*Official Benchmark Thread* - Post it here or it didn't happen :D

[Etern4l]

41 minutes ago, electrosoft said:

 

Problem is Nvidia really has no rivals in the GPU AI market space right now and their overall discrete (none of that Intel/AMD integrated malarkey) GPU market share still sits at ~80% overall. AMD actually made inroads last year when selection was poor but when the market returned to somewhat normal forces, that ~4% they gained (from 20% to 24%) rapidly dissolved back to 20%. Nvidia is the absolute, dominant force in the GPU market and Jensen knows it.

 

Pricing aside, they have and continue to make the outright superior product while AMD continues to make inroads but if leaked benchmarks are to be believed, the 7900XTX *is* going to crush the 4080 but when the dust clears the 4090 is still the top dog just like the 3090ti was vs the 6950xt; but it's looking like even though the 7900xtx will trade blows with the 4090 in pockets, the 4090 may have an overall bigger lead this time around vs the 7900xtx on raster and RT than the 3090ti vs 6950xt.

 

Price:Performance is clearly going to be AMD unless Nvidia goes for the kill and adjusts the 4080 down to $899 and introduces a 4080ti $1199 7900xtx slayer.

 

 

 

My impression is that AMD is lacking mostly on the software side, and that gap is closing somewhat. Similar on the CPU side, maybe less of a gap in practice, but it's still there. 

 

They need to be doing more hardcore work! ;) 

[Mr. Fox]

39 minutes ago, Raiderman said:

I've been looking at a x570 board and a 5950x to upgrade from my 3900x. Not going with the latest, and greatest mostly because of the ridiculous prices I've seen. These are some stupid prices for x770 boards. I'd rather be a generation or two behind than pay $1000 for a motherboard. 

I did that and found the overall experience regrettable. Cinebench scores were nice, but that is probably the only kind thing I can find to say about my misguided endeavor. It was probably the worst waste of money on an upgrade that proved to be a downgrade that I have ever experienced.

  

10 hours ago, Etern4l said:

 

I would not really fault Intel, they did us a solid with the 13900K, however, Jensen could use a vacation or ideally exit the company for sure.

The problem with them is that they have AI as a presumably massive backup - I wonder what share of their business consumer video card market represents (I'm sure @electrosoftknows!). Similarly, AMD and Intel have the server market to support them, they would just deprioritise consumer product lines.

Apart from my magnetic attraction to mediocre silicon quality, (seldom lucky, unfortunately,) I am very happy with the experience I have had with 10900K, 12900K/KS and 13900K. These are excellent processors, but I still feel like I am getting screwed because of the stupid Atom core crap. Even though performance is stellar, it would be better if they ditched the chintzy E-core crap and made them all P-cores. 

 

I think the issue with NVIDIA is that they are an inherently dishonest company that values profit more than doing the right thing, and the issue with AMD is ignorance from the leadership level down. They are essentially posers in the enthusiast space, kind of like the McDonald's of the technology realm.

[Etern4l]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I did that and found the overall experience regrettable. Cinebench scores were nice, but that is probably the only kind thing I can find to say about my misguided endeavor. It was probably the worst waste of money on an upgrade that proved to be a downgrade that I have ever experienced.

  

Apart from my magnetic attraction to mediocre silicon quality, (seldom lucky, unfortunately,) I am very happy with the experience I have had with 10900K, 12900K/KS and 13900K. These are excellent processors, but I still feel like I am getting screwed because of the stupid Atom core crap. Even though performance is stellar, it would be better if they ditched the chintzy E-core crap and made them all P-cores.

 

 

I hear you, this almost put me off the Intel route and certainly cost me a lot of time in getting stuff to work properly, but they probably had no choice given the ancient process. How many more P-Cores would they fit in the space taken up by E-Cores? Good news is that the end result is surprisingly effective. 

 

And don't get me started on silicon lottery. All those cr@p chips you guys return in disgust? They just sigh and send them down to these sunlit uplands lol I feel Dell does the same with laptops. 

 

[Mr. Fox]

8 minutes ago, Etern4l said:

 

 

I hear you, this almost put me off the Intel route and certainly cost me a lot of time in getting stuff to work properly, but they probably had no choice given the ancient process. How many more P-Cores would they fit in the space taken up by E-Cores? Good news is that the end result is surprisingly effective. 

Yes, totally agree with that. Even though I don't like the fact that some of them are wussy Atom cores, I can't find any fault in the results. Fantastic performance. But, there is still a part of me that wonders how much performance is being forfeited by their substitution in place of more P-cores. I'm guessing they are cheap to produce and this is a way of delivering a level of performance that stays a step ahead of AMD while not making the product too expensive.

[Etern4l]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Yes, totally agree with that. Even though I don't like the fact that some of them are wussy Atom cores, I can't find any fault in the results. Fantastic performance. But, there is still a part of me that wonders how much performance is being forfeited by their substitution in place of more P-cores. I'm guessing they are cheap to produce and this is a way of delivering a level of performance that stays a step ahead of AMD while not making the product too expensive.

 

I don't think it's about the cost. Probably cost them a lot upfront in R&D to come up with the architecture, drivers etc. The E-Cores are significantly slimmed down: no HT, no AVX. Kind of moving a bit towards the RISC architecture. What's not clear to me though is why they actually have to clock lower - I would have expected the opposite, given the simpler/streamlined design. Haven't done any reading on this though. 

 

Put another way: had they gone all-PCore, you would have something like 14/28 (if that) vs 24/32, where half of the 28 would be due to HT, which slower than an E-Core. 

[Mr. Fox]

I still think there is a lot of truth to the old cliche that "clock is king" but one answer to that is more cores, even when the cores are slower. Higher clocks is like a small group of snipers that quickly and discretely take out their adversaries with a single headshot, whereas more cores is like a platoon of foot soldiers spraying a bazillion bullets every direction with a wide swath of destruction. They can't run very fast and they are not precise, but a swarm of bullets is a force to be reckoned with.

[Etern4l]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I still think there is a lot of truth to the old cliche that "clock is king" but one answer to that is more cores, even when the cores are slower. Higher clocks is like a small group of snipers that quickly and discretely take out their adversaries with a single headshot, whereas more cores is like a platoon of foot soldiers spraying a bazillion bullets every direction with a wide swath of destruction. They can't run very fast and they are not precise, but a swarm of bullets is a force to be reckoned with.

 

Yes, but I'm sure they did the math and worked out they would get creamed by AMD in multicore had they not pulled the E-Core trick, and probably concluded that 8 high-clock cores are enough for most consumer use cases. Will be interesting to see what they are planning to do next. My iniital impression of what bro Papu posted earlier was that 14th gen looks like 11th all over again. Oh dear, might not be good enough against the chiplet swarm. 

 

I will be surprised if they can't get those e-Core clocks much higher up, and - for their sake - I hope they do. 

[electrosoft]

1 hour ago, Raiderman said:

I've been looking at a x570 board and a 5950x to upgrade from my 3900x. Not going with the latest, and greatest mostly because of the ridiculous prices I've seen. These are some stupid prices for x770 boards. I'd rather be a generation or two behind than pay $1000 for a motherboard. 

 

What board do you use now? Are you able to save even more and just update your BIOS and drop in a 5950x as is for now?

 

57 minutes ago, Etern4l said:

 

My impression is that AMD is lacking mostly on the software side, and that gap is closing somewhat. Similar on the CPU side, maybe less of a gap in practice, but it's still there. 

 

They need to be doing more hardcore work! 😉

 

Their drivers get a bad rap but they've gotten better over the years. The core issue still remains raw hardware performance and added value. AMD has made massive strides and I'm genuinely interested in the 7900xtx but Nvidia is still the overall performance champ and Nvenc is supported everywhere. DLSS vs FSR is becoming a wash though for those that care about such things.

 

50 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I did that and found the overall experience regrettable. Cinebench scores were nice, but that is probably the only kind thing I can find to say about my misguided endeavor. It was probably the worst waste of money on an upgrade that proved to be a downgrade that I have ever experienced.

  

Apart from my magnetic attraction to mediocre silicon quality, (seldom lucky, unfortunately,) I am very happy with the experience I have had with 10900K, 12900K/KS and 13900K. These are excellent processors, but I still feel like I am getting screwed because of the stupid Atom core crap. Even though performance is stellar, it would be better if they ditched the chintzy E-core crap and made them all P-cores. 

 

I think the issue with NVIDIA is that they are an inherently dishonest company that values profit more than doing the right thing, and the issue with AMD is ignorance from the leadership level down. They are essentially posers in the enthusiast space, kind of like the McDonald's of the technology realm.

 

I still wish that Intel would launch a major performance / extreme edition of the 13th gen with all P-Cores and let it be know for a 10-12 core model you WILL need well above average cooling or deal with lowered clocks. They could even offer a red line fever boost algorithm like the 7950x.

 

As for Nvidia, it is rare to find a corporation that properly tempers capitalism with consumerism. It is just a matter of how much askew they operate. Nvidia unabashedly pushes profiteering knowing they are sitting on the dominant product. Their time will eventually come.

 

 

[Etern4l]

11 minutes ago, electrosoft said:

 

What board do you use now? Are you able to save even more and just update your BIOS and drop in a 5950x as is for now?

 

 

Their drivers get a bad rap but they've gotten better over the years. The core issue still remains raw hardware performance and added value. AMD has made massive strides and I'm genuinely interested in the 7900xtx but Nvidia is still the overall performance champ and Nvenc is supported everywhere. DLSS vs FSR is becoming a wash though for those that care about such things.

 

 

I still wish that Intel would launch a major performance / extreme edition of the 13th gen with all P-Cores and let it be know for a 10-12 core model you WILL need well above average cooling or deal with lowered clocks. They could even offer a red line fever boost algorithm like the 7950x.

 

As for Nvidia, it is rare to find a corporation that properly tempers capitalism with consumerism. It is just a matter of how much askew they operate. Nvidia unabashedly pushes profiteering knowing they are sitting on the dominant product. Their time will eventually come.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but AMD has nothing in response to Intel MKL for instance. Heck, Intel even have their own Linux distro which absolutely destroys Windows on performance.

 

On the NVIDIA front, their response to CUDA is called ROCm, and apparently doesn't even run on recent (or any, I'm not sure) consumer cards. 

[Mr. Fox]

31 minutes ago, electrosoft said:

As for Nvidia, it is rare to find a corporation that properly tempers capitalism with consumerism. It is just a matter of how much askew they operate. Nvidia unabashedly pushes profiteering knowing they are sitting on the dominant product. Their time will eventually come.

That really is dependent on us. As long as we (gamers and enthusiasts) continue to pay asinine prices for their products, they will continue to be asinine in their pricing of the products they sell us. At least 50% (probably closer to 100% if we are honest with ourselves) is our fault for being compliant with our molester. They can't charge inflated prices for products if nobody is willing to buy them.

 

I am still very keen on the idea of settling for less performance and supporting Intel's venture into the GPU space. I hope they end up being wildly successful and extremely disruptive in this segment. If they can keep their foot in the doorway and end up forcing it open wide, I think there is potential for severe distrubance that will be very harmful to NVIDIA's position of dominance, and cause AMD to have to work overtime just to remain relevant.

[Raiderman]

1 hour ago, electrosoft said:

 

What board do you use now? Are you able to save even more and just update your BIOS and drop in a 5950x as is for now?

 

 

 

 

 

Its a budget MSI B350 Tomahawk. It required a beta bios from MSI  just to run my 3900x. So I assume its on its last update.. I cant complain, it was free 🙂

[Mr. Fox]

In case anyone is interested...

8 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Price reduced to $425 + shipping for members of this forum. 

 

I just listed it on Mercari, Nextdoor and Craigslist as well (at a higher price).

[Papusan]

Me and middle my son have started buying parts for his new gaming machine. Mind you, this is included the nice Norwegian taxes/currency exchange tarifs on top.

 

What we have ordered for now:

 

1. NZXT H7 Flow Midi Tower (White) - ($131.47) Quite good Reviews for a mid tower (the cooling)
2. Gigabyte Z690 AORUS PRO - ($371.00) Review
3. Corsair HX1500i (2022) - ($232.72). In fact, quite cheap in Norway Review
4. ASUS Dual GeForce RTX™ 3070 V2 OC Edition - ($656.96) Review
5. ASUS ROG Strix XG27AQ 27" Monitor - ($449.85) Review
6. WD Black SN850X PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2 - 2TB - ($232.72) Review
7. G.skill 6400 ram from me. Already tested by me😀
8. He also got my golden 12900K and custom cooling for an ok price. Already tested by me😀

 

The good part... He is smart young man and didn't pay the extra for the RGB version (BLING BLING) of the chassis. And black was 50% more expensive so... White it will be. I hope the white color ain't equal awful as Dell's Lunar White color who turned into Yellowish disaster after 3 months(Yep, their +5000$ gaming Joke flagship's chassis, lid, bottom and palmrest couldn't be touched without gloves). Aka a 5 grand failure.

 

Then he will need some more cooling parts etc. Expected to be around $175 + $600 he owes me.

 

So the gaming machine will cost him around $2850. Yep, not cheap if you want something new in this part of the world. Neither is it easy to find what you want to buy. As you can se, not high end system with all the bells and whistles even it looks like this on the price tag, but good enough for his needs. So a tax hell isn't the best place live in.

 

I myself got the G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-7200 BK C34 DC  while he took over my G.Skill 6400 sticks. I also bought the same monitor as my son (ASUS ROG Strix XG27AQ 27" Monitor). 

 

Now I'll have to find out what radiator that will fits in the chassis above. Me think, 45mm thick 360mm with high fin density and strong fans. Fans can be tuned for performance and or silence. Weak fans have already reached their limits. 

 

So rate the build as the reddit boys/girls always say(me, 5 of 6 stars), LOOL

[electrosoft]

4 hours ago, Etern4l said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but AMD has nothing in response to Intel MKL for instance. Heck, Intel even have their own Linux distro which absolutely destroys Windows on performance.

 

On the NVIDIA front, their response to CUDA is called ROCm, and apparently doesn't even run on recent (or any, I'm not sure) consumer cards. 

 

That is Intel pulling an Nvidia and keeping software not only optmized for Intel but purposely defaulting to sub-optimal code when it picks up on an AMD (or non-Intel) CPU but yeah. MKL works on AMD but it isn't anywhere near the best choice. For MKL Intel is a no brainer.

 

RocM runs on consumer cards but no Windows support, poor Py support and overall just doesn't compete with CUDA for ML. If I was doing AI/ML, I would go Nvidia no questions asked.

 

AMD is making great inroads but Nvidia is still just such a tightly knit, optimized and polished product with such far ranging support it becomes problematic for AMD. Nvidia continues to maintain the performance crown and their added features (Nvenc, Cuda, RT and to a degree DLSS) are just superior to AMD too.

 

On the other hand, if you're a pure gamer AMD is a compelling option even last generation and this one too.

 

Looking forward to the reviews for much needed clarity.

 

 

[Etern4l]

8 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

That is Intel pulling an Nvidia and keeping software not only optmized for Intel but purposely defaulting to sub-optimal code when it picks up on an AMD (or non-Intel) CPU but yeah. MKL works on AMD but it isn't anywhere near the best choice. For MKL Intel is a no brainer.

 

RocM runs on consumer cards but no Windows support, poor Py support and overall just doesn't compete with CUDA for ML. If I was doing AI/ML, I would go Nvidia no questions asked.

 

AMD is making great inroads but Nvidia is still just such a tightly knit, optimized and polished product with such far ranging support it becomes problematic for AMD. Nvidia continues to maintain the performance crown and their added features (Nvenc, Cuda, RT and to a degree DLSS) are just superior to AMD too.

 

On the other hand, if you're a pure gamer AMD is a compelling option even last generation and this one too.

 

Looking forward to the reviews for much needed clarity.

 

 

 

Re Intel: It's an interesting one. On one hand, the software is available for free in many cases, they invested a lot of money in it, and it is much better than the open source alternatives, so it's hard to blame them for using it to promote their hardware. Same for NVIDIA. One could say that the blame here rests squarely on AMD for failing to compete on the software side.

On the other hand, this could be viewed as anti-competitive practice. NVIDIA is safe here, because their software only works with their hardware, but Intel is treading on dangerous grounds. Clearly, if AMD could sue them over this, they would, so more stringent laws would need to be in place to address this particular case, and this is always tricky. Presumably Intel can just say the optimize the code specifically for their CPUs and don't care about AMD compatibility or performance.

 

BTW  The SYY 157 turned out to be so bad, I posted a mini-review to warn people. All good after Phobya repaste. 

 

 

[Raiderman]

Well fak.....I had the damn 7950x and a b650 board in my cart at the egg....$499 for the 7950x, $269 for the b650. Woke up this morning with my credit card in hand, and all gone.... I am crying 😂

 

Opinions please:

1. Wait for it to come back in stock because DDR 5 is that much better? (I really dont know)

2. Go with the previous gen 5950x

3. Stick with what you have for now (3900x)

4 Get the 7900x 12 core, its far better than your 3900x. ( again I dont know)

[Etern4l]

46 minutes ago, Raiderman said:

Well fak.....I had the damn 7950x and a b650 board in my cart at the egg....$499 for the 7950x, $269 for the b650. Woke up this morning with my credit card in hand, and all gone.... I am crying 😂

 

Opinions please:

1. Wait for it to come back in stock because DDR 5 is that much better? (I really dont know)

2. Go with the previous gen 5950x

3. Stick with what you have for now (3900x)

4 Get the 7900x 12 core, its far better than your 3900x. ( again I dont know)

 

Seems like budget is a consideration. Why AMD then? Intel is supposed to be better value this time around (in addition to be being better overall, arguably).

[Raiderman]

14 minutes ago, Etern4l said:

 

Seems like budget is a consideration. Why AMD then? Intel is supposed to be better value this time around (in addition to be being better overall, arguably).

TBH, I haven't built an Intel system in a very long time (Pentium 4 HT).  Ive supported AMD pretty much since the K6 days. I guess Ive never really considered building an Intel system. Budget not so much a concern, but when I could have purchased the 7950 for $499 instead of $699 (now that it is out of stock most everywhere), it makes me cry. My last complete build was 2019, so Ive been out of the game for a while.

 

Current Rig

Ryzen 3900x, 16gb Gskill Ripjaws 2800mhz, MSI B350 Tomahawk, Radeon 6600XT, Dual booting Windows 7, and 10 LTSC

[Etern4l]

2 hours ago, Raiderman said:

TBH, I haven't built an Intel system in a very long time (Pentium 4 HT).  Ive supported AMD pretty much since the K6 days. I guess Ive never really considered building an Intel system. Budget not so much a concern, but when I could have purchased the 7950 for $499 instead of $699 (now that it is out of stock most everywhere), it makes me cry. My last complete build was 2019, so Ive been out of the game for a while.

 

Current Rig

Ryzen 3900x, 16gb Gskill Ripjaws 2800mhz, MSI B350 Tomahawk, Radeon 6600XT, Dual booting Windows 7, and 10 LTSC

 

That's cool. Just checking. Thank you for supporting AMD, without people like you Intel would have probably become another Nvidia. I was very seriously considering going with a 5950x earlier this year, but just couldn't risk the potential issues (and 12th gen/DDR5 was already available). A bit of an edge case on my end really.  I just find it a little funny how the tables have turned and now AMD is the more expensive option (although just marginally, it seems).

[Raiderman]

After doing some quick research, it seems the 7900x 12 core is benching higher than the 5950x 16 core?? Is this correct? Just did a quick versus search on user benchmark.

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-7900X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X/4132vs4086

[Mr. Fox]

23 minutes ago, Raiderman said:

After doing some quick research, it seems the 7900x 12 core is benching higher than the 5950x 16 core?? Is this correct? Just did a quick versus search on user benchmark.

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-7900X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X/4132vs4086

Yes, that would be correct. Improved IPC and significantly higher clock speeds is too much for the 5950X to keep up with.  DDR5 is better. The new Ryzen platform also handles memory a whole lot better in general as well. Not nearly as many functionality and stability issues as Ryzen 9.

[tps3443]

I have been tuning a little on my new 13900K. And it is something for sure! 

PS: CEN is messaging me again. (Not kidding)

(AUTO Voltage) (Auto LLC)
(P-Cores)
62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58
(E-Cores)
47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47
47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47
(Ring/Cache)
@5,100Mhz


 

[Mr. Fox]

Shunt mod FTW!  https://hwbot.org/submission/5130408_ | https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/83902699

[tps3443]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Shunt mod FTW!  https://hwbot.org/submission/5130408_ | https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/83902699

Man, that is pretty much Heavy OCed 2080Ti performance “Just about” this tells me at 1080P/1440P they probably really would perform equivalent. Now I’m seeing why you kept it. Also, that physics score is monstrous from a 12900KS. Has me wondering what a 13900K does in this situation. 

[Mr. Fox]

12 minutes ago, tps3443 said:

Man, that is pretty much Heavy OCed 2080Ti performance “Just about” this tells me at 1080P/1440P they probably really would perform equivalent. Now I’m seeing why you kept it. Also, that physics score is monstrous from a 12900KS. Has me wondering what a 13900K does in this situation. 

Thank you. The main reason I kept it is because I can't really do much more with the 2080 Ti FTW3 than what I have already done. I will be able to grab a few extra points using different hardware. The 2080 Ti is definitely a superior GPU overall.

 

My top Fire Strike score with the 2080 Ti is substantially higher. But, yes... for 3060 Ti this is very good. Much better than before the shunt mod. It is still gimped on voltage, but at least the power limits are gone now. The 2080 Ti with the shunt mod, high voltage and 2000W vBIOS clocks quite a bit higher on core and little higher on memory.

 

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/19438829/fs/28914049