Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Beats $2,000 Intel Core i9-9980XE In Geekbench Test

(Image credit: AMD)

A PC said to be using the yet to be released 16-core32-thread AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CPU appears to beat the 18-core, 36-thread Intel Core i9-9980XE in multi-core performance in a leaked Geekbench test result. The AMD CPU's 61,072 score is the highest we’ve ever seen from a consumer CPU.

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X vs. Intel Core i9-9980XE: Geekbench Results

Perhaps the craziest part about this is that Intel’s 18-core CPU sells for about $2,000, while AMD’s 3950X will be less than half of that at $750.

The results show the AMD chip besting the Intel one in single-core score (5,868 vs. 5,395). But it's the 3950X's multi-core score that's especially impressive, with a 31% advantage over the i9-9980XE, which scores (on average) only 46,618 points, according to Geekbench.

Granted, we don’t know the full story here and under which conditions the AMD CPU was tested. Geekbench shows the chip as having a 3.3 GHz base clock speed and a 4.3 GHz turbo clock speed, which may point to this chip being an engineering sample. That means that the Ryzen 9 3950X could show even better performance in the fall, as AMD advertised a 3.5-GHz base clock speed and a 4.7-GHz boosted clock speed for the chip.

Current Geekbench results put the Intel Core i9- 9900K above the AMD 3950X in single-thread performance (6,209 vs. 5,868), but if the AMD chip truly ran at 4.3 GHz turbo clock speed in the test, then it could reach around 6,400 points in the fall at 4.7 GHz.

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X

At E3 this week, AMD announced its high-end consumer CPU for the new Ryzen 3000 series. It said that its own benchmarks show that the 3950X beats Intel’s 9960X, even without Intel’s chips being patched for the latest MDS flaws, which can reduce the performance of Intel’s chips by 10-20%, according to some third-party benchmarks.

Apparently, AMD adidn’t test the new chip on the latest Windows 10 1903, which brings a new scheduler that better handles the intercommunication between the Ryzen CPU Core Complexes (CCXs). Some users have claimed it has increased their CPU’s performance by over 10%, although it’s likely that some use will see a much bigger improvement than others.

The new benchmark results, if they are to be believed, seem to put AMD in an even better position against Intel’s highest-end consumer chips. However, we won’t know for sure until we see do our own testing this fall. If AMD’s 3950X can deliver anywhere close to the same performance as the i9-9980XE, the AMD chip could be a no-brainer for the budget-conscious looking for performance in this range.

  • JamesSneed
    If this is true then Intel is in for a hard 18 months in the HEDT and server space. AMD's efficiency is only going to prove out to be more important on really high core count chips.
    Reply
  • penn919
    JamesSneed said:
    If this is true then Intel is in for a hard 18 months in the HEDT and server space. AMD's efficiency is only going to prove out to be more important on really high core count chips.
    I could believe that an R9 3950x could beat an i9-9960X...and that would be impressive in its own right, but there's no way it could beat a i9-9980XE. It has 18 cores with HT and Zen 2 is (allegedly) only marginally above/below skylake.

    Intel would be shitting bricks if this were actually true though. It would mean AMD undercut their HEDT higher core count cpu by well over half the price...with better performance!
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    "...Apparently, AMD adidn’t test the new chip on the latest ....."

    Where's that Mr. Paperclip/Clippy feller when you need him...???
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    I'm not sure how well Geekbench really measures true performance, or to what degree it might be awarding points for clockspeed, cores, assorted cache values, RAM speed, etc; the CInebench and Blender victories by 3900X are much more tangible, at least to me...
    Reply
  • joeblowsmynose
    penn919 said:
    I could believe that an R9 3950x could beat an i9-9960X...and that would be impressive in its own right, but there's no way it could beat a i9-9980XE. It has 18 cores with HT and Zen 2 is (allegedly) only marginally above/below skylake.

    Intel would be shitting bricks if this were actually true though. It would mean AMD undercut their HEDT higher core count cpu by well over half the price...with better performance!

    Well, the $499 12 core 3900x appears (wait for 3rd party reviews!) to already be mopping the floor with the $1200 Intel HEDT 12 core ... I wonder how it fares against their 14 core?
    Reply
  • joeblowsmynose
    mdd1963 said:
    I'm not sure how well Geekbench really measures true performance, or to what degree it might be awarding points for clockspeed, cores, assorted cache values, RAM speed, etc; the CInebench and Blender victories by 3900X are much more tangible, at least to me...

    Yeah geekbench is stupid, I don't know why people use it. It often makes weird results that make no sense at all. That said, it generally seems to heavily favour intel -- well at least before some of these new Zen2 benches ...

    I know Intel fanboys are hating Cinebench these days because it makes AMD look good in multithreaded loads (which Ryzen easily dominates in per dollar multi performance), but the single threaded run aligns well with what you might expect from bottlenecked gaming performance differences. You'll be hearing much more crying from them about Cinebench now that Zen2 appears to be whooping Intel on both metrics, lol. (but wait for the 3rd party reviews people!)

    The way I see it - if I have both the Cinebench single threaded and multi-threaded performance numbers, I pretty much got what I need - no need to look much further - I know pretty much how that will translate into the performance on the things I do.

    I do a fair bit of 3D rendering and megatasking as well, so that Cinebench multi score is extremely relevant to me.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    penn919 said:
    I could believe that an R9 3950x could beat an i9-9960X...and that would be impressive in its own right, but there's no way it could beat a i9-9980XE. It has 18 cores with HT and Zen 2 is (allegedly) only marginally above/below skylake.

    Intel would be shitting bricks if this were actually true though. It would mean AMD undercut their HEDT higher core count cpu by well over half the price...with better performance!

    And if it does, in fact, turn out to beat the i9-9980XE... will you come back here and admit you were wrong? Or will you just ignore your comment having been made at all?
    Reply
  • bcroner
    To the editor (users): although it’s likely that some use will see a much bigger improvement than others. => although it’s likely that some users will see a much bigger improvement than others.
    Reply
  • penn919
    SkyBill40 said:
    And if it does, in fact, turn out to beat the i9-9980XE... will you come back here and admit you were wrong? Or will you just ignore your comment having been made at all?
    The math doesn't work out, so I can't be wrong...at least in general. Geekbench might be a poor bench that doesn't accurately depict cpu performance. Think about it, if IPC is roughly the same and the intel has more cores, then it couldn't possibly perform underneath the 3950x. Not in multithreaded workloads at least.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    penn919 said:
    The math doesn't work out, so I can't be wrong...at least in general. Geekbench might be a poor bench that doesn't accurately depict cpu performance. Think about it, if IPC is roughly the same and the intel has more cores, then it couldn't possibly perform underneath the 3950x. Not in multithreaded workloads at least.

    Well see soon enough, won't we? And when we do, should the 3950X beat the 9980XE as has been mentioned, will you admit you were wrong? That is the real question here and you've failed to answer it despite it being a rather simplistic yes or no answer.
    Reply