You guys are really funny. Intel had its best year yet, and will have an even better one next year.
While you can hope that AMD will take the industry over, it’s never going to happen. We’ve seen that predicted in the past, and it isn’t any truer now.
The difference though, I don't think Intel can weasel their way through this storm as they did with the Athlon days.
They didn't stay in the lead because people didn't want to buy AMD, they stayed because DELL and them were bribbed not to sell AMD, so your average consumer knew nothing about how much better the AMD platforms were.
Intel still holds the performance crown for laptops, which is arguably the bigger segment of the consumer market, but if they don't do something soon, AMD has the performance crown in HEDT and Servers now, both high margin areas, which Intel is super worried about.
Next year we will see Comet & Ice Lake based laptops compete with Zen 2 (+ Navi?) based laptops. Zen 2 based laptops will certainly surpass both in CPU performance, so the question is only if they'll be able to surpass the performance of the (Gen11) iGPU of Ice Lake. By that I mean only the parts with the 64 EUs of course, the Gen11 iGPUs with 24 and 48 EUs stand on chance.
In any case, it appears that Comet Lake-U/Y will power the largest bulk of Intel's machines, machines with Ice Lake-U/Y will be released in low volume, and Ice Lake-U machines with 64 EU iGPUs will almost certainly be rarer than francium and more expensive than their weight in gold.
Guys, some of you may not remember but we've been in this situation before.
There was a time that Intel was king and could do no wrong. then about 16 years ago they could not do a thing right and everyone was AMD/SKT939 till the day they died. Ho ho ho!
Then AMD screwed up, Intel got it's act together and AMD was 'so over' etc. etc.
No doubt AMD will screw up again in a couple of years and Intel will get it together again...
What really sucked was seeing AMD management at the time just sit there like a sitting duck. People playing with overclocking Pentium M on desktop boards demonstrated nearly a year before Conroe launched that if Intel developed their mobile design into a desktop chip that it would be a monster chip against A64.
And Intel did just that.
That said, this time around... Sunny Cove had better start to scale clock wise, else it won't matter that it's 20% faster per clock if it can't actually reach 4Ghz.
A quick difference between then and now is that both companies are doing good things. Neither is releasing a dumpster fire of a product, this time around. That's just really cool, and whoever gets shiny, metal hats, I still have some pretty good hardware options!.
AMD have never been this ruthless, zen has been a massive turning for all of the market, bringing the prices down and increasing performance from both sides, unfortunately for intel, AMD have the bigger arms in this arms race, TSMC and AMD are already talking about 5nm and 3nm respectively, at which point does this become a ant vs boot scenario.
If you really are an Intel employee- shame!, shame!, shame! - especially if you had anything to do with: Spectre 1/2, Meltdown 3/3a, Speculative Store Bypass, Foreshadow, L1TF, Fallout/MSBDS, ZombieLoad/MFBDS, RIDL MLPDS/MDSUM
It is utterly criminal what Intel has done. I have zero respect for Intel and it is only by the grace of the US Government Intel is allowed to live. What is happening to Boeing should be happening to Intel for the criminally negligent brain damaged cheating lying trash-chips they have produced with these horrific faults for over a decade. This is far worse than FDIV. And I got a new CPU for FDIV. This is a crime wave and Intel has received a pardon and all of us are left with broken chips that when patch by the OS run half speed or worse.
So to all Intel employees, you better hold your heads down in utter shame until the next wave of CPUs comes out. And support ECC on all the chips - its criminally negligent to hold people hostage with RAM errors.
You don't really understand how the quarterly bookkeeping works, I can see. Intel's last quarter was already set in their ordering channels long before AMD's July launch of Epyc Zen 2, R3k, and TR3k is only now launching--it will be all of 2020 that you will see Intel's P&L's grow progressively leaner as you see AMD's grow progressively fatter. Generally it takes 2-3 quarters of progressively worse business before a company's woes begin to show up dramatically on the balance sheet, due to good will and other bookkeeping dodges. Next year will be a Halcyon year for AMD and a critical year for Intel no question about it. Already their roles have reversed, with Intel becoming the "value proposition"--but only provided Intel keeps on cutting its prices. What we've also seen predicted many times in the past is that AMD was *doomed*...;) Not..quite..;)
"Intel had its best year yet" ... more 10nm delays, so called "14nm shortages", no 10nm for desktop yet, nothing for server yet, same rehashed 14nm with the 10980XE bringing almost no improvement at all per core meanwhile in one generation Threadripper beings up to 32% improvement in multi, 20% in single thread, with no answer from Intel to any of these processors at all and their flagship 18 core HEDT being almost equal to Ryzen desktop in heavy workloads.
But that's ok, let's look ahead to 2020 ... Comet lake aims at add two cores and add 100mhz ... I guess that's pretty good ... for Intel ... ;-)
What IS impressive though, is Intel's ability to keep squeezing money out of gullible people willing to keep paying more money for less product -- I guess that's how they managed to make so much money last year?
yeah, how quickly they forget Spectre 1/2, Meltdown 3/3a, Speculative Store Bypass, Foreshadow, L1TF, Fallout/MSBDS, ZombieLoad/MFBDS, RIDL MLPDS/MDSUM. they took our money and unlike Boeing they go no flak from FEDGOV for it. and then they act like arrogant rotten gordon gecko types while laughing to the bank while the CPUs still coming are patch against those flaws mostly in microcode and OS kernels STILL!
AMD didn't have these sorts of products in the past, trying to extrapolate past performance into the future is a fool's errand. Intel was the process champ for decades and guess what? It all changed overnight
Financials vs. products. Intel financials were up because many people were upgrading from older dual or quad core products, and OEMs are barely starting to offer third generation Ryzen based machines. For your typical consumer, not the gamers who can afford a $500 9900k, but your typical consumer, would you suggest Intel or AMD based products at this point? Intel has the 9600, 9700, and 9900 as good products, the rest are beaten by AMD products at the same price point.
Not. Congrats to AMD on great processors, but the consumer market for $1,4-$2k processors is super tiny.
Despite the current generation of AMD processors for desktops being arguably superior to those of Intel, in the financials, Intel still destroys AMD and it is indeed a bloodbath.
In my opinion, AMD would hurt Intel much more, and in the end earn more money, if it priced its offerings lower, for consumer processors as well as datacenter processors.
>> Workstations are a growing market segment and have been for quite some time. They run 24-7, are extremely reliable, and have features and specifications you can’t find in a PC. Therefore, workstations can command high price points because of the high expectations users have for them. Our research shows the market size for workstations is approximately 5.3 million units, about 2% of the total PC market, and brings in over $10 billion dollars a year, almost 2.5% of the PC market total, which indicates the average selling price (ASP) is higher than the ASP of a PC.
Very small. The more cores, the smaller the market. What are so many cores good for? Video editing, huge databases. Financial transactions, which the chips are not likely to be used for.
For most everyone else, 8 cores is still the sweet spot.
"...Intel has reported that the workstation market has a potential $10B a year addressable market, so it is still worth pursuing. While I have no direct quotes or data, I remember being told for several generations that Intel’s best-selling HEDT processors were always the highest core count, highest performance parts that money could buy. These users wanted off-the-shelf hardware, and were willing to pay for it – they just weren’t willing to pay for enterprise features...Now that we can get better performance at $1999 with 32 cores, assuming AMD can keep stock of the hardware, it stands to reason that this market will pick up interest again."
They need to partner with a workstation vendor such as Dell, HP, etc. - or pick/create a company to partner with. Big businesses like to have a reliable single vendor they can deal with for all their server and workstation hardware, including support.
Sadly Dell always seems anti-AMD - or I guess more accurately they absolutely will not do anything that could jeopardize receiving Intel's contrarevenue.
Pretty much anybody that does graphics, video, etc. has a need for these CPUs. A large portion of professional Youtubers use blender or similar applications (that scale perfectly) to render things like 3d animations and the like. On the contrary. The market for these types of CPUs is larger than the gaming market. AMD's biggest obstacle here is getting prebuilt OEM systems built with sufficient cooling. Not many folks in that audience are going to build their own PC.
Nope. Graphics apps don’t use all these cores. I run that stuff. Neither do apps like Photoshop. If sometimes they use most cores, the usage ore core I’d down around 20% in spurts. Fewer cores simply have higher per core usage.
As I said, video rendering is about the only thing that most users will find using a lot of cores. Even multasking doesn’t use 16 or more cores efficiently.
It’s also interesting that years ago, the argument was too much power. 150 Watters was considered to be on the high side, and not in a good way. Now these cores are moving to 300 watts, and nobody is saying anything.
Video rendering 3D rendering 3D animation where physics calculation is need (cloth, particles, etc) Particle simulations for 3D animation / work / science Game creation / compiling / baking Progamming (compiling) VFX -- after effects, etc Gaming while rendering out any of the above at the same time Doing more than one thing at a time (Intel users close all their apps to game, lol) Gaming while streaming Youtube content creation (requires video rendering and encoding) Digital audio workstations
To name a couple ...
I actually read someone on another comment feed defending Intel by saying "CPU's aren't even important these days anyway!" -- the desperation of fanbois to grasp at straws to defend the indefensible is hilarious ... right Mel?
What you’re missing is that I’m talking about most users. The ones you mention are in very small numbers. There’s about a billion Windows machines out there, well under 1% need 16 or more cores. That still millions, but it’s not enough to move the market.
What been one of the biggest problems involving pc sales the past year? Intel not producing enough chips. Not AMD. AMD is almost an afterthought. Most vendors and customers don’t want AND. Most pc users have never even heard of and. It’s why the are cheaper, and make little profit. They sell on price. And they’re trying to move in a market Intel isn’t very interested in—yet.
Most people just need their ARM powered cell phones these days, if you really want to get down to reality. light web browsing, posting on Facebook, sending an IM on messenger, potentially watching YouTube. All things that can be done off a cellphone. For those who need a bigger display, laptops are a good choice, but see little use outside of a few instances where a bigger screen is necessary.
Yes they do Mel. You just don't seem to know it. When Zen 3 get AVX 512 Apple has no more need of Intel, period. Mac Pro down to Macbook Air can be replaced w/ superior low power, higher performance per watt, lower priced CPUs to match RDNA 2.0 GPGPUs.
About the too much power... it might be that nobody is saying anything because if you fully load the processor with a workload where it draws it's full 300w....
...it means that it's performing a workload that a few years prior would have required 4 separate machines at full tilt to match, and I'm pretty sure that 4 older gen HEDT rigs running full tilt is going to be drawing something significantly more than 300w overall in CPU power, let alone the rest of the rigs.
you forgot virtualization. now people can run virtualized environment for casual things such as file server, media server, backups, scheduler server, and even host their own websites.
The cost per core is a bit problem for AMD. Company just bought 3 x Epyc servers, and the much lower price was blunted by the per core licensing. Microsoft is effectively supporting Intel unintentionally... would rather they charge based on the MSRP of the CPU or something...
Where I work we now have 4x Dual 32 Core Epyc 7502s and 2x Dual 24 Core Epyc 7401s. We cannot move to Server 2016/2019 due to the per core licensing. However, for our VMware environment it is amazing how many VMs just 1 of those hosts can run.
Is vmware stable on the new Epycs? I have some older Dells R630 2697 x2 I need to upgrade running ESXi 6.0 A bit nervous about jumping to AMD for production on vmware.
Speaking of which, why does this review have so many gaming benchmarks, and say, no compiler benchmarks? I'd have liked to see the 32-core TR vs. the 3175x or 3275 compiling a large C++ project.
Not only that, but Anandtech is still doing gaming benchmarks on a Geforce 1080. Gamers Nexus has a much more production oriented review, but still no compiler benchmarks, etc.
I've never understood why AT has kept the GTX 1080. For purposes of benchmarking, it acts as an immediate bottleneck on faster CPUs and adds no value to a processor evaluation except in extreme cases such as the 2970WX/2990WX where performance impacts are made more readily evident. Even then, one or two simple tests would be enough to paint the picture, unless it called for further testing.
It's simply a waste of benchmark time and continues to baffle me with its inclusion. The only reason I can think to keep it in reviews is to pad the Bench database, or that the tests can be completed quickly and it's simply spare time. I love AT, but sometimes they just make me scratch my head.
Because Inteltech takes Intels $$$ and its one of the few areas where Intel doesn't get smashed.I agree with you, the main uses for these these kinds of CPU's are proper work not gaming. And definitely not gaming at 1080p. Its a joke.
Another vote for compilation. Ability to take advantage of more cores is a complex equation depending on caching, i/o, and memory access, so it would be informative to see some comparisons done.
Another vote for compilation. Should be relatively easily scriptlable too. Linux kernel compiles under half a minute, but Chromium or Firefox should still be big enough. Additionally there's .NET, could be an interesting data point.
Another vote for compilation, go or c++, as well as database tests, CAD of some kind, and virtualization (bonus points for docker or Kubernetes as well)... however... please don’t remove all the gaming benchmarks... I might be in the minority, but I like to be able to game or work on the same machine...
it may be small, but they're now fighting Intel in that same small market with these Threadrippers, and, well AMD has the winning product in use cases i'm looking at (simultaneous video encoding streams and Blender, with enough cores to do that while gaming).
AV1 is currently so slow to encode, i have to split a movie into 8 parts (probably more with one of these Zen2 TRs to get it done quicker) for a doable encode. took about 41-48 hours per part save for the credits to encode at 720p on a 16c32t 1950X
AMD curbstomps Intel at every price point, from $50 all the way to $7000+. How much lower should AMD price their CPU's exactly? Should they give them away for free? And yes, Intel has a vastly larger marketshare. They were on top for well over a decade, & for a large portion of that, AMD was completely irrelevant. Their server marketshare was statistically insignificant just 3 years ago & now they're knocking on the door of 10%. Their stock has skyrocketed in that time. Again... How cheap should AMD go when they have an objectively superior product?
I would absolutely bet that more of these TR3 are going to be sold to professionals than consumers, I waited in line for the 3950X yesterday and even for that part half of the people in line were buying it for work.
That's my issue... I can't find any of these Threadripper, Ryzen 3950X, or Cascade Lake X in stock anywhere. But I can order 16" MacBook Pro right now and have it here tomorrow. Desktop CPU's are OLD SCHOOL. I would rather have a mobile solution that I can take .. anywhere.
must be just where you are.. i can go to one store and buy the Threadripper 3960X now, but the 3970x is special order, for the intel 10xx series, not showing anything for these, yet
News of Intel's death have been greatly exaggerated. It would take more than 20 years of bad performance (<20% market share) for Intel to burn it's cash reserves.
I tend to agree, they can low ball AMD for a few years until the catch up. Assuming they completely screw up the 10 nm deployment going into 2022. It takes 3-5 years for for an industry to fully adopt switch course on a mainstream microprocessor.
That's what you get for milking the same s****y 4 core cpus for years until the competition not only catches up but also surpasses you. Intel deserved every bich slap this year from AMD.
Intel has no chance. they do not have an effective architecture, they do not have a modern technical process. They are hopelessly behind. 3970x of 2000 usd upside about 20% (in applications that use all the cores) Xeon W-3175X of 3000 usd. Its so crazy!!
Unless Intel can get something out sooner rather than later, people are migrating to AMD because they are pushing things forward. 64 cores of Epyc fury is hitting them in the Server Space, which is where Intel is most scared of. They don't care that you or I buy an Intel chip or an AMD one, they care if Microsoft or Apple buys either or.
Intel isn't destroyed, but they will be hurting for a while, as AMD is showing no signs of slowing down, and Intel has to beat what AMD makes next, not AMD today.
Again, Intel have record earnings this last quarter. As in over the last 3 months. As in after two years of AMD kicking their backside in the server space they're still making record amounts of revenue.
Intel aren't stupid, they're one of the most ruthless companies in the sector. They can throw five times as much as AMD's *total profit* in R&D and still make five times as much profit as AMD does.
Record breaking earnings mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
For as much as you gloat about Intel's RND, AMD is the one who's on top in 2 of the 4 markets (Laptops, Desktops, HEDT and Servers), some would argue 3. Doesn't matter how much money you can throw at a problem, it matters if you can solve it. AMD solved the problem, Intel hasn't, and it's a frantic state at Intel to make something happen, either get 10nm working better or changing their uArch in 14nm.
Right now, the only reason to consider a XEON over an Epyc would be for AVX-512 only workloads. Because otherwise, ServerTheHome has shown that Epyc dominates, especially the 7742 64 core part.
Those record breaking earnings (i.e. capital) mean a lot, and saying otherwise displays a large and intentional ignorance on how important capital is to the microprocessor industry. Intel can use that money to hire more both hardware and software talent, fund more research, build more fabs, outspend AMD in marketing, and on and on. If Intel had huge cash reserves but was putting up large losses every quarter then I'd be on board with your "grand scheme of things" comment. In reality they are massively profitable, selling more 14nm chips than they can produce, and have enough cash to not only learn from AMD's successes but also invest in following suit.
Again, Hire all you want, throw as much money as you want. That doesn't matter if there's no results.
AMD with literally tenths of Intel's funding can beat them, and have found better ways to make processors to increase core counts without sacrificing efficiency. Intel also needs to spend a lot of money on researching the node itself, AMD doesn't, so not all of Intel's RnD goes to making the CPU, lots of it goes into making the node itself.
So while Intel may make more, they have to spend way more, especially since CPUs aren't the only thing Intel makes (They make flash chips, 3D XPoint, Networking chipsets, and many other products, all vying for that sweet RND cash)
So while Intel makes more, they also spend more. Revenue is a great figure to look at on paper, but it doesn't amount to anything unless the spending is done wisely. AMD surely has shown that it doesn't take Intel levels of cash to become a market leader and capitalize on someone who's grown complacent.
mkaibear/SwackandSwalls, and point is ?? intel has all that money, yet.. been milking the SAME architecture for how many years ? as Xyler94 already said.. to keep throwing money at a problem, and it STILL doesnt get fixed, is NOT a good thing. AMD may not have the money that your beloved intel does, but guess what, they have been able to do MORE with what they do have, so tell me who is spending wiser ?? also.. how much of that 19.2 billion has intel had to dump into their fabs??
Very much agree with this statement. Desktops are a shrinking market segment. Mainstream home users and corporate office computing assets are generally now laptops regardless of whether or not the mobility makes sense or is a necessity. Yes, there is a market for desktop computers and that market does include massively parallel workloads that benefit from lots of cores/threads, but the center of mass in terms of money in CPU sales has shifted to portable computing where AMD is still lagging due mainly to power consumption and heat output. The I/O die design AMD uses is not so great in that sense and Intel still has an advantage in the mobiel sector.
Intel doesn't care about laptops, it's a side project basically. Both Intel and AMD want Server space. Servers are the heart of the market. Especially Supercomputers. Intel wouldn't care one bit if AMD took 25% of the laptop market, but you can see Intel scrambling and panicking at every single percent AMD gains in the Server Market.
Laptop CPUs are so little margin, Intel wouldn't actually care if people buy AMD. Servers and HEDT processors are such high margin, they'd rather 1 person buy a Xeon or 2066 processor than 10 people buying laptops. It's all about profits, not units sold.
" Desktops are a shrinking market segment " im not so sure about that... no one i know wants a notebook, for portability, they have their phones or tablets for that...
Your revenue numbers don't mean anything. 15 years ago Nokia was also unbeatable, as well as Yahoo, MySpace etc.. For Intel, there is a chance that similar to "after-Athlon" era will never come again.
No, what made Intel keep on going was AMD's lack of manufacturing capacity (they couldn't have supplied much more than 25% of the CPU market in the Athlon 64 X2 era even if they wanted to), inferior laptop CPUs, and lack of infrastructure to support their server/workstation CPUs. Since going fabless, they're nowhere near as capacity constrained now, and may have more of the server infrastructure figured out... but Zen 3 doesn't have anywhere near the advantage on 10th-gen Core that Athlon 64 X2 derivatives had on Pentium 4 derivatives, either.
If Intel can get cores/$ and total core counts reasonably close to EPYC and TR (which is likely), they'll be fine in the long run.
drothgery you didnt hear about how intel would bribe and threaten OEMs and the like NOT to use amd products ? thats what hurt amd way back when, thats why intel payed a billion or so to amd to settle that.. what advantage ?? zen 2 has more IPC then intel, why do you think intel needs such high clock speeds to compete with lower clocked cpus ??
Gotta love the "But what about this" with you fanboys.
Did AMD beat Intel to the X86-64 Race? Yes Did AMD beat Intel to the 1Ghz Race? Yes Did AMD beat Intel to the true dual-core arc? Yes Does AMD still continue to innovate and bring us better products, despite their peanut funding compared to Intel, while Intel just tries to weasel their way through the market? Of course. Do you honestly believe if TR3 wasn't so amazing, that Intel would have reduced their 18 core part to 1k out of the goodness of their heart? If you think that, you're more of a fanboy than I thought.
It is still known as AMD-64 today, because AMD found the way to do both 32bit and 64bit X86 at the same time, and Intel has to license that tech from AMD. Without AMD, Intel would not be releasing 8 core CPUs today. The reason for their shortages isn't really due to high demand, it's due to varying demand of their products. the 6-8 core silicon is different from their 4 core ones, and they needed to manufacture separate LCC and HCC core i9/Xeons, further hogging their supply chain. And there's also the fact the 9900k is also a legitimately great CPU, so people want it, further hurting the supply chain. Intel did this to themselves due to years of complacency, so I don't feel bad at all.
They didn't beat Intel to anything---Intel was going with IA64, never going with x64, Then AMD threw a MASSIVE wrench into those plans, lol. Intel was forced to then copy AMD64 with EMT64 when Itanium flopped.
But make no mistake---if AMD didn't create x86-64, Intel wouldn't have either. We'd all be running Itaniums and Itanium clones.
actually, for the most part, the industry didnt want ia 64, it would me a redo of most, if not all of the software just to use it, before they could even use it, with AMD64, you could keep using existing 32 bit software, and transition of 64 bit, when you can, or wanted to. amd just found a better, and quicker way to 64 bit then when intel was trying to cram down every ones throats. " But make no mistake---if AMD didn't create x86-64, Intel wouldn't have either." and chances are, we could be still using 32 bit cpus, as i said above, most, if not all of the industry didnt want to have to re compile all of the software we used then. and wasnt itanium slower then x86 over all ? ahh yep.. it was slower : " By the time Itanium was released in June 2001, its performance was not superior to competing RISC and CISC processors. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64
One of the big reasons Itanium/IA-64 failed was that its "backwards compatibility" (i.e. x86 emulation) was much slower than the native x86 cpus out at the time.
So, while they wouldn't need to redo all that x86 software, it wasn't exactly speedy while emulating.
To take full advantage of the IA64 architecture, yes, they would need to rewrite a lot of software, but it would have *run* without a rewrite.
And that's where x86-64 stepped in. 64 bit memory addressing, perfect x86-32 performance at a lower price.
But Intel was never going to create x64 by themselves unless the new EPIC/VLIW IA64 hit some kind of performance brick wall, or people just kept coding to x86 anyways (which Itanium would run, but slowly).
Bear in mind that part of the reason it was slow in 2001, x86 and Power had been extensively optimized compilers for a decade (or more for x86) and IA64 was in its nascent stages. Since it was never adopted by the mass public (include home users, etc), development of IA64 never came close to the level of development and optimization of x86.
either way you look at it, it seems AMD is doing more to move the cpu farther, then intel does. AMD seems to be the one that innovates, while intel sleeps. i know some who is a fan of intel, will refute this, but think about it... AMD improves the cpu, and moves it forward, while intel stagnates and stifles it..
I wouldn't say that AMD fans are wrong. Look at AMD's revenue years ago vs today. Do you think the growth came out of thin air? No, AMD is eroding Intel's marketshare. It hasn't begun to show yet, because the last reported earnings did not include Zen 2 eating into things. More and more people are buying AMD, and as long as AMD continues to execute as they have (and even more so: they have to get into bed with OEMs), Intel will gradually begin to suffer. They already HAVE suffered. Drastic price reductions on their highest end parts.
Oh and I should add that Intel is in a lot more markets than AMD. In addition, Intel actually does a ton of fab work for other companies. Intel makes networking cards, storage, and much more. So in translation: Revenue is meaningless. Intel does not have endless amounts of cash to throw at creating new CPUs, GPUs (which are coming out in 2021), and chipsets. What matters is marketshare. For Intel, it's shrinking.
AMD have taken market share from Intel but it's not uniform across all markets. Fancy brand names, servers and ultra notebooks are still dominated by Intel and where the end-user isn't making a choice. Enthusiasts using a local store to select parts & assemble are a small market that have swung to AMD.
No, Dell EMC and HPE have both gone Epyc, Amazon is getting Epycs, Azure is getting Epycs, Google's Stadia runs on Epyc (That's another discussion though). Lots of big names are running Epyc now. It takes years to validate server equipment, unlike the enthusiasts, who can afford a bit of downtime here and there, servers cannot. So they experiment with new hardware for a year or two before implementing it. Remember that the 1.5 Exaflop Supercomputer is gonna be powered by AMD CPUs also.
AMD is making big wins, but it takes a lot of time for the numbers to show
True, but neither does living in denial. So Intel launched their HEDT for half the price they would've otherwise launched, why would they if it was so good and would sell like crazy? Ignoring problems like 10nm and just quoting numbers gets boring quickly.
Also, AMD earnings are $0.03 per share. So really INTL can give their chips away for a few years if they wanted and crush amd until they get the performance advantage again. I love that AMD is back we need competition, but lets be real. To think INTEL is out of this is idiotic.
Agree with you on the price, maybe a little too expensive? When is the next new (non-Skylake) Intel chip coming? Is that TigerLake or Saphire Rapids in 2021?
It's only too expensive if your time isn't worth much. These are HEDT workstation CPUs, so the ROI for saving time is much different. Even being twice as a expensive but "only" 20-50% faster can be hugely valuable for many professional tasks.
"Even being twice as a expensive but "only" 20-50% faster can be hugely valuable for many professional tasks."
being able to run 1-2-3 only on X86/DOS made both Intel and M$ a ton of money: i.e. the Killer App. not clear that there are enough 'professional tasks' to keep either Intel or AMD, much less both, profitable. with the killer amortization of capital expense in production of chips these days, the only avenue to profit is moving ever more units. HEDT, etc. ain't it.
3D animators save quite a bit of time over lower core count parts. Go take a look at the blender results at Gamer's nexus. Note that it takes several minutes to render 1 frame. If you are rendering thousands of frames, the speed advantage of the 3970X over *every* other chip will pay for itself pretty quick.
3D animation, video encoding, compiling large projects, etc. are all areas where Threadripper trounces anything Intel.
This is the reason for the statement that buyers of the Intel CPUs in this segment usually go for the top of the line. I'm not the target audience for this sort of system but it seems to me that the people who are don't care about the price. If you are in this market to begin with its because you want the best you can get and are willing to pay for it. For most others, even the 3950X is overkill and the 4700x is probably the sweet spot.
This right here. When you are paying a contractor at $100 or more per hour, the price of a processor doesn't come into the equation. It's how fast the work can get done, so you don't have to keep paying $100 per hour.
Exactly. I know people in the CAD/CFD world who think nothing of dropping $10,000+ on a workstation. Because to them it's a work tool as much as a pick-up truck is to a contractor.
I'm personally surprised at the 3950X in the CPU tests. keeping pace with the 10980XE, losing some tests, while beating it in others, it's incredible that even with a 2 core disadvantage, that little chip is proving to be punching above it's class.
While you lose out Quad Channel Ram, and the huge many PCIe lanes, the 3950X is showing just how powerful it is.
Wish Goto Openblas optimize Blas on Windows this AMD processor for floating point calculation (especially AVX) otherwise Intel MKL that optimized for Intel processor only is used by most FEA industry like Ansys, Abaqus, Nastran. To get all juice out,it need optimized on how much size cache it got.
I'm pretty sure AMD doesn't allow them... They want to skew the benchmark in their favor as much as possible. If you want to play with free hardware .. you have to agree to these things. It would be great if there was a site that didn't play these games... But.. The allure of "free stuff" drives the motivations of everyone in Tech News business.
Sites like anandtech usually don't benchmark things like VB code and such. It really has nothing to do with AMD or Intel telling them what to benchmark, it has everything to do with giving a general idea of a processor's performance.
When looking at reviews, you should go to the ones who you know benchmark those titles you want. There's not a lot of demand to do VB Code stuff, so no one does it really.
As an aside, Intel suggested reviews don't use Cinebench R15/20 because "It isn't realistic", but it runs on Maxon Cinema 4D, a real and widely used in the professional scene rendering application that studios like Disney and Pixar could use (I don't know if they do). But because no consumer would use such a thing, Intel said don't use it. So would AMD be in the wrong for suggesting not using VB Code? Yes, because Intel shouldn't dictate what reviews use either.
There was a developer studio just a week ago that published benchmarks for switching out just one of their compilation boxes to a Ryzen 3700 and it smoked the other boxes they had by about 40%.
I've only seen the Mozilla benchmarks on LTT, very strange that they're the only ones showing such a workload. I'd be very interested on how these chips handle e.g. large SQL Server DB's and requests, especially with those huge caches.
The Mozilla benchmark had near 2x the performance for the 3970X vs the 10980X and serve the home has the ryzen chip at near 30 compiles an hour for the Linux Kernel vs around 16 for Intel.
I'd actually be really interested in the financial market for this TR due to the floating point performance increase. We'll probably be upgrading our servers next year based on current projections, so this has been a really nice development.
Why is it that Intel gains so incredibly much more from AVX512 than AMD gains from AVX2?
In the 3DPM2 test, the AMD CPUs gain roughly a factor of two in performance, which is exactly what I'd expect given that AVX2 is twice as wide as standard SSE. The Intel CPUs, on the other hand, gain almost a factor of 9, which is more than twice what I'd expect given that AVX512 as four times as wide as SSE.
What causes this? Does AVX512 have some other kind of tricks up its sleeves? Does opmasking benefit 3DPM2?
The Intel parts are derived from Xeon dies (LCC 10 cores, and HCC up to 18 cores). As such they have two AVX-512-FMA-Units. Zen/+ shows a +70 % increase in performance, Zen2 and the 9900K(S) about +90 % with AVX2 in 3DPM2.1 and the Xeon-based parts reach up to +700 %. Ian has obviously done a good job or at least used a good lib ;-)
The other element of magic is typically halved operand size=twice the data element throughput. Could be FP16 vs FP32 in that code, which means 32 vector elements per 512 bit register and then again of these registers there could be mulitples under SIMD per instruction and clock.
Servethehome also mentioned in their reviews of Epyc Rome Processors, the same basic Zen2 platform that the new TR CPUs are made on, that most programs aren't optimized for AMD's new AVX2 pipes, so the results are lower than they should be. I don't know if that's still the case, but it may be a reason why it's showing such a disparity between the two.
When will Anandtech display a modern compression algorithm within encoding tests ? Zstandard comes with a built-in benchmark compatible with multithreading, an ideal case to test threadripper !
I'm hesitant to take any of these mega-core intel benchmarks as accurate, though--- the 7980/9980 Geekbench 4 scores are laughably low (9980 should be north of 50K, not 30K, at the very least), so there's definitely something wrong with AT's setup for these cpus.
Maybe the other benches are correct, but GB4 at least is messed up.
May i ask you guys how did you got 44s with 2990wx in Corona benchmark ? Im getting 41s with stock clocks (2933cl14 memory, Win1909, latest AMD drivers, latest bios)
41 vs 44 is quite big difference in percentage for such small time frame.
41s vs 34s AND 44s vs 34s is also a lot of difference.
AnandTech frustratingly doesn't seem to ever list their memory subtimings, but as they test at "JEDEC" standard, it may be as loose as 2933 CL19-19-19 vs your 2933 CL14. This could easily account for the difference in benchmark results.
So Thread ripper is here, I will never have a use for this chip but I want one...just because, probably the single biggest uplift in CPU performance for a great many years.
Still 10 intel featuring articles on the main page vs 4 featuring AMD though, shame really and it would have been nice for you to have a proper dig at intel for its pathetic attempt to skew CPU bench results by moving the embargo forward, try taking a tip off linus man he told it like it was as have many others.
Ah yes, the infamous "Nobody cares" argument of a fanboy.
And yet you cares enough to click the article, go to the comment section, and write this comment. I won't comment about your other comment though, clearly you didn't RTFA
With so much cores Anandtech should consider virtualization benchmark/uses cases there is some good automated Lab Scripts available.
On Windows Nested Virtualization is still not enabled on AMD Processor. -> still not announced for Windows 20H1, perhaps for 2OH2 since major overhaul for Azure is underway.
Ryzen Master is still incompatible with VBS (Virtualization based Security).
This situation prevent to test some features in Windows VM : - With more and more feature relying on virtualization (WSL, Security, workload isolation, ...) - For advanced scenarios (Labs for testing infrastructure deployment, ESXi, hyper-v, compiler, etc...)
By ignoring the 1k segment AMD could overplay their advantages : - the cpu is only a part of the package (you have to add a beefy psu and cooling system and a decent amount of RAM) if you want to make a meaningfull use of such platform.
- the moherboad price take a major rise (Apple accessories manufacturer syndrom ?) - without high ends feature regarding connectivity where are the multi-gig network and Thunderbolt ports ?, but RGB pins are plenty ...
- forcing the early TR adopters to a 2k-2,5k investment to jump to the TR3+ architecture (if cooler and RAM, PSU remain the same) and chipset reset could do some damage too.
And finally the 10980XE (with more PCI 3 lanes, and more memory) will not be the best but enough and more affordable.
I'm a an owner of TR 1950X.
Questions : > Nested Virtualization will eventually comming to AMD ? (for a future interview with AMD CEO/CTO) > Air Cooling is it still suitable for TR3 ?
And thanx to Anandtech for those reviews and the worth of drilling down into details.
In what world is 60 PCIe 4.0 lanes less than 48 PCIe 3.0 lanes?
You do know... that PCIe 4 is backwards compatible, so Threadripper has effectively 60 lanes of PCIe 3, right? I don't know about you... but 60 is more than 48...
certainly 60 PCIe4 lanes is best than 48 PCIe3. since SLI is not next best thing for the moment this is quite enough for the most currents setup.
But filling up all those 48 PCIe could be possible with mulitiple storage+network and GPU.
However my main point is that the 10980Xe doing an "ok job" and for some users a 500$ or 1k$ bill is a steep step to jump to the first step of the TR4 lineup.
on the other hand the CM Chipset / Socket instability is a major pain point belonging to intel so far
We will see since Milan is the last iteration of this architecture family before a major architecture revision which certainly require a new socket (according to published roadmaps) the TR4
What difference does it make whether or not GB4 is 'reliable'? They shouldn't be getting such ridiculously low scores for the 7980XE/9980XE, which means that there is something wrong with their configuration.
Especially since literally every other cpu result in their chart is within the margins for what everybody else gets in GB4.
It may have to do with their memory speed and timings. Reviews specify that the platforms are tested at JEDEC timings for each platform, but have never (to my knowledge) listed the specific subtimings used. For X299, this could easily mean from 2666 CL17-17-17 up to 2666 CL20-20-20. If you're running at, say, 3200 CL14-14-14 it may account for at least some of the difference.
Nope. 2666, you can see in the link I provided. Secondly, ram speed would not come close to making up a 20,000 point deficit. Something is wrong with their 18-core Intel setup.
She gave Zen architecture to Chinese. Why would she do that, when AMD could have sold them the CPUs? Gaving our the most precious IP you have? Sounds like treason.
I like a these Steven Spielberg type of users commenting here about the cataclysm that is striking Intel. Intel is doomed. Intel doesn't know anything. Intel is this, Intel is that. Intel has only one weakness now, its Fab. Otherwise, we can't know if chiplets were included in their plans for 10 or 7nm. We don't know yet what uarch they have in the pipeline. We see that ice lake is already a better core than zen 2. Probably Zen 3 will close the gap in ipc. Tiger lake brings another 10%. So Intel has responses. But they need to fix their Fab issue...
They also somehow forgot that AMD has been virtually invisible in the desktop CPU market for the last ~10 years, yet they managed to survive and pull this incredible victory.
But for some reason, that would be unthinkable that Intel could turn things around... o.O... Pure idiocracy...
Besides, it doesn't matter if your an AMD or Intel fan, if you don't wan't both to be in the game your a pure moron, the status quo we have seen from Intel the past 10 years is exactly what we will see if they aren't both in the game. They are there to push each other, to the overall benefit for us, the consumers. If Intel really where to go out of business, then AMD would just begin to milk...
It's f****** amazing how dumb some people are...
AMD has the absolute and clear victory this time, if Intel has anything meaningful to respond with in the near future, well only time can tell...
But for now... Lets just praise what AMD has done, cheer for the amazing launch and well earned victory after what can only have been 10 long years of hard work, and hope that Intel returns... Hopefully sooner than AMD did... Or... On the other hand it's been 10 rather cheap years computer wise for me, so... perhaps I should cheer for Intel to take 10 years for a decent knockout punch in the other direction...
Intel will DEFINITELY return and with Jim Keller on board i'm sure in 2-3 years they will return with a vengeance. I do hope however that everyone remembers what we have been saddled with from Intel for the last 10 years...No innovation, crazy pricing, artificial market segmentation, forced new motherboard purchases every year etc etc. In short - Intel have shafted us for years and are only working like crazy now because AMD launched a rocket up their back sides. Lets hope AMD continues innovating & executing as they have been. That's not Fanboyism, its just common sense.
What gap in IPC? You think intel's Coffee Lake has a higher IPC than Zen 2? Please get your facts straight before you try to criticize other people's comments.
AMD are really doing wonders with their ZEN2 architecture :-)
But with the latest pricing of the higher end R7 and R9 and now TR I think they are making a GREAT mistake. They have decided to capitalize on having reached their target of beating Intel on performance. So prices are no longer vastly better than Intel, and we are moving into having AMD/INTEL pricing close enough not to matter to the average consumer. This is a very short sighted decision as AMD right now has a once in a lifetime opportunity to really kick Intel in the n***. Intel’s production capability and proces node is lagging - as is their architecture. This is the time to set pricing and performance at a level were DELL, HP, LENOVO and so on are unable to ignore or downplay the AMD option because of intel funding - because that is happening now, and will continue when AMD is getting similarly expensive. Ditch the lower end SKU’s and drop the prices on mid and high-end SKUs with 20 - 30% now and gain what AMD never had before: Market superiority to really establish their name as a household processor brand. Will all know Intel will retaliate within the next two years once their 10 and 7nm comes full online, and once that happens, AMD will once again battle with the “unproven and small player” moniker because they never got REALLY big - Getting rid of that moniker should be their second and REAL goal of this ZEN2 era. This short term money grab with the new pricing is what will keep AMD in the shadows of Intel going forward.
This! So much this! I have no brand loyalty but somehow, people either chose to forget all of AMD’s mishaps (fake turbo boosts, pricing during their Athlon days, declaration of MB compatibility with future CPU gens but when time comes, they point fingers at MB vendors, etc.)
Very likely it is a new plateau enabled by 7nm and brand new Zen architecture developed to its potential. I predict small improvements from here for the next several years as it has been with Intel since Sandy Bridge - only better AVX512 implementation on something like 5nm and DDR5 will bring some improvements, but don't expect wonders on most tasks which don't care about memory throughput or AVX512.
The upcoming Zen 3 architecture revision is reported to provide up to a ~10% IPC uplift, with some neat tricks such as unifying the L3 cache per chiplet (no more CCX contention).
There's always something better around the corner. :)
peevee um intel could of improved their ipc more each year.. but they didnt, there was no reason too.. just like they could of given mainstream more then 4 cores.. but they didnt as well.. mostly because of zen.. is there more then 4 cores from intel..
That's a lot of power needed for 24 cores. 3960 at 280w. And it's recommended to get water cooling? They aren't going to get many buyers on that. 6 more cores than Intel 10980, but needs 90w more power to get there. I thought 7nm would be better than this. The Xeon is way out of wack at 381.
People that really need the speed to save in man hour costs, expect a high end system with warranty, instant replacement, compatibility (especially vm), and reliability. I don't think you are going to get that with water cooling. And I don't see any major players that offer what I listed, going to a water cooled system anytime soon.
The amount of happy this makes me... Also, I'm glad to see y-cruncher in the test suite. It's been my goto power virus/perf benchmark since around the 0.5 versions.
Gotta love how many people praise AMD and sh*t on Intel for this but just as many seem to forget that when AMD was in Intel’s place, they overcharged *way* more than Intel did / does. As a matter of fact, the 32c/64t gen3 TR costs 200$ more than last gen’s similar offering. The second AMD felt they caught a gust of wind, they slowly started inflating prices. I’m all for competition and i would love it if both Intel and AMD had some sort of control over final pricing (in my country, the 3900x costs ~700$...) but i have this distinct feeling that if things continue at this pace, AMD will become Intel 2.0, pricing and milking wise. Bottom line - neither of the two are truly consumer friendly but memories fade and time tells its story at a slow pace.
AMD isn't in Intel's place, and the last time there were (2003), they didn't overcharge.
As for selling a 32-core CPU for $2000 on a brand new process node that also offers ECC, PCIe 4.0, and is 100W under the closest competitor--that isn't a position Intel has been in before. Even in 2012 Intel wasn't destroying the competition so utterly in single-core, multi-core, node, and feature-set at virtually ever price point.
What Intel will sell you is a 3 year old process node for $2000 like they did for the last 2 years. Rest assured that if Intel was in AMD's shoes right now that 32-core would be $3,000 and not have ECC support.
Plus, AMD has a $750 16-core that is plenty for the enthusiast market. This is truly a workstations CPU.
And Intel gets a pass on the 28 core overclocked Xeon that is priced at almost 4K?
Listen, everyone wants to pay nothing for their products. But this chip isn't exactly cheap, and AMD is giving a heck of a deal on a processor Intel can't hope to make with their current processes. Remember that AMD's 64 core behemoth of a CPU only costs 7k, while Intel charges 10K for... 28 cores.
I dont think and I dont hope that Intel is dead here. I do love the current status to be honest. Let them fight on the same level. I dont care if I use a AMD or an Intel chip at the end of the day. Let the CPUs get cheaper and more powerfull with a nice and working competition :) ... Intel will react on this and maybe in a few years Intel is back, just to be chased again by AMD. THAT´s how it should be ;)
My last Intel was the 4770K which was a great CPU. Nowdays AMD is dominating CPU performance and I am very happy with my 4Ghz 1800X. I saw no reason to upgrade the 4770K until Ryzen has launched. Intel will catch up but this might take a year or two. Intel won't be out of business for sure and that would be bad for us since AMD will raise their prices if there is no competition. In the other hand Intel is entering the GPU market which will help them. AMD is currently suffering in the GPU market as they only have the 5700XT which cannot keep up with the RTX series and Big Navi needs a miracle to even match the old Turing architecture; Big Navy won't even be released this year.
It would be nice if AMD released an entry level TR3 with 16 cores at the $900-$1000 price point. It would be like a 3950x but with the extra memory bandwidth and pcie lanes, which are really important in a variety of workloads. I think the reason why this configuration doesn't exist yet is because AMD has "Ryzen" the HEDT bar to high making the market for it too small. What do you think?
pointless product. if you are building a 3000 usd workstation you can afford 1400. if you just want pcie lanes, there are some older gen thread rippers out there for 200 usd. AMD should focus on rolling out 2 -- and not 1 -- 7nm APU dies. one quad core for 15w and below and a 8 core apu for 15 inch laptops and larger, 25W+
Well... The APU market is another story since its the only place where AMD is still behind Intel in efficiency, and consequently, in performance. We all expect zen2 will revert this in 2020. Back to the workstation side, it seems now that the best option for a ~16 core system for memory bound applications is the good old Skylake
Thank you AnandTech for this review. Talking about HEDT processing, why don't include Linux benchmark results ? Do games scores make a difference for a super computer...
AMD's biggest problem now is making enough of these. Every EPYC is sold before it leaves the fab and I suspect the same is happening with the desktop chips.
Seconded! In fact, a good write-up on how to cool a 280W CPU that is continuously running flat out. My (old, slow) 1950X is cooled by a 280mm AIO and gets to ~61C when run flat out. These new Threadrippers use 55% more power which suggests that a 420mm or 480mm radiator will be required.
Great for AMD! Popular YouTube tech reviewers and others really need to stop saying that AMD has "crushed" Intel. That is just stupid. What they have done is deliver a very powerful, competitively priced product that delivers mostly the same or better performance at different price points. The desktop market is small. It's not making AMD or Intel all that much money. But it is great when companies like Amazon and Google talk about moving forward or transitioning to AMD Epyc line of processors. The enterprise and High Performance Computing contracts are where the real victory lies.
People concerned about the price between AMD and Intel HEDT processors need to calculate the per core cost and they will find out that the cost between the HEDT processors are pretty close. Add in the fact that Threadripper has a lot more L3 cache than the 10980XE plus can utilize up to 4 times as much RAM then the price of Threadripper 3 processors are a little easier to justify.
I bought a 3970x + a Gigabyte Designare mobo. These will be used in a 4GPU setup for rendering and physics simulations.
Right now I have to chose between these 2 Ram kits, which are available and at a decent price in my country: 1. Corsair VENGEANCE® 128GB 3000MHz C16 -750$ 2. G.Skill TridentZ 3000MHz C14 - 981$
Do you guys think that the C14 Gskill justifies the 200$ dollar difference? Will it be great improvement over the C16? I am leaning toward the Vengence more because of price +is in stock in store + it is low profile and it will fit better with the Noctua nh-u14s tr4-sp3.
I have a 9900K and 3970X side by side and my findings are much different. The 3970X destroys the 9900K in every way. Are you sure you're using the memory properly in the AMD machine? Make sure you're running at least 3600 with 1:1 FClock. Then out of nowhere an Intel 7960X destroys the AMD 3970X? No way.
What are 0T,2T meaning? If I perform manual OC for the Threadripper 3970x, what maximum values I need put in for PPT,TDC, and EDC limits in a BIOS? (280 W ?)
What are 0T,2T meaning? If I perform manual OC for the Threadripper 3970x, what maximum values I need put in for PPT,TDC, and EDC limits in a BIOS? (280 W ?)
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
245 Comments
Back to Article
csutcliff - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
RIP IntelNikosD - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
It's a bloodpath.Threadrippers destroy even the Xeon W-3175X of 3000$.
Intel is having hard times, no doubt about it.
They look so incompetent nowadays.
melgross - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
You guys are really funny. Intel had its best year yet, and will have an even better one next year.While you can hope that AMD will take the industry over, it’s never going to happen. We’ve seen that predicted in the past, and it isn’t any truer now.
Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
The difference though, I don't think Intel can weasel their way through this storm as they did with the Athlon days.They didn't stay in the lead because people didn't want to buy AMD, they stayed because DELL and them were bribbed not to sell AMD, so your average consumer knew nothing about how much better the AMD platforms were.
Intel still holds the performance crown for laptops, which is arguably the bigger segment of the consumer market, but if they don't do something soon, AMD has the performance crown in HEDT and Servers now, both high margin areas, which Intel is super worried about.
Santoval - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Next year we will see Comet & Ice Lake based laptops compete with Zen 2 (+ Navi?) based laptops. Zen 2 based laptops will certainly surpass both in CPU performance, so the question is only if they'll be able to surpass the performance of the (Gen11) iGPU of Ice Lake. By that I mean only the parts with the 64 EUs of course, the Gen11 iGPUs with 24 and 48 EUs stand on chance.In any case, it appears that Comet Lake-U/Y will power the largest bulk of Intel's machines, machines with Ice Lake-U/Y will be released in low volume, and Ice Lake-U machines with 64 EU iGPUs will almost certainly be rarer than francium and more expensive than their weight in gold.
Santoval - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
edit : "stand *no* chance".jabber - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Guys, some of you may not remember but we've been in this situation before.There was a time that Intel was king and could do no wrong. then about 16 years ago they could not do a thing right and everyone was AMD/SKT939 till the day they died. Ho ho ho!
Then AMD screwed up, Intel got it's act together and AMD was 'so over' etc. etc.
No doubt AMD will screw up again in a couple of years and Intel will get it together again...
Rinse and repeat. Just enjoy the ride.
xrror - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
What really sucked was seeing AMD management at the time just sit there like a sitting duck. People playing with overclocking Pentium M on desktop boards demonstrated nearly a year before Conroe launched that if Intel developed their mobile design into a desktop chip that it would be a monster chip against A64.And Intel did just that.
That said, this time around... Sunny Cove had better start to scale clock wise, else it won't matter that it's 20% faster per clock if it can't actually reach 4Ghz.
It's going to be interesting.
DaBones - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
A quick difference between then and now is that both companies are doing good things. Neither is releasing a dumpster fire of a product, this time around. That's just really cool, and whoever gets shiny, metal hats, I still have some pretty good hardware options!.arcamdomain - Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - link
AMD have never been this ruthless, zen has been a massive turning for all of the market, bringing the prices down and increasing performance from both sides, unfortunately for intel, AMD have the bigger arms in this arms race, TSMC and AMD are already talking about 5nm and 3nm respectively, at which point does this become a ant vs boot scenario.Fulljack - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
well, even 64eu gen11 graphics actually couldn't even surpass vega 10 on 3700u.YazX_ - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
@melgross, LOL cool story, your butthurt is so obvious, being a fanboy is something but living in denial is something else.the only reason one would post such comment is to be an Intel employee, heck, even Intel employees are admitting their defeat.
JKflipflop98 - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
No, we're not.mickrussom - Tuesday, December 3, 2019 - link
If you really are an Intel employee- shame!, shame!, shame! - especially if you had anything to do with:Spectre 1/2, Meltdown 3/3a, Speculative Store Bypass, Foreshadow, L1TF, Fallout/MSBDS, ZombieLoad/MFBDS, RIDL MLPDS/MDSUM
It is utterly criminal what Intel has done. I have zero respect for Intel and it is only by the grace of the US Government Intel is allowed to live. What is happening to Boeing should be happening to Intel for the criminally negligent brain damaged cheating lying trash-chips they have produced with these horrific faults for over a decade. This is far worse than FDIV. And I got a new CPU for FDIV. This is a crime wave and Intel has received a pardon and all of us are left with broken chips that when patch by the OS run half speed or worse.
So to all Intel employees, you better hold your heads down in utter shame until the next wave of CPUs comes out. And support ECC on all the chips - its criminally negligent to hold people hostage with RAM errors.
WaltC - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
You don't really understand how the quarterly bookkeeping works, I can see. Intel's last quarter was already set in their ordering channels long before AMD's July launch of Epyc Zen 2, R3k, and TR3k is only now launching--it will be all of 2020 that you will see Intel's P&L's grow progressively leaner as you see AMD's grow progressively fatter. Generally it takes 2-3 quarters of progressively worse business before a company's woes begin to show up dramatically on the balance sheet, due to good will and other bookkeeping dodges. Next year will be a Halcyon year for AMD and a critical year for Intel no question about it. Already their roles have reversed, with Intel becoming the "value proposition"--but only provided Intel keeps on cutting its prices. What we've also seen predicted many times in the past is that AMD was *doomed*...;) Not..quite..;)Jimbo Jones - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
@melgrose"Intel had its best year yet" ... more 10nm delays, so called "14nm shortages", no 10nm for desktop yet, nothing for server yet, same rehashed 14nm with the 10980XE bringing almost no improvement at all per core meanwhile in one generation Threadripper beings up to 32% improvement in multi, 20% in single thread, with no answer from Intel to any of these processors at all and their flagship 18 core HEDT being almost equal to Ryzen desktop in heavy workloads.
But that's ok, let's look ahead to 2020 ... Comet lake aims at add two cores and add 100mhz ... I guess that's pretty good ... for Intel ... ;-)
What IS impressive though, is Intel's ability to keep squeezing money out of gullible people willing to keep paying more money for less product -- I guess that's how they managed to make so much money last year?
mickrussom - Tuesday, December 3, 2019 - link
yeah, how quickly they forget Spectre 1/2, Meltdown 3/3a, Speculative Store Bypass, Foreshadow, L1TF, Fallout/MSBDS, ZombieLoad/MFBDS, RIDL MLPDS/MDSUM. they took our money and unlike Boeing they go no flak from FEDGOV for it. and then they act like arrogant rotten gordon gecko types while laughing to the bank while the CPUs still coming are patch against those flaws mostly in microcode and OS kernels STILL!maxxbot - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
AMD didn't have these sorts of products in the past, trying to extrapolate past performance into the future is a fool's errand. Intel was the process champ for decades and guess what? It all changed overnightTargon - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Financials vs. products. Intel financials were up because many people were upgrading from older dual or quad core products, and OEMs are barely starting to offer third generation Ryzen based machines. For your typical consumer, not the gamers who can afford a $500 9900k, but your typical consumer, would you suggest Intel or AMD based products at this point? Intel has the 9600, 9700, and 9900 as good products, the rest are beaten by AMD products at the same price point.arcamdomain - Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - link
Nokia said the same thing about the phone market.Silma - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Not.Congrats to AMD on great processors, but the consumer market for $1,4-$2k processors is super tiny.
Despite the current generation of AMD processors for desktops being arguably superior to those of Intel, in the financials, Intel still destroys AMD and it is indeed a bloodbath.
In my opinion, AMD would hurt Intel much more, and in the end earn more money, if it priced its offerings lower, for consumer processors as well as datacenter processors.
sgeocla - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Not that small.>> Workstations are a growing market segment and have been for quite some time. They run 24-7, are extremely reliable, and have features and specifications you can’t find in a PC. Therefore, workstations can command high price points because of the high expectations users have for them. Our research shows the market size for workstations is approximately 5.3 million units, about 2% of the total PC market, and brings in over $10 billion dollars a year, almost 2.5% of the PC market total, which indicates the average selling price (ASP) is higher than the ASP of a PC.
https://gfxspeak.com/2019/05/13/stands-for-worksta...
melgross - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Very small. The more cores, the smaller the market. What are so many cores good for? Video editing, huge databases. Financial transactions, which the chips are not likely to be used for.For most everyone else, 8 cores is still the sweet spot.
ShowsOn - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
The review literally discusses this point:"...Intel has reported that the workstation market has a potential $10B a year addressable market, so it is still worth pursuing. While I have no direct quotes or data, I remember being told for several generations that Intel’s best-selling HEDT processors were always the highest core count, highest performance parts that money could buy. These users wanted off-the-shelf hardware, and were willing to pay for it – they just weren’t willing to pay for enterprise features...Now that we can get better performance at $1999 with 32 cores, assuming AMD can keep stock of the hardware, it stands to reason that this market will pick up interest again."
twtech - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
They need to partner with a workstation vendor such as Dell, HP, etc. - or pick/create a company to partner with. Big businesses like to have a reliable single vendor they can deal with for all their server and workstation hardware, including support.eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
They really need Dell.xrror - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Sadly Dell always seems anti-AMD - or I guess more accurately they absolutely will not do anything that could jeopardize receiving Intel's contrarevenue.eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Pretty much anybody that does graphics, video, etc. has a need for these CPUs. A large portion of professional Youtubers use blender or similar applications (that scale perfectly) to render things like 3d animations and the like. On the contrary. The market for these types of CPUs is larger than the gaming market. AMD's biggest obstacle here is getting prebuilt OEM systems built with sufficient cooling. Not many folks in that audience are going to build their own PC.melgross - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Nope. Graphics apps don’t use all these cores. I run that stuff. Neither do apps like Photoshop. If sometimes they use most cores, the usage ore core I’d down around 20% in spurts. Fewer cores simply have higher per core usage.As I said, video rendering is about the only thing that most users will find using a lot of cores. Even multasking doesn’t use 16 or more cores efficiently.
It’s also interesting that years ago, the argument was too much power. 150 Watters was considered to be on the high side, and not in a good way. Now these cores are moving to 300 watts, and nobody is saying anything.
Jimbo Jones - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Video rendering3D rendering
3D animation where physics calculation is need (cloth, particles, etc)
Particle simulations for 3D animation / work / science
Game creation / compiling / baking
Progamming (compiling)
VFX -- after effects, etc
Gaming while rendering out any of the above at the same time
Doing more than one thing at a time (Intel users close all their apps to game, lol)
Gaming while streaming
Youtube content creation (requires video rendering and encoding)
Digital audio workstations
To name a couple ...
I actually read someone on another comment feed defending Intel by saying "CPU's aren't even important these days anyway!" -- the desperation of fanbois to grasp at straws to defend the indefensible is hilarious ... right Mel?
melgross - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
What you’re missing is that I’m talking about most users. The ones you mention are in very small numbers. There’s about a billion Windows machines out there, well under 1% need 16 or more cores. That still millions, but it’s not enough to move the market.What been one of the biggest problems involving pc sales the past year? Intel not producing enough chips. Not AMD. AMD is almost an afterthought. Most vendors and customers don’t want AND. Most pc users have never even heard of and. It’s why the are cheaper, and make little profit. They sell on price. And they’re trying to move in a market Intel isn’t very interested in—yet.
Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Most people just need their ARM powered cell phones these days, if you really want to get down to reality. light web browsing, posting on Facebook, sending an IM on messenger, potentially watching YouTube. All things that can be done off a cellphone. For those who need a bigger display, laptops are a good choice, but see little use outside of a few instances where a bigger screen is necessary.maxxbot - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
And it's a continuously moving target too, just a few years ago people would say 8 cores is way more than necessary, now it's a baseline.mdriftmeyer - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Yes they do Mel. You just don't seem to know it. When Zen 3 get AVX 512 Apple has no more need of Intel, period. Mac Pro down to Macbook Air can be replaced w/ superior low power, higher performance per watt, lower priced CPUs to match RDNA 2.0 GPGPUs.xrror - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
About the too much power... it might be that nobody is saying anything because if you fully load the processor with a workload where it draws it's full 300w.......it means that it's performing a workload that a few years prior would have required 4 separate machines at full tilt to match, and I'm pretty sure that 4 older gen HEDT rigs running full tilt is going to be drawing something significantly more than 300w overall in CPU power, let alone the rest of the rigs.
Korguz - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
that is not what it means....[email protected] - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
you forgot virtualization. now people can run virtualized environment for casual things such as file server, media server, backups, scheduler server, and even host their own websites.Dug - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
You forgot the cost of virtualization if using Windows. They charge per core now, not per processor.Alistair - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
The cost per core is a bit problem for AMD. Company just bought 3 x Epyc servers, and the much lower price was blunted by the per core licensing. Microsoft is effectively supporting Intel unintentionally... would rather they charge based on the MSRP of the CPU or something...Alistair - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
bigschujj07 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Where I work we now have 4x Dual 32 Core Epyc 7502s and 2x Dual 24 Core Epyc 7401s. We cannot move to Server 2016/2019 due to the per core licensing. However, for our VMware environment it is amazing how many VMs just 1 of those hosts can run.Supercell99 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Is vmware stable on the new Epycs? I have some older Dells R630 2697 x2 I need to upgrade running ESXi 6.0 A bit nervous about jumping to AMD for production on vmware.schujj07 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
They are perfectly stable. We are running them for production work. 2nd Gen Epyc is only supported on 6.7 U3.Foeketijn - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
On Epyc. Not TR. I would think.twtech - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Speaking of which, why does this review have so many gaming benchmarks, and say, no compiler benchmarks? I'd have liked to see the 32-core TR vs. the 3175x or 3275 compiling a large C++ project.eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Not only that, but Anandtech is still doing gaming benchmarks on a Geforce 1080. Gamers Nexus has a much more production oriented review, but still no compiler benchmarks, etc.Slash3 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I've never understood why AT has kept the GTX 1080. For purposes of benchmarking, it acts as an immediate bottleneck on faster CPUs and adds no value to a processor evaluation except in extreme cases such as the 2970WX/2990WX where performance impacts are made more readily evident. Even then, one or two simple tests would be enough to paint the picture, unless it called for further testing.It's simply a waste of benchmark time and continues to baffle me with its inclusion. The only reason I can think to keep it in reviews is to pad the Bench database, or that the tests can be completed quickly and it's simply spare time. I love AT, but sometimes they just make me scratch my head.
imaheadcase - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
1080p is fine..they are using it for CPU benchmarks to bottleneck, not gpu.peevee - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
It is GTX1080, not 1080p.DannyH246 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Because Inteltech takes Intels $$$ and its one of the few areas where Intel doesn't get smashed.I agree with you, the main uses for these these kinds of CPU's are proper work not gaming. And definitely not gaming at 1080p. Its a joke.niva - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
If that's how you feel just go to another website, why even bother posting here?stux - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I must admit I’m saddened by the lack of compiler benchmarks. Who cares about gaming benchmarks on a workstation processor.Meanwhile actually benchmarks which may affect serious purchasers are missing
ABR - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Another vote for compilation. Ability to take advantage of more cores is a complex equation depending on caching, i/o, and memory access, so it would be informative to see some comparisons done.Lux88 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Another vote for compilation. Should be relatively easily scriptlable too. Linux kernel compiles under half a minute, but Chromium or Firefox should still be big enough. Additionally there's .NET, could be an interesting data point.GreenReaper - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
PostgreSQL database work? It can parallelize quite nicely now, especially with PG12.PeachNCream - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Yup, one more +1 for compiler benchmarks and for the lack of relevance of gaming benchmarks.peevee - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Agree. Compiler, CADs etc must be here, games and self-made tests and useless PI calculators should not.Supercell99 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Would like to see how it runs some VMware ESXi loads as well.cosecant - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Another vote for compilation, go or c++, as well as database tests, CAD of some kind, and virtualization (bonus points for docker or Kubernetes as well)... however... please don’t remove all the gaming benchmarks... I might be in the minority, but I like to be able to game or work on the same machine...Supercell99 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Yea more HEDT testing applicable. Gaming on this chip is not the intent.plonk420 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
it may be small, but they're now fighting Intel in that same small market with these Threadrippers, and, well AMD has the winning product in use cases i'm looking at (simultaneous video encoding streams and Blender, with enough cores to do that while gaming).AV1 is currently so slow to encode, i have to split a movie into 8 parts (probably more with one of these Zen2 TRs to get it done quicker) for a doable encode. took about 41-48 hours per part save for the credits to encode at 720p on a 16c32t 1950X
DavyJones - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
AMD curbstomps Intel at every price point, from $50 all the way to $7000+. How much lower should AMD price their CPU's exactly? Should they give them away for free?And yes, Intel has a vastly larger marketshare. They were on top for well over a decade, & for a large portion of that, AMD was completely irrelevant. Their server marketshare was statistically insignificant just 3 years ago & now they're knocking on the door of 10%. Their stock has skyrocketed in that time. Again... How cheap should AMD go when they have an objectively superior product?
jabber - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Indeed at the end of the day Dell and HP etc. are taking all the i3/i5 chips the Corporate market can buy.Intel are probably still outselling AMD 10 to 1?
maxxbot - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I would absolutely bet that more of these TR3 are going to be sold to professionals than consumers, I waited in line for the 3950X yesterday and even for that part half of the people in line were buying it for work.Teckk - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
In this segment could be, but in laptops Intel is what is selling. AMD needs Zen2 + 7nm thereTEAMSWITCHER - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
That's my issue... I can't find any of these Threadripper, Ryzen 3950X, or Cascade Lake X in stock anywhere. But I can order 16" MacBook Pro right now and have it here tomorrow. Desktop CPU's are OLD SCHOOL. I would rather have a mobile solution that I can take .. anywhere.Korguz - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
must be just where you are.. i can go to one store and buy the Threadripper 3960X now, but the 3970x is special order, for the intel 10xx series, not showing anything for these, yetimaheadcase - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Did Csutcliff not even look at benchmarks or even look at price difference for a setup?tygrus - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
News of Intel's death have been greatly exaggerated. It would take more than 20 years of bad performance (<20% market share) for Intel to burn it's cash reserves.Oliseo - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I've seen bigger companies fail faster.Supercell99 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I tend to agree, they can low ball AMD for a few years until the catch up. Assuming they completely screw up the 10 nm deployment going into 2022. It takes 3-5 years for for an industry to fully adopt switch course on a mainstream microprocessor.Korguz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
" they can low ball AMD for a few years until they catch up " not if their investors and shareholders have anything to say about that......Chaitanya - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Impressive to say the least.Paul-RP12 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel destroyed. This is the end, this is the sunset of the empireyankeeDDL - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I wonder how long will it take Intel to go fabless. Now, that would be a shift ... I think it is inevitable.milkywayer - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
That's what you get for milking the same s****y 4 core cpus for years until the competition not only catches up but also surpasses you. Intel deserved every bich slap this year from AMD.Paul-RP12 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel has no chance. they do not have an effective architecture, they do not have a modern technical process. They are hopelessly behind. 3970x of 2000 usd upside about 20% (in applications that use all the cores) Xeon W-3175X of 3000 usd. Its so crazy!!TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel's quarterly profit is still more than AMD's revenue. AMD can't make enough products to change that.eva02langley - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I said 10 years last year... so maybe around 9 now.niva - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I hope they never go fabless, it will be a big problem for consumers in the end... unfortunately it may happen.mkaibear - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel had revenue of 19.2bn last quarter. The highest it's ever been for them.https://www.anandtech.com/show/15030/intel-announc...
Claiming that Intel is destroyed is laughable.
They're hurting at the moment, but then they were hurting in the Athlon era as well... and that didn't go so badly for them in the end.
For reference, AMDs revenue for the same period was 1.8bn. yes, Intel, despite all their problems, earned *ten times* what AMD did.
(Reference: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15045/amd-q3-fy-201...
Claiming Intel are destroyed is just fanboyism at its worst.
Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Unless Intel can get something out sooner rather than later, people are migrating to AMD because they are pushing things forward. 64 cores of Epyc fury is hitting them in the Server Space, which is where Intel is most scared of. They don't care that you or I buy an Intel chip or an AMD one, they care if Microsoft or Apple buys either or.Intel isn't destroyed, but they will be hurting for a while, as AMD is showing no signs of slowing down, and Intel has to beat what AMD makes next, not AMD today.
mkaibear - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Again, Intel have record earnings this last quarter. As in over the last 3 months. As in after two years of AMD kicking their backside in the server space they're still making record amounts of revenue.Intel aren't stupid, they're one of the most ruthless companies in the sector. They can throw five times as much as AMD's *total profit* in R&D and still make five times as much profit as AMD does.
Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Record breaking earnings mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.For as much as you gloat about Intel's RND, AMD is the one who's on top in 2 of the 4 markets (Laptops, Desktops, HEDT and Servers), some would argue 3. Doesn't matter how much money you can throw at a problem, it matters if you can solve it. AMD solved the problem, Intel hasn't, and it's a frantic state at Intel to make something happen, either get 10nm working better or changing their uArch in 14nm.
Right now, the only reason to consider a XEON over an Epyc would be for AVX-512 only workloads. Because otherwise, ServerTheHome has shown that Epyc dominates, especially the 7742 64 core part.
SwackandSwalls - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Those record breaking earnings (i.e. capital) mean a lot, and saying otherwise displays a large and intentional ignorance on how important capital is to the microprocessor industry. Intel can use that money to hire more both hardware and software talent, fund more research, build more fabs, outspend AMD in marketing, and on and on. If Intel had huge cash reserves but was putting up large losses every quarter then I'd be on board with your "grand scheme of things" comment. In reality they are massively profitable, selling more 14nm chips than they can produce, and have enough cash to not only learn from AMD's successes but also invest in following suit.Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Again, Hire all you want, throw as much money as you want. That doesn't matter if there's no results.AMD with literally tenths of Intel's funding can beat them, and have found better ways to make processors to increase core counts without sacrificing efficiency. Intel also needs to spend a lot of money on researching the node itself, AMD doesn't, so not all of Intel's RnD goes to making the CPU, lots of it goes into making the node itself.
So while Intel may make more, they have to spend way more, especially since CPUs aren't the only thing Intel makes (They make flash chips, 3D XPoint, Networking chipsets, and many other products, all vying for that sweet RND cash)
So while Intel makes more, they also spend more. Revenue is a great figure to look at on paper, but it doesn't amount to anything unless the spending is done wisely. AMD surely has shown that it doesn't take Intel levels of cash to become a market leader and capitalize on someone who's grown complacent.
milkywayer - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
"record breaking numbers mean a lot".So what happened then, why is AMDs offering more power and cost efficient at a much much lower price?
Korguz - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
mkaibear/SwackandSwalls, and point is ?? intel has all that money, yet.. been milking the SAME architecture for how many years ? as Xyler94 already said.. to keep throwing money at a problem, and it STILL doesnt get fixed, is NOT a good thing. AMD may not have the money that your beloved intel does, but guess what, they have been able to do MORE with what they do have, so tell me who is spending wiser ?? also.. how much of that 19.2 billion has intel had to dump into their fabs??imaheadcase - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I really hope you are not comparing Intell vs amd based on a just a CPU..that is illogical.TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel isn't "hurting" now... Desktop processors are not what most people want.PeachNCream - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Very much agree with this statement. Desktops are a shrinking market segment. Mainstream home users and corporate office computing assets are generally now laptops regardless of whether or not the mobility makes sense or is a necessity. Yes, there is a market for desktop computers and that market does include massively parallel workloads that benefit from lots of cores/threads, but the center of mass in terms of money in CPU sales has shifted to portable computing where AMD is still lagging due mainly to power consumption and heat output. The I/O die design AMD uses is not so great in that sense and Intel still has an advantage in the mobiel sector.Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Both of you are actually wrong.Intel doesn't care about laptops, it's a side project basically. Both Intel and AMD want Server space. Servers are the heart of the market. Especially Supercomputers. Intel wouldn't care one bit if AMD took 25% of the laptop market, but you can see Intel scrambling and panicking at every single percent AMD gains in the Server Market.
Laptop CPUs are so little margin, Intel wouldn't actually care if people buy AMD. Servers and HEDT processors are such high margin, they'd rather 1 person buy a Xeon or 2066 processor than 10 people buying laptops. It's all about profits, not units sold.
PeachNCream - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Have you looked at Intel and/or AMD's income breakdowns out of their financial reports? I have. You're assertion is not correct.Korguz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
" Desktops are a shrinking market segment " im not so sure about that... no one i know wants a notebook, for portability, they have their phones or tablets for that...upanddown - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Your revenue numbers don't mean anything. 15 years ago Nokia was also unbeatable, as well as Yahoo, MySpace etc..For Intel, there is a chance that similar to "after-Athlon" era will never come again.
Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Especially since the bribes are what made Intel keep goingdrothgery - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
No, what made Intel keep on going was AMD's lack of manufacturing capacity (they couldn't have supplied much more than 25% of the CPU market in the Athlon 64 X2 era even if they wanted to), inferior laptop CPUs, and lack of infrastructure to support their server/workstation CPUs. Since going fabless, they're nowhere near as capacity constrained now, and may have more of the server infrastructure figured out... but Zen 3 doesn't have anywhere near the advantage on 10th-gen Core that Athlon 64 X2 derivatives had on Pentium 4 derivatives, either.If Intel can get cores/$ and total core counts reasonably close to EPYC and TR (which is likely), they'll be fine in the long run.
Korguz - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
drothgery you didnt hear about how intel would bribe and threaten OEMs and the like NOT to use amd products ? thats what hurt amd way back when, thats why intel payed a billion or so to amd to settle that.. what advantage ?? zen 2 has more IPC then intel, why do you think intel needs such high clock speeds to compete with lower clocked cpus ??Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
You don't know the history of the mid 2000s, do you?drothgery - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Reality and AMD fanboy mythology are not the same.Did Intel do some shady things in the P4 era? Yes. But that wasn't the biggest reason why AMD failed to gain more ground than they did on Intel then.
Did AMD have the manufacturing capacity to handle a significantly bigger market share than they actually got? No.
Did Opeteron have serious infrastructure issues vs Xeon? Yes, they did.
Did AMD's laptop chips suck compared to Pentium M and its follow-ons? Also yes.
Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Gotta love the "But what about this" with you fanboys.Did AMD beat Intel to the X86-64 Race? Yes
Did AMD beat Intel to the 1Ghz Race? Yes
Did AMD beat Intel to the true dual-core arc? Yes
Does AMD still continue to innovate and bring us better products, despite their peanut funding compared to Intel, while Intel just tries to weasel their way through the market? Of course. Do you honestly believe if TR3 wasn't so amazing, that Intel would have reduced their 18 core part to 1k out of the goodness of their heart? If you think that, you're more of a fanboy than I thought.
It is still known as AMD-64 today, because AMD found the way to do both 32bit and 64bit X86 at the same time, and Intel has to license that tech from AMD. Without AMD, Intel would not be releasing 8 core CPUs today. The reason for their shortages isn't really due to high demand, it's due to varying demand of their products. the 6-8 core silicon is different from their 4 core ones, and they needed to manufacture separate LCC and HCC core i9/Xeons, further hogging their supply chain. And there's also the fact the 9900k is also a legitimately great CPU, so people want it, further hurting the supply chain. Intel did this to themselves due to years of complacency, so I don't feel bad at all.
blppt - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
"Did AMD beat Intel to the X86-64 Race? Yes"They didn't beat Intel to anything---Intel was going with IA64, never going with x64, Then AMD threw a MASSIVE wrench into those plans, lol. Intel was forced to then copy AMD64 with EMT64 when Itanium flopped.
But make no mistake---if AMD didn't create x86-64, Intel wouldn't have either. We'd all be running Itaniums and Itanium clones.
Qasar - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
actually, for the most part, the industry didnt want ia 64, it would me a redo of most, if not all of the software just to use it, before they could even use it, with AMD64, you could keep using existing 32 bit software, and transition of 64 bit, when you can, or wanted to. amd just found a better, and quicker way to 64 bit then when intel was trying to cram down every ones throats."
But make no mistake---if AMD didn't create x86-64, Intel wouldn't have either." and chances are, we could be still using 32 bit cpus, as i said above, most, if not all of the industry didnt want to have to re compile all of the software we used then. and wasnt itanium slower then x86 over all ?
ahh yep.. it was slower : " By the time Itanium was released in June 2001, its performance was not superior to competing RISC and CISC processors. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64
Qasar - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
would me a redo of most = would mean a redo of mostblppt - Monday, December 2, 2019 - link
One of the big reasons Itanium/IA-64 failed was that its "backwards compatibility" (i.e. x86 emulation) was much slower than the native x86 cpus out at the time.So, while they wouldn't need to redo all that x86 software, it wasn't exactly speedy while emulating.
To take full advantage of the IA64 architecture, yes, they would need to rewrite a lot of software, but it would have *run* without a rewrite.
And that's where x86-64 stepped in. 64 bit memory addressing, perfect x86-32 performance at a lower price.
But Intel was never going to create x64 by themselves unless the new EPIC/VLIW IA64 hit some kind of performance brick wall, or people just kept coding to x86 anyways (which Itanium would run, but slowly).
Bear in mind that part of the reason it was slow in 2001, x86 and Power had been extensively optimized compilers for a decade (or more for x86) and IA64 was in its nascent stages. Since it was never adopted by the mass public (include home users, etc), development of IA64 never came close to the level of development and optimization of x86.
Qasar - Tuesday, December 3, 2019 - link
either way you look at it, it seems AMD is doing more to move the cpu farther, then intel does. AMD seems to be the one that innovates, while intel sleeps. i know some who is a fan of intel, will refute this, but think about it... AMD improves the cpu, and moves it forward, while intel stagnates and stifles it..eva02langley - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Desktop and HEDT is not Intel business anymore. Just a matter of time for server and laptop to eat the same bullet.eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I wouldn't say that AMD fans are wrong. Look at AMD's revenue years ago vs today. Do you think the growth came out of thin air? No, AMD is eroding Intel's marketshare. It hasn't begun to show yet, because the last reported earnings did not include Zen 2 eating into things. More and more people are buying AMD, and as long as AMD continues to execute as they have (and even more so: they have to get into bed with OEMs), Intel will gradually begin to suffer. They already HAVE suffered. Drastic price reductions on their highest end parts.eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Oh and I should add that Intel is in a lot more markets than AMD. In addition, Intel actually does a ton of fab work for other companies. Intel makes networking cards, storage, and much more. So in translation: Revenue is meaningless. Intel does not have endless amounts of cash to throw at creating new CPUs, GPUs (which are coming out in 2021), and chipsets. What matters is marketshare. For Intel, it's shrinking.tygrus - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
AMD have taken market share from Intel but it's not uniform across all markets. Fancy brand names, servers and ultra notebooks are still dominated by Intel and where the end-user isn't making a choice. Enthusiasts using a local store to select parts & assemble are a small market that have swung to AMD.Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
No, Dell EMC and HPE have both gone Epyc, Amazon is getting Epycs, Azure is getting Epycs, Google's Stadia runs on Epyc (That's another discussion though). Lots of big names are running Epyc now. It takes years to validate server equipment, unlike the enthusiasts, who can afford a bit of downtime here and there, servers cannot. So they experiment with new hardware for a year or two before implementing it. Remember that the 1.5 Exaflop Supercomputer is gonna be powered by AMD CPUs also.AMD is making big wins, but it takes a lot of time for the numbers to show
Teckk - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
True, but neither does living in denial. So Intel launched their HEDT for half the price they would've otherwise launched, why would they if it was so good and would sell like crazy?Ignoring problems like 10nm and just quoting numbers gets boring quickly.
Total Meltdowner - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
It's only downhill now.Supercell99 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Also, AMD earnings are $0.03 per share. So really INTL can give their chips away for a few years if they wanted and crush amd until they get the performance advantage again. I love that AMD is back we need competition, but lets be real. To think INTEL is out of this is idiotic.bigvlada - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
You might want to read about what happened when American Tobacco Company tried to give products for free in order to crush the competition.Marburg U - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Hmmm, still on QX9770 here. Will wait the next gen.o_O
ShowsOn - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Your CPU is slower than the US$49 Athlon 3000G that AMD released last week.peevee - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Actually, that would be a fun comparison. 4 10 y/o cores @3.2, vs 2 1.5-y/o cores+SMT @3.5...Teckk - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Agree with you on the price, maybe a little too expensive?When is the next new (non-Skylake) Intel chip coming? Is that TigerLake or Saphire Rapids in 2021?
Irata - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
When comparing prices, let's not forget that Intel prices are OEM (when buying 1,000) units whereas TR prices are MSRP.But looking at actual performance and platform features, I honestly cannot see anyone who is not already on X299 even paying that much.
Irata - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Just checked Newegg and TR3 is listed at MSRP, whereas Core i9-10980XE is listed @ $ 1,049.99.That gives it the same per-core price as TR TR 3960X.
Note: All are "out of stock", so this is purely academic.
jordanclock - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
It's only too expensive if your time isn't worth much. These are HEDT workstation CPUs, so the ROI for saving time is much different. Even being twice as a expensive but "only" 20-50% faster can be hugely valuable for many professional tasks.Teckk - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Ok I'm definitely not the target for this product. Interesting to see Intel reduce the price by half and still unable to match this.FunBunny2 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
"Even being twice as a expensive but "only" 20-50% faster can be hugely valuable for many professional tasks."being able to run 1-2-3 only on X86/DOS made both Intel and M$ a ton of money: i.e. the Killer App. not clear that there are enough 'professional tasks' to keep either Intel or AMD, much less both, profitable. with the killer amortization of capital expense in production of chips these days, the only avenue to profit is moving ever more units. HEDT, etc. ain't it.
eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
3D animators save quite a bit of time over lower core count parts. Go take a look at the blender results at Gamer's nexus. Note that it takes several minutes to render 1 frame. If you are rendering thousands of frames, the speed advantage of the 3970X over *every* other chip will pay for itself pretty quick.3D animation, video encoding, compiling large projects, etc. are all areas where Threadripper trounces anything Intel.
Ratman6161 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
This is the reason for the statement that buyers of the Intel CPUs in this segment usually go for the top of the line. I'm not the target audience for this sort of system but it seems to me that the people who are don't care about the price. If you are in this market to begin with its because you want the best you can get and are willing to pay for it. For most others, even the 3950X is overkill and the 4700x is probably the sweet spot.Dug - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
This right here. When you are paying a contractor at $100 or more per hour, the price of a processor doesn't come into the equation. It's how fast the work can get done, so you don't have to keep paying $100 per hour.Haawser - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Exactly. I know people in the CAD/CFD world who think nothing of dropping $10,000+ on a workstation. Because to them it's a work tool as much as a pick-up truck is to a contractor.UglyFrank - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I feel sorry for the 10980XE, this is like having your debut fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I'm personally surprised at the 3950X in the CPU tests. keeping pace with the 10980XE, losing some tests, while beating it in others, it's incredible that even with a 2 core disadvantage, that little chip is proving to be punching above it's class.While you lose out Quad Channel Ram, and the huge many PCIe lanes, the 3950X is showing just how powerful it is.
yeeeeman - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
What is so surprising? It has better ipc and the multi threading efficiency is better than hyper threading in Intel. Hence the result.realbabilu - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Wish Goto Openblas optimize Blas on Windows this AMD processor for floating point calculation (especially AVX) otherwise Intel MKL that optimized for Intel processor only is used by most FEA industry like Ansys, Abaqus, Nastran. To get all juice out,it need optimized on how much size cache it got.M O B - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Can anyone find these actually for sale anywhere? These reviews look great, but I'm not here for a paper launch.wishgranter - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
My Quad Xeon 4880 @2,5 Ghz ( 60 cores - 120 Threads ) + 1,5 TB RAM is on same performance as the TR3 3970x !!! at least on Corona Benchmark for now..rahvin - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
And for consolation you're using about 10X as much power. I bet it costs $20 a day to have that monster on.|Tubbs| - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Would have liked to see some visual studio code compile benchmarks. Our developers could use some faster machines imo.TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I'm pretty sure AMD doesn't allow them... They want to skew the benchmark in their favor as much as possible. If you want to play with free hardware .. you have to agree to these things. It would be great if there was a site that didn't play these games... But.. The allure of "free stuff" drives the motivations of everyone in Tech News business.upanddown - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I'm pretty sure you've already seen these VC benchmarks? Looking forward for the link to it.Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Sites like anandtech usually don't benchmark things like VB code and such. It really has nothing to do with AMD or Intel telling them what to benchmark, it has everything to do with giving a general idea of a processor's performance.When looking at reviews, you should go to the ones who you know benchmark those titles you want. There's not a lot of demand to do VB Code stuff, so no one does it really.
As an aside, Intel suggested reviews don't use Cinebench R15/20 because "It isn't realistic", but it runs on Maxon Cinema 4D, a real and widely used in the professional scene rendering application that studios like Disney and Pixar could use (I don't know if they do). But because no consumer would use such a thing, Intel said don't use it. So would AMD be in the wrong for suggesting not using VB Code? Yes, because Intel shouldn't dictate what reviews use either.
rahvin - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Oh please. Butt hurt much?There was a developer studio just a week ago that published benchmarks for switching out just one of their compilation boxes to a Ryzen 3700 and it smoked the other boxes they had by about 40%.
RSAUser - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I've only seen the Mozilla benchmarks on LTT, very strange that they're the only ones showing such a workload. I'd be very interested on how these chips handle e.g. large SQL Server DB's and requests, especially with those huge caches.The Mozilla benchmark had near 2x the performance for the 3970X vs the 10980X and serve the home has the ryzen chip at near 30 compiles an hour for the Linux Kernel vs around 16 for Intel.
I'd actually be really interested in the financial market for this TR due to the floating point performance increase. We'll probably be upgrading our servers next year based on current projections, so this has been a really nice development.
Dolda2000 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Why is it that Intel gains so incredibly much more from AVX512 than AMD gains from AVX2?In the 3DPM2 test, the AMD CPUs gain roughly a factor of two in performance, which is exactly what I'd expect given that AVX2 is twice as wide as standard SSE. The Intel CPUs, on the other hand, gain almost a factor of 9, which is more than twice what I'd expect given that AVX512 as four times as wide as SSE.
What causes this? Does AVX512 have some other kind of tricks up its sleeves? Does opmasking benefit 3DPM2?
AnGe85 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
The Intel parts are derived from Xeon dies (LCC 10 cores, and HCC up to 18 cores). As such they have two AVX-512-FMA-Units.Zen/+ shows a +70 % increase in performance, Zen2 and the 9900K(S) about +90 % with AVX2 in 3DPM2.1 and the Xeon-based parts reach up to +700 %. Ian has obviously done a good job or at least used a good lib ;-)
Dolda2000 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
But Zen 1/2 also has two 256-bit FMAs per core. And Intel also has two SSE units per core as well, so I don't see how that would explain the ratios.yeeeeman - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel has 512bit unitsDolda2000 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Exactly, which should make it 2× as fast, not 4.5×.abufrejoval - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
The other element of magic is typically halved operand size=twice the data element throughput.Could be FP16 vs FP32 in that code, which means 32 vector elements per 512 bit register and then again of these registers there could be mulitples under SIMD per instruction and clock.
Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Servethehome also mentioned in their reviews of Epyc Rome Processors, the same basic Zen2 platform that the new TR CPUs are made on, that most programs aren't optimized for AMD's new AVX2 pipes, so the results are lower than they should be. I don't know if that's still the case, but it may be a reason why it's showing such a disparity between the two.Slash3 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Wow.Just wow.
shaolin95 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Why wont yuo enable IGPU for the 9900k on the Premiere test? It will change the performance dramatically.lobz - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
As well as the quality. Yes, dramatically.dscott1414 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Totally awesome article. Could you correct the very last sentence?icoreaudience - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
When will Anandtech display a modern compression algorithm within encoding tests ?Zstandard comes with a built-in benchmark compatible with multithreading, an ideal case to test threadripper !
Flying Aardvark - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Fully patched Intel microcode and Windows?yeeeeman - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Probably yes since 10980xe performance is lower than 9980xeblppt - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I'm hesitant to take any of these mega-core intel benchmarks as accurate, though--- the 7980/9980 Geekbench 4 scores are laughably low (9980 should be north of 50K, not 30K, at the very least), so there's definitely something wrong with AT's setup for these cpus.Maybe the other benches are correct, but GB4 at least is messed up.
fackamato - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Nope, mentioned in the article - BIOS update not available.So fully patched, the Intel results would be somewhat lower.
BrainWaveCC - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I see a couple of "Threadripper 3950X" references where I expected to see "Threadripper 3960X" instead. For instance:"The interesting question here of course is, how is this UMA domain setup for the Threadripper 3950X and 3970X?"
dcmsnd - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
May i ask you guys how did you got 44s with 2990wx in Corona benchmark ? Im getting 41s with stock clocks (2933cl14 memory, Win1909, latest AMD drivers, latest bios)41 vs 44 is quite big difference in percentage for such small time frame.
41s vs 34s AND 44s vs 34s is also a lot of difference.
Dug - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I would like to know this too.Slash3 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
AnandTech frustratingly doesn't seem to ever list their memory subtimings, but as they test at "JEDEC" standard, it may be as loose as 2933 CL19-19-19 vs your 2933 CL14. This could easily account for the difference in benchmark results.alufan - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
So Thread ripper is here, I will never have a use for this chip but I want one...just because, probably the single biggest uplift in CPU performance for a great many years.Still 10 intel featuring articles on the main page vs 4 featuring AMD though, shame really and it would have been nice for you to have a proper dig at intel for its pathetic attempt to skew CPU bench results by moving the embargo forward, try taking a tip off linus man he told it like it was as have many others.
Grobert783 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
So many cores and yet no one cares PLUS we all know AMD sucks. Thank youyeeeeman - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
LolXyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Ah yes, the infamous "Nobody cares" argument of a fanboy.And yet you cares enough to click the article, go to the comment section, and write this comment. I won't comment about your other comment though, clearly you didn't RTFA
darwi - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
With so much cores Anandtech should consider virtualization benchmark/uses casesthere is some good automated Lab Scripts available.
On Windows Nested Virtualization is still not enabled on AMD Processor.
-> still not announced for Windows 20H1, perhaps for 2OH2 since major overhaul for Azure is underway.
Ryzen Master is still incompatible with VBS (Virtualization based Security).
This situation prevent to test some features in Windows VM :
- With more and more feature relying on virtualization (WSL, Security, workload isolation, ...)
- For advanced scenarios (Labs for testing infrastructure deployment, ESXi, hyper-v, compiler, etc...)
By ignoring the 1k segment AMD could overplay their advantages :
- the cpu is only a part of the package (you have to add a beefy psu and cooling system and a decent amount
of RAM) if you want to make a meaningfull use of such platform.
- the moherboad price take a major rise (Apple accessories manufacturer syndrom ?) - without high ends feature regarding connectivity
where are the multi-gig network and Thunderbolt ports ?, but RGB pins are plenty ...
- forcing the early TR adopters to a 2k-2,5k investment to jump to the TR3+ architecture (if cooler and RAM, PSU remain the same)
and chipset reset could do some damage too.
And finally the 10980XE (with more PCI 3 lanes, and more memory) will not be the best but enough and more affordable.
I'm a an owner of TR 1950X.
Questions :
> Nested Virtualization will eventually comming to AMD ? (for a future interview with AMD CEO/CTO)
> Air Cooling is it still suitable for TR3 ?
And thanx to Anandtech for those reviews and the worth of drilling down into details.
That's my 2cents.
Irata - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Wait, what ? The 10980XE has more PCIe lanes than TR3?And the rest...is pot legal where you live?
darwi - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I was comparing with the nearest AMD offrer to the 10908XE v: The Ryzen 3950X.Furthermore the PCI4 cards are very few for the moment.
May be there is some room for a TR3 3950X like the TR 1920 in his time.
The 1K is for 1K$.
lobz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I usually don't do drugs but I'll have some from what you're having...Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
In what world is 60 PCIe 4.0 lanes less than 48 PCIe 3.0 lanes?You do know... that PCIe 4 is backwards compatible, so Threadripper has effectively 60 lanes of PCIe 3, right? I don't know about you... but 60 is more than 48...
darwi - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
certainly 60 PCIe4 lanes is best than 48 PCIe3.since SLI is not next best thing for the moment this is quite enough for the most currents setup.
But filling up all those 48 PCIe could be possible with mulitiple storage+network and GPU.
However my main point is that the 10980Xe doing an "ok job" and for some users a 500$ or 1k$ bill is a steep step to jump to the first step of the TR4 lineup.
on the other hand the CM Chipset / Socket instability is a major pain point belonging to intel so far
We will see since Milan is the last iteration of this architecture family before a major architecture revision which certainly require a new socket (according to published roadmaps)
the TR4
blppt - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I shouldnt have to keep posting this, but your 7980XE Geekbench MT score is highly inaccurate.I don't overclock anything, and i get 52,000+ consistently.
You either have completely disabled turbo or have some other problem that prevents the cpu from going higher than 2.6 base, because 31K is pathetic.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14797740
Korguz - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
blppt is geekbench even reliable ? a quick search.. seems to point in the direction, that it isnt.blppt - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
What difference does it make whether or not GB4 is 'reliable'? They shouldn't be getting such ridiculously low scores for the 7980XE/9980XE, which means that there is something wrong with their configuration.Especially since literally every other cpu result in their chart is within the margins for what everybody else gets in GB4.
Slash3 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
It may have to do with their memory speed and timings. Reviews specify that the platforms are tested at JEDEC timings for each platform, but have never (to my knowledge) listed the specific subtimings used. For X299, this could easily mean from 2666 CL17-17-17 up to 2666 CL20-20-20. If you're running at, say, 3200 CL14-14-14 it may account for at least some of the difference.blppt - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Nope. 2666, you can see in the link I provided. Secondly, ram speed would not come close to making up a 20,000 point deficit. Something is wrong with their 18-core Intel setup.prime2515103 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Lisa Sue is my hero. When the day comes that she leaves AMD I am going to cry like a little girl.prime2515103 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
oops... Su... lolpeevee - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
She gave Zen architecture to Chinese. Why would she do that, when AMD could have sold them the CPUs? Gaving our the most precious IP you have? Sounds like treason.yeeeeman - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I like a these Steven Spielberg type of users commenting here about the cataclysm that is striking Intel. Intel is doomed. Intel doesn't know anything. Intel is this, Intel is that. Intel has only one weakness now, its Fab. Otherwise, we can't know if chiplets were included in their plans for 10 or 7nm. We don't know yet what uarch they have in the pipeline. We see that ice lake is already a better core than zen 2. Probably Zen 3 will close the gap in ipc. Tiger lake brings another 10%. So Intel has responses. But they need to fix their Fab issue...jmelgaard - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
They also somehow forgot that AMD has been virtually invisible in the desktop CPU market for the last ~10 years, yet they managed to survive and pull this incredible victory.But for some reason, that would be unthinkable that Intel could turn things around... o.O... Pure idiocracy...
Besides, it doesn't matter if your an AMD or Intel fan, if you don't wan't both to be in the game your a pure moron, the status quo we have seen from Intel the past 10 years is exactly what we will see if they aren't both in the game. They are there to push each other, to the overall benefit for us, the consumers. If Intel really where to go out of business, then AMD would just begin to milk...
It's f****** amazing how dumb some people are...
AMD has the absolute and clear victory this time, if Intel has anything meaningful to respond with in the near future, well only time can tell...
But for now... Lets just praise what AMD has done, cheer for the amazing launch and well earned victory after what can only have been 10 long years of hard work, and hope that Intel returns... Hopefully sooner than AMD did... Or... On the other hand it's been 10 rather cheap years computer wise for me, so... perhaps I should cheer for Intel to take 10 years for a decent knockout punch in the other direction...
DannyH246 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Intel will DEFINITELY return and with Jim Keller on board i'm sure in 2-3 years they will return with a vengeance. I do hope however that everyone remembers what we have been saddled with from Intel for the last 10 years...No innovation, crazy pricing, artificial market segmentation, forced new motherboard purchases every year etc etc. In short - Intel have shafted us for years and are only working like crazy now because AMD launched a rocket up their back sides. Lets hope AMD continues innovating & executing as they have been. That's not Fanboyism, its just common sense.lobz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
What gap in IPC? You think intel's Coffee Lake has a higher IPC than Zen 2? Please get your facts straight before you try to criticize other people's comments.Der Keyser - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
AMD are really doing wonders with their ZEN2 architecture :-)But with the latest pricing of the higher end R7 and R9 and now TR I think they are making a GREAT mistake. They have decided to capitalize on having reached their target of beating Intel on performance. So prices are no longer vastly better than Intel, and we are moving into having AMD/INTEL pricing close enough not to matter to the average consumer.
This is a very short sighted decision as AMD right now has a once in a lifetime opportunity to really kick Intel in the n***. Intel’s production capability and proces node is lagging - as is their architecture. This is the time to set pricing and performance at a level were DELL, HP, LENOVO and so on are unable to ignore or downplay the AMD option because of intel funding - because that is happening now, and will continue when AMD is getting similarly expensive.
Ditch the lower end SKU’s and drop the prices on mid and high-end SKUs with 20 - 30% now and gain what AMD never had before: Market superiority to really establish their name as a household processor brand. Will all know Intel will retaliate within the next two years once their 10 and 7nm comes full online, and once that happens, AMD will once again battle with the “unproven and small player” moniker because they never got REALLY big - Getting rid of that moniker should be their second and REAL goal of this ZEN2 era. This short term money grab with the new pricing is what will keep AMD in the shadows of Intel going forward.
liquid_c - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
This! So much this! I have no brand loyalty but somehow, people either chose to forget all of AMD’s mishaps (fake turbo boosts, pricing during their Athlon days, declaration of MB compatibility with future CPU gens but when time comes, they point fingers at MB vendors, etc.)liquid_c - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
...or they hate Intel that much (no edit button..)Korguz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
liquid_c looks like you may be used to the way intel does things, have you seen this article :https://www.anandtech.com/show/15137/amd-clarifies...
or this one :
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14873/reaching-for-...
and what about intels TDP ratings on their cpus ?? people harped and criticized amd for the power their cpus used before zen, but, yet, when intel does the same... it seems to be ok ??
or, that just hate amd that much ....
peevee - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Too bad the test actually relevant to the class of CPUs, namely compilation, is gone.Also looks like some results are old, before OS and BIOS patches for security (Intel) and performance (AMD).
tony p - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
does anyone know can I swap CPU heatsink between Socket TR4 and TR3Slash3 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
X399 and TRX40 boards use the same physical socket - heatsinks are compatible with all three generations of Threadripper.zky1 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Too expensive. Anything over $300 for a cpu is a ripoff. See you in two years when these threadrippers are obsolete.peevee - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Very likely it is a new plateau enabled by 7nm and brand new Zen architecture developed to its potential. I predict small improvements from here for the next several years as it has been with Intel since Sandy Bridge - only better AVX512 implementation on something like 5nm and DDR5 will bring some improvements, but don't expect wonders on most tasks which don't care about memory throughput or AVX512.Slash3 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
The upcoming Zen 3 architecture revision is reported to provide up to a ~10% IPC uplift, with some neat tricks such as unifying the L3 cache per chiplet (no more CCX contention).There's always something better around the corner. :)
lobz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Nope, it's the CCX size that changes from 4 to 8 cores.peevee - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
"Up to 10%" - exactly what I have meant, a plateau, like Intel had after Sandy Bridge, adding only ~5% each year...Korguz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
peevee um intel could of improved their ipc more each year.. but they didnt, there was no reason too.. just like they could of given mainstream more then 4 cores.. but they didnt as well.. mostly because of zen.. is there more then 4 cores from intel..catheryn75 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
It's too bad they aren't available anywhere other then a few system builders. ie CyberPower , Origin , and others.Some of us who would use one of these new processors dont want to pay the extra 1500-2k for someone else to build it when we could do it ourselves.
AMD was really short sighted not at least having some supply at Newegg, Microcenter, Fry's, etc.. on launch day.
Dug - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
That's a lot of power needed for 24 cores. 3960 at 280w. And it's recommended to get water cooling? They aren't going to get many buyers on that.6 more cores than Intel 10980, but needs 90w more power to get there.
I thought 7nm would be better than this.
The Xeon is way out of wack at 381.
People that really need the speed to save in man hour costs, expect a high end system with warranty, instant replacement, compatibility (especially vm), and reliability. I don't think you are going to get that with water cooling. And I don't see any major players that offer what I listed, going to a water cooled system anytime soon.
alufan - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
https://www.scan.co.uk/3xs/configurator/amd-thread...pricey though but its liquid cooled
Dug - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Not exactly mainstream. I'm talking Dell, HPmazz7 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
I really thought that Anandtech viewers are smarter than others, but then i see the comments, I am really wrong about that ;pmartixy - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
The amount of happy this makes me...Also, I'm glad to see y-cruncher in the test suite. It's been my goto power virus/perf benchmark since around the 0.5 versions.
boltcranck - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
World of Tanks enCore is outdated, you should benchmark with the WoT enCoreRTwolfesteinabhi - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
there us a cositant typo at several places .... 3960X is typed as 3950XTorrijos - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
It would be interesting to present all the benchmarks in 2 graphs... The raw results, and then Bench/$.In order to have an idea of the financial benefits.
CraigIsSatoshiBsvIsBitcoin - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Looking forward to picking up a 64 core CPU for $200 in a couple of years..peevee - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Don't hold you breath. Well, maybe 64 in-order RISC cores. Not the same at all.liquid_c - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Gotta love how many people praise AMD and sh*t on Intel for this but just as many seem to forget that when AMD was in Intel’s place, they overcharged *way* more than Intel did / does. As a matter of fact, the 32c/64t gen3 TR costs 200$ more than last gen’s similar offering. The second AMD felt they caught a gust of wind, they slowly started inflating prices.I’m all for competition and i would love it if both Intel and AMD had some sort of control over final pricing (in my country, the 3900x costs ~700$...) but i have this distinct feeling that if things continue at this pace, AMD will become Intel 2.0, pricing and milking wise.
Bottom line - neither of the two are truly consumer friendly but memories fade and time tells its story at a slow pace.
M O B - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
AMD isn't in Intel's place, and the last time there were (2003), they didn't overcharge.As for selling a 32-core CPU for $2000 on a brand new process node that also offers ECC, PCIe 4.0, and is 100W under the closest competitor--that isn't a position Intel has been in before. Even in 2012 Intel wasn't destroying the competition so utterly in single-core, multi-core, node, and feature-set at virtually ever price point.
What Intel will sell you is a 3 year old process node for $2000 like they did for the last 2 years. Rest assured that if Intel was in AMD's shoes right now that 32-core would be $3,000 and not have ECC support.
Plus, AMD has a $750 16-core that is plenty for the enthusiast market. This is truly a workstations CPU.
Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
And Intel gets a pass on the 28 core overclocked Xeon that is priced at almost 4K?Listen, everyone wants to pay nothing for their products. But this chip isn't exactly cheap, and AMD is giving a heck of a deal on a processor Intel can't hope to make with their current processes. Remember that AMD's 64 core behemoth of a CPU only costs 7k, while Intel charges 10K for... 28 cores.
MarkusB. - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
I dont think and I dont hope that Intel is dead here. I do love the current status to be honest. Let them fight on the same level. I dont care if I use a AMD or an Intel chip at the end of the day. Let the CPUs get cheaper and more powerfull with a nice and working competition :) ... Intel will react on this and maybe in a few years Intel is back, just to be chased again by AMD. THAT´s how it should be ;)azfacea - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
intel won in 2005 because GloFo (part of amd then) couldnt keep up. now its reverse with TSMC. intel is dead for goodZizo007 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
My last Intel was the 4770K which was a great CPU. Nowdays AMD is dominating CPU performance and I am very happy with my 4Ghz 1800X. I saw no reason to upgrade the 4770K until Ryzen has launched. Intel will catch up but this might take a year or two. Intel won't be out of business for sure and that would be bad for us since AMD will raise their prices if there is no competition. In the other hand Intel is entering the GPU market which will help them. AMD is currently suffering in the GPU market as they only have the 5700XT which cannot keep up with the RTX series and Big Navi needs a miracle to even match the old Turing architecture; Big Navy won't even be released this year.Dr. Denis - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
It would be nice if AMD released an entry level TR3 with 16 cores at the $900-$1000 price point. It would be like a 3950x but with the extra memory bandwidth and pcie lanes, which are really important in a variety of workloads. I think the reason why this configuration doesn't exist yet is because AMD has "Ryzen" the HEDT bar to high making the market for it too small. What do you think?azfacea - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
pointless product. if you are building a 3000 usd workstation you can afford 1400. if you just want pcie lanes, there are some older gen thread rippers out there for 200 usd. AMD should focus on rolling out 2 -- and not 1 -- 7nm APU dies. one quad core for 15w and below and a 8 core apu for 15 inch laptops and larger, 25W+Dr. Denis - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Well... The APU market is another story since its the only place where AMD is still behind Intel in efficiency, and consequently, in performance. We all expect zen2 will revert this in 2020.Back to the workstation side, it seems now that the best option for a ~16 core system for memory bound applications is the good old Skylake
CyrIng - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Thank you AnandTech for this review.Talking about HEDT processing, why don't include Linux benchmark results ? Do games scores make a difference for a super computer...
Samus - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
I need this to decompress my torrents. I'm tired of waiting 10 seconds for a bluray to extract and would rather wait 4 seconds...it's movie time!335 GT - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
AMD's biggest problem now is making enough of these. Every EPYC is sold before it leaves the fab and I suspect the same is happening with the desktop chips.ballsystemlord - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
No spelling or grammar errors found! Nice work, guys!Dizoja86 - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
"Intel is going to have to have a shift its design strategy to compete."im.thatoneguy - Tuesday, December 3, 2019 - link
Any temperature stats? You recommend a good water cooler so it would be helpful to know how the thermaltake ring did under load.cdb000 - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
Seconded!In fact, a good write-up on how to cool a 280W CPU that is continuously running flat out.
My (old, slow) 1950X is cooled by a 280mm AIO and gets to ~61C when run flat out. These new Threadrippers use 55% more power which suggests that a 420mm or 480mm radiator will be required.
pvrvideoman - Thursday, December 5, 2019 - link
Great for AMD! Popular YouTube tech reviewers and others really need to stop saying that AMD has "crushed" Intel. That is just stupid. What they have done is deliver a very powerful, competitively priced product that delivers mostly the same or better performance at different price points. The desktop market is small. It's not making AMD or Intel all that much money. But it is great when companies like Amazon and Google talk about moving forward or transitioning to AMD Epyc line of processors. The enterprise and High Performance Computing contracts are where the real victory lies.tamalero - Tuesday, December 24, 2019 - link
holy intel apologist batman..alpha754293 - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link
When are the results from the benchmarking for the AMD Threadripper 3970X going to be on the benchmarking database?I tried looking for it just now and couldn't find it listed when I wanted to compare that and the AMD Ryzen 3950X.
Thanks.
lxxxxl - Thursday, December 19, 2019 - link
Is Chromium compilation still on the list of tests?And these new Threadrippers are not in Bench database?
soultorntech - Monday, December 23, 2019 - link
People concerned about the price between AMD and Intel HEDT processors need to calculate the per core cost and they will find out that the cost between the HEDT processors are pretty close. Add in the fact that Threadripper has a lot more L3 cache than the 10980XE plus can utilize up to 4 times as much RAM then the price of Threadripper 3 processors are a little easier to justify.stefanbatros - Sunday, December 29, 2019 - link
Hi everyone,I bought a 3970x + a Gigabyte Designare mobo. These will be used in a 4GPU setup for rendering and physics simulations.
Right now I have to chose between these 2 Ram kits, which are available and at a decent price in my country:
1. Corsair VENGEANCE® 128GB 3000MHz C16 -750$
2. G.Skill TridentZ 3000MHz C14 - 981$
Do you guys think that the C14 Gskill justifies the 200$ dollar difference? Will it be great improvement over the C16?
I am leaning toward the Vengence more because of price +is in stock in store + it is low profile and it will fit better with the Noctua nh-u14s tr4-sp3.
Any suggestions will ge appreciated.
Thanks,
Stefan
InfernusTitan - Friday, January 3, 2020 - link
A GTX 1080?Not Bottlenecking a 32 Core CPU in any ways??? I know core counts doesnt matter that much but still.Railgun - Sunday, January 5, 2020 - link
So...at what point will these and other recent results end up in the Bench DB?JEmlay - Thursday, February 6, 2020 - link
I have a 9900K and 3970X side by side and my findings are much different. The 3970X destroys the 9900K in every way. Are you sure you're using the memory properly in the AMD machine? Make sure you're running at least 3600 with 1:1 FClock. Then out of nowhere an Intel 7960X destroys the AMD 3970X? No way.Janie Durham - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link
It's very <a href="https://www.anandtech.com/show/15044/the-amd-ryzen...jed22281 - Tuesday, June 2, 2020 - link
Excellent & exhaustive analysis, STILL, after all these years, I <3 AT :)Yohan3 - Sunday, January 3, 2021 - link
What are 0T,2T meaning?If I perform manual OC for the Threadripper 3970x, what maximum values I need put in for PPT,TDC, and EDC limits in a BIOS? (280 W ?)
Yohan3 - Sunday, January 3, 2021 - link
What are 0T,2T meaning?If I perform manual OC for the Threadripper 3970x, what maximum values I need put in for PPT,TDC, and EDC limits in a BIOS? (280 W ?)