to sell them so cheaply, AMD can. This is not a fight Intel can win (value proposition)Gondalf - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Redo the math. Your post is absolutely wrong in silicon mm2. Intel is 177 mm2, AMD 260/270 mm2 with 16 cores.Flunk - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Zen 2 is a multi-chip module. 16 cores is 2 74mm² cores and a simple control module that's fabbed on the old 14nm² process (125mm²).What this boils down to is that you get a lot more viable 74mm² cores on a wafer than you do on one monolithic 174mm² core. As such your comment is total nonsense.
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
So 127 W TDP from Intel means 250 W of actual power draw.Cellar Door - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Pretty much - and it is actually funny how they didn't round up at 125watts but added couple more.Under what workload and specific conditions do they even get 127watt TDP?
shabby - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
When turbo is off.Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
" Under what workload and specific conditions do they even get 127watt TDP " probably when the chip is running at base clocks and barely doing anything, once you put a good load on the chip, up goes the power usage as well.regsEx - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
If that is 127 W, then why new socket for Comet Lake? There are no any more limitations than TDP.Eris_Floralia - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Because maximum power would be about the same for 9900KS as a 5GHz 9900k.While CML-S 10+2 would pull about 250amp for MaxIcc.
boozed - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
That packaging isn't very space efficientDug - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I know this will require more power than AMD, but it would be nice to see full power used from wall with all components. It seems AMD has much higher power usage at idle or light usage. So if you avg out a day of browsing, playing some games, doing some content work, including taking breaks away from computer, what would the avg power look like between systems?zealvix - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
"It seems AMD has much higher power usage at idle or light usage"Isn't that only for those x570 PCIe 4 boards?
Dug - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Yes. If you are buying new, there should be no reason not to to get an x570.peevee - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
10% increase in performance (at best, if not limited by buses etc) for 33% increase in power (KS vs KF). As expected on the high end of the frequency curve. Sad that they essentially are stuck where 45nm had reached 10+ years ago...It is time for venerable Von Neumann's invention to go to greener pastures. I doubt today's Intel managers understand that though - they are all about "diversity and inclusion", and marketing, not about innovation.
Arbie - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Diversity and inclusion may not be the roadblocks to innovation that you seem to imagine. The Nazis eliminated both and got the opposite result: secondary school / university academic levels, and technical innovation, dropped radically under their rule. While it is thoughtful of you to drag in coded support for anti-liberalism and racism, we probably don't need to try those again.