• Breaking News

    Wednesday, December 4, 2019

    Home Unlabelled Hardware support: Threadripper 3000 vs. Cascade Lake X Meta Review: Application & Gaming Performance compared from $500 to $2000

    Hardware support: Threadripper 3000 vs. Cascade Lake X Meta Review: Application & Gaming Performance compared from $500 to $2000

    December 04, 2019

    Hardware support: Threadripper 3000 vs. Cascade Lake X Meta Review: Application & Gaming Performance compared from $500 to $2000

    Threadripper 3000 vs. Cascade Lake X Meta Review: Application & Gaming Performance compared from $500 to $2000

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 11:07 PM PST

    This comparison not just include Threadripper 3000 and Cascade Lake X, it's also include the Ryzen 9 3950X (launch reviews on Nov 14, but market availability just on Nov 25) and the Core i9-9900KS (launch on Oct 30). So, it's a complete comparison of all the (current) high-end and HEDT solutions in the price range of $500-2000. Not included is Core i9-10900X, -10920X & -10940X, because unfortunately they were just rarely tested.

     

    Application Performance (Windows)

    • compiled from 13 launch reviews, ~1240 single benchmarks included
    • "average" stand in all cases for the geometric mean
    • average weighted in favor of these reviews with a higher number of benchmarks (really like the work Tom's Hardware put into this)
    • not included theoretical tests like Sandra & AIDA
    • not included singlethread results (Cinebench ST, Geekbench ST) and singlethread benchmarks (SuperPI)
    • not included PCMark overall results (bad scaling because of system & disk tests)
    • on average the Core i9-9900KS is +5.9% faster than the Core i9-9900K
    • on average the Core i9-10980XE is +6.8% faster than the Core i9-9980XE
    • on average the Ryzen 9 3900X is +27.8% faster than the Core i9-9900KS
    • on average the Ryzen 9 3950X is +0.8% faster than the Core i9-10980XE (so it's a draw)
    • on average the Ryzen 9 3950X is +21.5% faster than the Ryzen 9 3900X
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is +35.8% faster than the Ryzen 9 3950X
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is +16.2% faster than the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is +67.7% faster than the Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (same 32C!)
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is +59.1% faster than the Core i9-10980XE
    Applications Tests 9900K 9900KS 9980XE 10980XE 3900X 3950X 3960X 2990WX 3970X
    Cores & Gen. . 8C CFL 8C CFL 18C SKL-X 18C CSL-X 12C Zen2 16C Zen2 24C Zen2 32C Zen+ 32C Zen2
    AnandTech (18) 71.7% 75.6% 105.9% 111.8% - 100% 117.9% 87.5% 131.2%
    ComputerBase (8) 57% 60% 80% 94% 80% 100% 139% 106% 165%
    Golem (11) - - - 111.1% - 100% 142.0% 97.4% 161.0%
    Guru3D (13) 64.1% 67.6% - 100.6% 84.1% 100% 134.9% - 163.6%
    HW Upgrade (10) 61.8% 64.9% - 97.5% 79.6% 100% - 89.5% 163.0%
    Le Comptoir (16) 55.1% 58.8% 92.7% 95.5% 87.4% 100% 141.6% 96.5% 162.4%
    Legit Reviews (15) 58.2% 62.4% - 95.5% 82.6% 100% - 99.8% 161.4%
    PCLab (15) 65.7% - 95.9% 100.7% 87.5% 100% 132.3% 92.0% 146.3%
    PCWorld (10) 59.4% 62.3% - 99.9% 79.0% 100% - - 168.4%
    SweClockers (9) 54.9% - - 89.7% 86.9% 100% 141.7% 88.4% 166.6%
    TechSpot (8) 60.1% - - 100.0% 83.0% 100% 145.1% 99.0% 166.8%
    Tom's HW (32) - - - 98.8% - 100% 132.3% 93.6% 154.5%
    Tweakers (15) 73.8% - 95.7% 107.6% - 100% 124.5% 73.6% 132.6%
    Perf. Average . 60.8% 64.4% 92.9% 99.2% 82.3% 100% 135.8% 94.1% 157.8%
    List Price . $488 $513 $1979 $979 $499 $749 $1399 $1799 $1999

     

    Gaming Performance (Windows)

    • compiled from 6 launch reviews, ~230 single benchmarks included
    • "average" stand in all cases for the geometric mean
    • only tests/results with 1% minimum fps aka 99th percentile (usually on FullHD/1080p resolution) included (AnandTech: 95th perc.)
    • average slightly weighted in favor of these reviews with a higher number of benchmarks
    • not included any 3DMark & Unigine benchmarks
    • on average the Core i9-9900KS is +2.2% faster than the Core i9-9900K
    • on average the Core i9-9900KS is +5.6% faster than the Ryzen 9 3900X
    • on average the Core i9-9900KS is +12.7% faster than the Core i9-10980XE
    • on average the Core i9-10980XE is +3.4% faster than the Core i9-9980XE
    • on average the Ryzen 9 3900X is +1.0% faster than the Ryzen 9 3950X
    • on average the Ryzen 9 3950X is +5.6% faster than the Core i9-10980XE
    • on average the Ryzen 9 3950X is +4.8% faster than the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is +0.4% faster than the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is +42.1% faster than the Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX
    • on average the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is +1.1% faster than the Core i9-10980XE
    • in general, all Ryzen 9, Threadripper 3000 & Cascade Lake X models stays in the same performance region (for gaming purposes), just Core i9-9900K & -9900KS is slightly faster than these
    Gaming (99th perc.) Tests 9900K 9900KS 9980XE 10980XE 3900X 3950X 3960X 2990WX 3970X
    Cores & Gen. . 8C CFL 8C CFL 18C SKL-X 18C CSL-X 12C Zen2 16C Zen2 24C Zen2 32C Zen+ 32C Zen2
    AnandTech (5) 104.2% 104.4% 94.7% 95.6% - 100% 95.3% 65.9% 95.5%
    ComputerBase (8) 107% 113% 83% 87% 101% 100% 95% 70% 98%
    PCGH (5) 100.0% 102.1% 99.3% - 103.7% 100% 109.6% 63.6% 105.6%
    SweClockers (5) 108.5% - - 102.5% 101.0% 100% 66.8% 60.2% 94.1%
    TechSpot (7) 105.1% - - 96.1% 98.9% 100% 100.5% 80.6% 102.1%
    Tweakers (4) 99.5% - 85.0% 95.7% - 100% 96.4% 52.0% 67.5%
    Perf. Average . 104.4% 106.7% 91.6% 94.7% 101.0% 100% 95.4% 67.4% 95.8%
    List Price . $488 $513 $1979 $979 $499 $749 $1399 $1799 $1999

     

    compiled as info graphics:

    Performance Summary of AMD & Intel High-End & HEDT Processors 2019

    Price-Performance Ratio of AMD & Intel High-End & HEDT Processors 2019
    (motherboard prices included, prices as of Germany retailers on Nov 29)

     

    Source: 3DCenter's Launch Analysis of Cascade Lake X & Threadripper 3000

    submitted by /u/Voodoo2-SLi
    [link] [comments]

    Amazon Turns to Cloud Hardware to Outrun Microsoft and Google | In a major reversal, the company is selling its new $250,000 Outposts rack servers to security-conscious enterprise customers.

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 10:46 PM PST

    Making The Athlon 3000G's Integrated Graphics Better (RandomGaminginHD)

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 04:50 AM PST

    (Notebookcheck) Qualcomm offers a sneak peak at the Snapdragon 865 and Snapdragon 765/765G Mobile Platforms with integrated 5G

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 09:16 PM PST

    HIS deploys its colorful Radeon RX 5700 XT ARMY

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 02:18 PM PST

    Huawei has shown an ARMv8 desktop/server form-factor board taking an ATX power supply, with 4 or 8 core SoC, 2xM.2, 6xSATA, 64GiB DDR4 in 4 slots, PCIe expansion.

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 03:04 PM PST

    [Gamers Nexus x Buildzoid] AMD Dual-CPU Epyc Motherboard VRM Analysis & "Overclocking" Capabilities

    Posted: 04 Dec 2019 12:47 AM PST

    Mach.2 Progress: Microsoft Nearly Doubles IOPS using Seagate Exos with MACH.2 Dual-Actuator Technology

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 02:41 PM PST

    Amazon Announces Graviton2 SoC Along With New AWS Instances: 64-Core Arm With Large Performance Uplifts

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 09:53 AM PST

    AMD Challenges Intel's NUC, Fosters Mini PC Ecosystem

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 06:05 AM PST

    Lift off: De-RISC to create first RISC-V, fully European platform for space

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 12:48 PM PST

    [Actually Hardcore Overclocking] mobo PCB Breakdown: MSI Creator TRX40

    Posted: 04 Dec 2019 12:50 AM PST

    AWS Goes All In On Arm-Based Graviton2 Processors With EC2 6th Gen Instances

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 09:47 AM PST

    Fractal Design Define S or NZXT H510: which do you recommend using if both are same price?

    Posted: 04 Dec 2019 02:17 AM PST

    Do HDDs wear and tear if connected to pc but not being used?

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 09:48 AM PST

    I bought an HDD so I can backup my important files, I don't want to buy an enclosure instead I just want to keep it in my pc and copy files to it every few months or so. If the drive is connected to the pc but never actually being read or written to, do the parts in the HDD wear down? Does the pc only send power to the HDD if I need to read or write something to it?

    submitted by /u/shadybk
    [link] [comments]

    Is a burnt out CPU trash?

    Posted: 04 Dec 2019 12:27 AM PST

    I recently replaced my CPU bc it wasn't letting my computer start up, a combination of age and heat. Is it worth trying to sell to someone for parts or is it pretty much trash now? Thanks

    submitted by /u/omfgnomynamedoesntfi
    [link] [comments]

    Intel in Advanced Talks for Habana Labs Acquisition for Over $1 Billion

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 07:46 AM PST

    [ServeTheHome] Dell Precision T7920 Dual Intel Xeon Workstation Review

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 08:17 AM PST

    Speculation on Ampere GPUs and their potential design.

    Posted: 03 Dec 2019 07:58 AM PST

    To start, I want to say that I'm nowhere near as versed in the topic of Computer Engineering as I would like to be. Mad respect to the guys and girls out there who can poke holes in my theories and help me get a better grasp on GPU technology.

    After AMD demonstrated the untapped potential for MCM CPUs with Ryzen, I think the next obvious step in GPU design is a shift away from monolithic GPU dies and toward MCM layouts. Rumors have already circulated about Hopper, Nvidia's next-next gen architecture, likely being a consumer GPU with an MCM configuration. This along with Intel's new Xe GPU which also seems to be and MCM configuration.

    But what about Ampere? Could it be possible that Ampere will include the foundational developments needed for an MCM configuration?

    So here's my wild theory: What if Ampere is a modified Turing architecture with independent dies for traditional CUDA cores and RT + Tensor cores? We already know Ampere is built on the 7nm node and would hopefully see a die shrink compared to the current Turing TU102 chip. But separating the CUDA cores from the Tensor and RT cores could significantly reduce the die size of both.

    According to this post the Tensor and RT cores take up roughly 24% of the gpu die. From this, I calculate that without RT and Tensor cores, the TU102 die could have been 573mm2. With the coming node shrink to 7nm, TSMC claims 1.6X logic density and 20% speed increase compared to the 12nm node. That means that the current 2080ti's 13.4 Tflops could jump to ~25.7 Tflops on the same die area. (This sounds too good to be true, if my calculations are off please call me retarded lol).

    I'm assuming Samsung's 7nm process is roughly equivalent to TSMC's 7nm process. I know Samsung will be manufacturing the Ampere chips.

    So, what about the tensor and RT cores? In theory this means that Nvidia could design an RT+Tensor die that could be scaled multiple times on the same chip, but I doubt they'd jump that far into MCM for Ampere.

    From what I can see, the 2080 ti's price suffers from the die size being massive compared to the 1080 ti. (749mm2 vs 471mm2) The addition of RT and Tensor cores made the monolithic die much more expensive without incredible performance gains. Ampere could, in theory, drop the price significantly or up the performance vs Turing by separating these chips.

    TL;DR: If Nvidia's Ampere splits the CUDA cores from the RT+Tensor cores in an MCM configuration, Ampere could be to Kepler what Pascal was to Maxwell 2.0. Maybe even have roughly double the performance while shrinking the CUDA SM die to ~570 mm2.

    My big questions: Are the RT and Tensor cores even capable of being separated from the CUDA cores, or are there limitations that I'm not seeing here? What kind of bandwidth, latency, and other requirements to RT and Tensor cores have that I've missed. In my mind, it's a no brainer. Since I don't have much of a brain for this, I'd love to hear what I've missed.

    submitted by /u/Samura1_I3
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment