The 12-core 24-thread 3900X brings HEDT-like performance to the multi-threaded rendering benchmarks. The tuned -9900KS doesn't fare as well as the overclocked Core i9-9900K in the LuxMark test, despite its 200 MHz frequency advantage and similar memory data transfer rates.
The Core i9-9900KS leads the Pov-Ray testing and gives us the expected performance improvements in several tests, but Ryzen 9 3900X retains its lead in almost all of these threaded tests.
The SVT-AV1 encoder is a new Intel- and Netflix-designed software video encoder that became available earlier this year. The encoder is more scalable than other encoders, thus offering faster encoding times paired with efficient compression. While it may seem counter-intuitive to use an Intel-designed encoder for testing AMD processors, consider that most encoders are inherently reliant upon per-core performance, which is a strength of Intel, while SVT-AV1 exposes the power of threading, a strength of Ryzen. The Ryzen 9 3900X leads the benchmark with ease.
Our LAME and FLAC tests, like many encoders, rely heavily upon per-core performance. That means Intel's frequency advantage comes into play, handing the -9900KS the lead in both tests.
Intel processors traditionally leverage high frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. But Intel's higher clock speed isn't too much of an advantage in these tests when the similarly-priced competition has far more threads at their disposal. AMD has also worked diligently to improve Ryzen's performance in AVX workloads, and here we can see that work pay off.
Compression, Decompression, Encryption, AVX
Our threaded compression and decompression 7-Zip and ZLib tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. The combination of Ryzen 3900X's improved memory subsystem and generous helping of cores helps it take an easy lead over the Intel challengers. The Ryzen 7 3700X also performs extremely well in the 7-Zip tests.
We can also see the vast improvement in Ryzen's AVX performance in the y-cruncher multi-threaded test. It's pretty surprising to see the Ryzen 7 3700X trade blows with the -9900KS in this test, especially given its wallet-friendly $329 price point. That said, the Intel models offer similarly impressive performance relative to competitors in the single-threaded y-cruncher test.
Overall, these tests largely leverage AMD's multi-threaded architecture, much like we observed in the rendering tests. It's noteworthy that AMD's architecture is far superior in hashing and AES encryption workloads, beating the -9900K/S models on a per-core basis.
The title of this article: "5.0 GHz on All the Cores, All the Time" --- is not true if it is used with a motherboard manufacturer that stuck to Intel's TDP guidelines, like Asus did.
On Asus boards, this chip only boosts all core @5ghz for a limited time then drops back down to maintain reasonable power consumption, as per Intel's own TDP specification for this processor. So basically, Intel gave mobo makers specs to keep TDP ~127w but really it was just their way of lying about TDP but deferring that misinfo to the mobo makers. The mobo maker that actually chose not to allow a misleading TDP now gets punished ... sounds like an Intel move.
So I assume this will mean that Asus is going to be pissed with Intel since gigabyte and MSI boards will let it suck all the power it needs to maintain 5ghz -- completely disregarding the TDP is the only way it boosts at 5ghz all cores, full time.
So how this chip performs has far more to do with the mother board, than the chip. This is stupid.
As an aside question ... what's the cooling power required for OCing? The OC testing here was done using 720mms worth of radiators on a custom loop - what's next ... LN2 testing? ;) We know the limit is somewhere between the H115i and the dual rad custom loop, but I wonder where that is. A lot of cooling for any OCing anyway it seems ... (but expected).
A complicated way to lie about TDP ... lol. Whatever you say, it disingenuous.
Which makes sense, as it improves their benchmark scores and if anyone complains about power draw they can just point to their states rules for power levels and blame the mobo manufacturers, even though they've implicitly given them permission to do this by allowing it to go on in a widespread fashion.
Should say 2080 Ti.
Yes but they should include a couple 1440p and 4K resolution benchmarks to put context. It could still be beneficial to buyers to get the cheaper options like the AMD Ryzen 3600 and upgrade in a couple years than buy the 9900KS and stick with it for 6 years.