AMD Cuts Price of 3900X in response to Comet Lake

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

I want everyone to read this

 

COMET LAKE IS NOT A GOOD VALUE

 

An i5-10600K is available for $280. It is 5-6% faster than a Ryzen 3600. The Ryzen 2600's MSRP is $200. It can be bought, as of writing for $170. This is to say nothing of the cost of the motherboards.

[AshRiver]

25 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Except the fact that you don't need a 360mm AIO minimum...way to just spread lies You also don't need a super expensive board.

Even 360mm aio can barely keep 10900k heat under control when the cpu pull 235 watts at stock in limit power and over 300 watts in no limit power.

 

I would be amaze if you can oc the 10900k on a cheap $150 z490 motherboard with low end vrm.

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review

Quote

Intel's Core i9-10900K still doesn't match AMD's halo 16-core 32-thread Ryzen 9 3950X in terms of threaded performance. Instead, the 10900K competes with the 12-core 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X in terms of both performance and price, but Intel's chip has the highest power consumption we've seen recently on the mainstream desktop. Intel pushes the 10900K's TDP envelope up to 125W (a 30W gen-on-gen increase), but that's only a measure of base power consumption. Intel rates the processor for 250W at peak performance, and we even measured peaks as high as 325W at out-of-the-box settings. Naturally, that results in a lot of heat. 

Quote

Intel does have a few tricks to deal with the resulting heat and improve overclocking, like thinning the die and using a thicker heat spreader, but cooling is still a significant challenge. The 10900K's high power consumption even overwhelmed our 280mm watercooler during some tasks, so you'll need a brawny cooler to handle the increased heat output. 

Quote

To find the power limit associated with our chip paired with the Gigabyte Aorus Z490 Master motherboard, we ran a few Prime95 tests with AVX enabled (small FFT). During those tests, we recorded up to 332W of power consumption when paired with either the Corsair H115i 280mm AIO watercooler or a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Yes, that's with the processor configured at stock settings. For perspective, our 18-core Core i9-10980XE drew 'only' 256W during an identical Prime95 test. 

Quote

Here we ran two series of tests to measure power consumption, thermal output, and clock rates during heavy real-world all-core loads. First, we kicked off ten multi-threaded Cinebench R20 benchmarks in rapid succession. In the first two charts, we can see both the Corsair H115i and the Noctua NH-D15 handle the workload with no throttling (the downward spikes occur during idle periods between runs), and temps hover in the 85C range when the processor is under full load. These workloads consume ~250W (right at Intel's recommended PL2 value) during operation. That's about 80W lower than the Prime95 stress test. The underlying R20 engine supports AVX, AVX2, and AVX-512, but this benchmark doesn't hit the chip quite like other AVX-equipped applications, so we moved on to more demanding work. 

Quote

Overall, these are among the more demanding threaded tests in our suite, and temperatures peaked at ~92C with the H115i, and ~85C with the Noctua air cooler. Surprisingly, because of its lower overall temperatures, the air cooler appears to perform better in this test. That would be quite the feat considering that we recorded peak power consumption at ~280W during the test run. 

 

[Vanderburg]

52 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Why? They're literally the same thing.

Because $299 is less than $348 and I can put $50 back in my pocket? Why wouldn't I do this?

[justpoet]

49 minutes ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

I want everyone to read this

 

COMET LAKE IS NOT A GOOD VALUE

 

An i5-10600K is available for $280. It is 5-6% faster than a Ryzen 3600. The Ryzen 2600's MSRP is $200. It can be bought, as of writing for $170. This is to say nothing of the cost of the motherboards.

When comparing z490 to x570, prices are similar for similar boards.  The main difference is that on the AMD side, you can choose to go with something like a b450 version of that same board for half the price if you don’t need all the new chipset features.  We will see what b550 prices are like soon.

 

it really boils down to the goal of the system, and what it is paired with for other hardware.  If you’re primarily gaming, the 10600 isn’t bad, especially if you are putting an upper end graphics card with it, even if amd still has better price/performance overall.

 

I would still buy the AMD now, but the 10600 has a place to not be bad by actually providing some gaming uplift vs its competition, depending on title.

[MartinKweh]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

Except the fact that you don't need a 360mm AIO minimum...way to just spread lies You also don't need a super expensive board.

Im not spreading lies, its on one of their slides lol. it was mentioned so it can keep its 60C and reach the "THERMAL VELOCITY BOOST" or whatever consistently longer.

[Inkz]

2 hours ago, AshRiver said:

Even 360mm aio can barely keep 10900k heat under control when the cpu pull 235 watts at stock in limit power and over 300 watts in no limit power.

 

Crazy how you say a 360mm can barely contain it when at stock Linus's was at 60 with a 280mm aio. It get's fairly hot with no limits but performance doesn't increase a crazy amount over stock. I hate to be that guy to defend Intel, but clever engineering with a thicker IHS and such do help and needs to be pointed out. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I guess its time for an upgrade

[dat_boi_fluff]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

I mean, they're still not winning when it comes to gaming numbers

 

I mean intel "winning" is like saying "yeah my cars zero to 60 time is 6 seconds" when its only 6.99 seconds and only has a top speed of like 140. They arent winning by any standard anymore, lets be real

[justpoet]

1 minute ago, dat_boi_fluff said:

 

I mean intel "winning" is like saying "yeah my cars zero to 60 time is 6 seconds" when its only 6.99 seconds and only has a top speed of like 140. They arent winning by any standard anymore, lets be real

But…when we drop to 1080p with a graphics card as expensive as a used car, we can see a 2% difference!

[Blademaster91]

56 minutes ago, Inkz said:

Crazy how you say a 360mm can barely contain it when at stock Linus's was at 60 with a 280mm aio. It get's fairly hot with no limits but performance doesn't increase a crazy amount over stock. I hate to be that guy to defent Intel, but clever engineering with a thicker IHS and such do help and needs to be pointed out. 

Except the cpu frequency drops if the cpu power limit is left enabled. It doesn't make sense to me if you're buying a $500 cpu,and spending another $200 on cooling to be leaving the power limit enabled, and I doubt the 10900K would run well on a $150 board.

[dat_boi_fluff]

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

But…when we drop to 1080p with a graphics card as expensive as a used car, we can see a 2% difference!

*shocked face* oh no, not a 2% difference on a game when alot of customers are using Ryzen to do stuff other than gaming!

 

[maartendc]

18 hours ago, Void Master said:

AMD is just asserting dominance on Intel by this point.

Not so sure about that.. .

 

There is still a large amount of less informed consumers that think Intel is the way to go, because it has been that way for years.

 

Also, the people who just want the fastest gaming CPU will still go Intel.

 

So it behooves AMD to keep competitive on price as well as performance, so people are spending less, getting better multicore and SLIGHTLY worse single core.

[Inkz]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except the cpu frequency drops if the cpu power limit is left enabled. It doesn't make sense to me if you're buying a $500 cpu,and spending another $200 on cooling to be leaving the power limit enabled, and I doubt the 10900K would run well on a $150 board.

Except expensive cooling isn't required at all, if you want the full thing you can gain like a few more percent. The story of the 10900k doesn't change at all still a decent amount of gaming lead over AMD plus a couple more percent if you fully unlock it but still behind AMD for productivity and multipurpose. If you did want good cooling you can get a decent AIO for around $120, 200 is a lot. What do you mean wouldn't run well on the board? I imagine any Z490 boards(starting around $150 usd) should be enough for it. Of course if you are doing a crazy overclock with exotic cooling a nicer mobo might help but I would like to see what you mean.

[justpoet]

12 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Not so sure about that.. .

 

There is still a large amount of less informed consumers that think Intel is the way to go, because it has been that way for years.

 

Also, the people who just want the fastest gaming CPU will still go Intel.

 

So it behooves AMD to keep competitive on price as well as performance, so people are spending less, getting better multicore and SLIGHTLY worse single core.

Looking forward to Ryzen 4000 series desktop CPUs at the end of the year, and if intel will finally come out with a process node change next year.  Then things could get really interesting again.  For now though…AMD pretty much wins hands down unless you need the utmost FPS in select games and can afford the giant sacrifice in price and performance for everything else.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, Inkz said:

Crazy how you say a 360mm can barely contain it when at stock Linus's was at 60 with a 280mm aio. It get's fairly hot with no limits but performance doesn't increase a crazy amount over stock. I hate to be that guy to defend Intel, but clever engineering with a thicker IHS and such do help and needs to be pointed out. 

There is no way this CPU runs at 60°C. Unless the clock is like 4GHz where the temperature levels to 60°C...

[Inkz]

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

There is no way this CPU runs at 60°C. Unless the clock is like 4GHz where the temperature levels to 60°C...

I mean if you want to take it up with Linus be my guest, I don't own the chip, this is from their review. I think that is at like 4.7Ghz or something where the other graph has the limits removed. At stock it is actually cooler than last gen probably because the thicker IHS and making the die thinner. I think Anthony said they were using a H115i. 

[Dylanc1500]

45 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

There is no way this CPU runs at 60°C. Unless the clock is like 4GHz where the temperature levels to 60°C...

It falls is line with GamersNexus' review as well.

[Windows9]

9 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

And you should be able to hopefully get a measurable performance increase if you try to overclock it.

Yeah, get a CPU with the highest TDP ever and make it draw even more power

[Windows9]

1 hour ago, Inkz said:

Except expensive cooling isn't required at all,

A 360 AIO minimum. Not anywhere near cheap. Not when AMD CPU's work with a stock cooler

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Dylanc1500 said:

It falls is line with GamersNexus' review as well.

I want to know what's the core clock past 40 seconds mark when this graph was taken. Just saying aha, it runs at only 53°C means nothing if core clocks are down in the basement... Just few microns more of IHS changing everything is BS. It just isn't possible. Not because I'm hating on Intel, but because even Intel can't cheat physics. And their turbo mechanism is generally cheating benchmarks because it's time limited and will only work fr the duration of tests in most cases, but if you demand longer from them, above happens.

[CTR640]

Good, good, GOOOOD! Let Intel suffer for once! Make Intel sorry for what they did to us! Make Intel kiss Lisa Su her ass! #Make Intel un-great again!

 

Okay, it starts to get weird. AMD and Intel has their own cons and pros but if I had to upgrade, it would be an AMD cpu.

[Arika]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I want to know what's the core clock past 40 seconds mark when this graph was taken. Just saying aha, it runs at only 53°C means nothing if core clocks are down in the basement... Just few microns more of IHS changing everything is BS. It just isn't possible. Not because I'm hating on Intel, but because even Intel can't cheat physics. And their turbo mechanism is generally cheating benchmarks because it's time limited and will only work fr the duration of tests in most cases, but if you demand longer from them, above happens.

anywhere between 4.5Ghz and 4.8Ghz

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

anywhere between 4.5Ghz and 4.8Ghz

I don't think people realize just how much more power a core requires to run at 5.1 or 5.3 compared to ~4.7. Running the higher clocks requires higher vcore which pushes the current up then the high clock gives higher performance which pulls more current and pushes the memory controller harder. It's double the power per core (so double the power) to run all the cores at the above 5GHz clocks.

 

Zen 2 is no different here either, it's just that the power required is just much lower

 

4.6GHz = 17.61W core power

4.1GHz = ~9.9W core power

 

Edit:

Fun fact Intel 14nm at ~4.6GHz is more power efficient than Zen 2 7nm at the same clock.

[justpoet]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Fun fact Intel 14nm at ~4.6GHz is more power efficient than Zen 2 7nm at the same clock.

I'd be curious to see what efficiencies are when taking IPC into account though, rather than just clock for clock.  Since 4.6ghz is fairly lax on the intel, and a rather aggressive OC on Ryzen, but Ryzen tends to keep up with intel Core, while Ryzen is running at lower Ghz speeds.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

I'd be curious to see what efficiencies are when taking IPC into account though, rather than just clock for clock.

i keep seeing this come up all the time when ever there's an intel vs AMD

 

ELI5 IPC, know what the acronym stands for, but what benefits from a higher IPC vs what benefits from higher clock speed?