AMD Cinebench Benchmark Demo at CES 2019 Buries the Current Intel Lineup

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,969
AdoredTV on YouTube analyzes what was actually shown in the AMD Ryzen Zen 2 vs Intel Core i9-9900K demonstration at CES 2019. He explains what the numbers mean, how AMD derived them, and why the AMD Zen 2 7nm chip that defeated the cream of the crop from Intel was actually just a lower-midrange model. Last of all, AdoredTV discusses how the 3rd gen Ryzen 5 pulled off this feat while using only half the power of the Intel offering.

Intel gets rekt by lower-midrange Ryzen 5.
 
I thought his analysis was very good, and I think it likely was a midrange engineering sample shown against the 9900k. I love it. I have really enjoyed both AMD and Intel chips, but AMD is kicking some intel azz right now. Can't wait for my 16 core Ryzen 3rd gen chip.
 
Nobu said:
You'll probably come back saying we knew the whole time that it was a midrange cpu once it's released and benched, like some sort of oracle...
Click to expand...

Don't come at me cuz I don't like the video

This video was a repeat of previous information from CES.
 
I'm pretty sure amd made intel shit their pants and will get to a big gain and this will be 2003-2006 period all over again
 
Balkroth said:
I'm pretty sure amd made intel shit their pants and will get to a big gain and this will be 2003-2006 period all over again
Click to expand...

You know from all the hype it seems that way, but I have ridden one to many of those hype trains or should I say hype dozers. Personally I need to see how this plays out, but I am all for the competition we have needed that so badly after the 10% improvement every cycle from Intel.
 
First of all, it's "VERY" important that any potential customer of these AMD chips should absolutely know that AMD uses a multi chip setup with these CPU's .... so the I/O ... the interconnects .. the data pathways between these chips are slower than Intel. There is an inherent latency that AMD faces ... now, these numbers are very low but much higher than Intel. This is why Intel still beats AMD in many benchmarks. Especially games. In fact, nearly all games.

Will AMD beat Intel in "all" performance metrics? Possibly, eventually, maybe sooner than we all think. Who knows. Once that happens, Intel will really be in serious trouble. I don't think that's going to happen with the Zen 2 but, we will have to wait and see.

Also, 99% of the people out there using a PC use their PC's for Gaming, Web, Email. Music and Movies. Less than 1% use productivity apps other than occasionally.

Sadly, there are many kids, customers that give up gaming performance for productivity because they are sold on "cores." ... Cores should never ever be the first thing you consider in a purchase. Should it be a top consideration? Absolutely. But not the deciding factor.

When I see people talking about cores, and power savings, to me it feels like they are attempting to take a part, a part proven to have less performance than it's competitor and artificially elevate it in regards to it's performance. While it's true that power savings are important, we are literally talking about saving pennies month to month. Cores, if you're honestly truly into productivity, like that's all you really do then AMD is absolutely the best CPU for you. For the vast vast majority ... real true performance is where you want to be.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
His voice is annoying, and getting this kind of information from a video is VERY annoying.

I wish he could just write an article instead.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the voice, but there's about a hundred words of any substance in that twenty minute monologue... and the gloating about speculation is rather ridiculous. This "leaked information" isn't useful to anyone.
 
I think the bottom line is that when this releases it will be on par or just shy the single core performance of a 9900k. It will also likely be cheaper, but the 9900k will have been on the market for 9 months. If we see more than one die for 10-16 core you can most certainly expect latency. I think its still going to be a kick ass product, but it won't completely have the upper hand on Intel.
 
SixFootDuo said:
First of all, it's "VERY" important that any potential customer of these AMD chips should absolutely know that AMD uses a multi chip setup with these CPU's .... so the I/O ... the interconnects .. the data pathways between these chips are slower than Intel. There is an inherent latency that AMD faces ... now, these numbers are very low but much higher than Intel. This is why Intel still beats AMD in many benchmarks. Especially games. In fact, nearly all games.

Will AMD beat Intel in "all" performance metrics? Possibly, eventually, maybe sooner than we all think. Who knows. Once that happens, Intel will really be in serious trouble. I don't think that's going to happen with the Zen 2 but, we will have to wait and see.

Also, 99% of the people out there using a PC use their PC's for Gaming, Web, Email. Music and Movies. Less than 1% use productivity apps other than occasionally.

Sadly, there are many kids, customers that give up gaming performance for productivity because they are sold on "cores." ... Cores should never ever be the first thing you consider in a purchase. Should it be a top consideration? Absolutely. But not the deciding factor.

When I see people talking about cores, and power savings, to me it feels like they are attempting to take a part, a part proven to have less performance than it's competitor and artificially elevate it in regards to it's performance. While it's true that power savings are important, we are literally talking about saving pennies month to month. Cores, if you're honestly truly into productivity, like that's all you really do then AMD is absolutely the best CPU for you. For the vast vast majority ... real true performance is where you want to be.
Click to expand...

Looks at SixFootDuo's rig profile:

south-park-it-all-makes-sense-now.gif
 
I don't get the saltiness about this guy. I enjoy his speculation and analysis of information presented. Do I take it as gospel? No, b/c he doesn't work for the company. Fun to hear nonetheless. I figured that zen 2 would not be sold until mid year. Maybe April at the earliest (b/c last year they launched in April I believe).
 
I'll tell you exactly what came to pass with that demo: AMD demonstrated that they can match the performance with the 9900k, at half the power, and likely half the price. Intel is indeed in trouble on this one. They don't have another card to pull from their deck to counter this, yet. They're going to have at least a year before they can catch up on this one.
 
I don't know what's up with the salt and naysaying in this thread. Front to back he's said this was speculation, not just in this video, but in the video in advance of CES too.

Missing the mark by 100mhz does not mean his speculation was false.

I watched both the video in advance of CES and the one above, and I completely agree with him. AMD is going to mop the floor with intel here, and there's statistics to back it up, as was presented literally in front of all of you.

Yes, they are engineering samples, but do you expect it to get _worse_ as they refine the process for release? No. That's not how this works. CPUs get better as they get refined for release.

I seriously don't get the salt here guys, it's like you';re not even paying attention to what he has to say, and not accepting that he _repeatedly says this is speculation_, despite how quite accurate it is.
 
BloodyIron said:
I don't know what's up with the salt and naysaying in this thread. Front to back he's said this was speculation, not just in this video, but in the video in advance of CES too.

Missing the mark by 100mhz does not mean his speculation was false.

I watched both the video in advance of CES and the one above, and I completely agree with him. AMD is going to mop the floor with intel here, and there's statistics to back it up, as was presented literally in front of all of you.

Yes, they are engineering samples, but do you expect it to get _worse_ as they refine the process for release? No. That's not how this works. CPUs get better as they get refined for release.

I seriously don't get the salt here guys, it's like you';re not even paying attention to what he has to say, and not accepting that he _repeatedly says this is speculation_, despite how quite accurate it is.
Click to expand...

I have nothing to add to this discussion because you covered it all. I 100% agree.
 
I watch his rants like my wife likes her real housewives shows. Its entertainment, just like 9 out of 10 YouTube content creators. If you take these people seriously then please do us a favor and don't come back to the boards to enlighten us with the new knowledge we missed out from their sources. Looking over the thread I keep seeing the same old still not as good as what the company I support sells. Stop just stop they don't pay you to put those parts in your rig. If blue makes red step up their game great, competition is great for us. I would buy a winchip if it had great performance overall in games and production. Blind loyalty gets us over priced and in general lessor version's of what we should have available to us.
 
SixFootDuo said:
First of all, it's "VERY" important that any potential customer of these AMD chips should absolutely know that AMD uses a multi chip setup with these CPU's .... so the I/O ... the interconnects .. the data pathways between these chips are slower than Intel. There is an inherent latency that AMD faces ... now, these numbers are very low but much higher than Intel. This is why Intel still beats AMD in many benchmarks. Especially games. In fact, nearly all games.

Will AMD beat Intel in "all" performance metrics? Possibly, eventually, maybe sooner than we all think. Who knows. Once that happens, Intel will really be in serious trouble. I don't think that's going to happen with the Zen 2 but, we will have to wait and see.

Also, 99% of the people out there using a PC use their PC's for Gaming, Web, Email. Music and Movies. Less than 1% use productivity apps other than occasionally.

Sadly, there are many kids, customers that give up gaming performance for productivity because they are sold on "cores." ... Cores should never ever be the first thing you consider in a purchase. Should it be a top consideration? Absolutely. But not the deciding factor.

When I see people talking about cores, and power savings, to me it feels like they are attempting to take a part, a part proven to have less performance than it's competitor and artificially elevate it in regards to it's performance. While it's true that power savings are important, we are literally talking about saving pennies month to month. Cores, if you're honestly truly into productivity, like that's all you really do then AMD is absolutely the best CPU for you. For the vast vast majority ... real true performance is where you want to be.
Click to expand...

Really? So an intel CPU gets 2% more frame rate than an AMD cpu. Big deal. I would say value is the more important and AMD has that
 
mjz_5 said:
Really? So an intel CPU gets 2% more frame rate than an AMD cpu. Big deal. I would say value is the more important and AMD has that
Click to expand...

It's more like 10%... In Single-thread limited scenarios. That 10% is the difference between 60 and 66FPS... Once again: in those scenarios limited by single thread performance.
And that's with modern Ryzen processors. These new ones seem to be about 20% faster per core.
 
KazeoHin said:
It's more like 10%... In Single-thread limited scenarios. That 10% is the difference between 60 and 66FPS... Once again: in those scenarios limited by single thread performance.
And that's with modern Ryzen processors. These new ones seem to be about 20% faster per core.
Click to expand...

And supposively drop into current boards!
 
DF-1 said:
yeah, not listening to him anymore. 0/??? things were true.
Click to expand...
Chiplet design ... Check.
14 nm IO Dye ... Check
Up to 2 Zen 2 Cores ... Check.
There exist a 65W 8C/16T 3.6/4.4 Product ... Quasi Check (Turned out to be 3.7/4.5, oh noez)
More than 8 cores ... Quasi Check (see Lisa Su's response).

You work for CNN as a fact checker by chance?
 
illli said:
I don't get the saltiness about this guy. I enjoy his speculation and analysis of information presented. Do I take it as gospel? No, b/c he doesn't work for the company. Fun to hear nonetheless. I figured that zen 2 would not be sold until mid year. Maybe April at the earliest (b/c last year they launched in April I believe).
Click to expand...
Taldren said:
Chiplet design ... Check.
14 nm IO Dye ... Check
Up to 2 Zen 2 Cores ... Check.
There exist a 65W 8C/16T 3.6/4.4 Product ... Quasi Check (Turned out to be 3.7/4.5, oh noez)
More than 8 cores ... Quasi Check (see Lisa Su's response).

You work for CNN as a fact checker by chance?
Click to expand...
Maybe he's Jim Acosta in real life?
 
Unfortuantely he doesn't really have any true leaks, and merely does a very succint summary of everything available to the average joe enthusiast. Regardless, I still love listening to him and all his videos. If you can make better content, maybe I'd listen to yours too, there's never enough bleeding edge gpu/cpu to talk about that gets me excited.
 
oldmanbal said:
Unfortuantely he doesn't really have any true leaks, and merely does a very succint summary of everything available to the average joe enthusiast. Regardless, I still love listening to him and all his videos. If you can make better content, maybe I'd listen to yours too, there's never enough bleeding edge gpu/cpu to talk about that gets me excited.
Click to expand...
Alright, I'm curious...where did you hear officially that Zen2 ryzen would have two chiplets and an IO die before CES? Or the frequency it'll have, or the TDP? Yes, he speculates, and he summarizes. He takes leaks, and official information, and makes educated guess about other specifications of the product. Though I guess if you can't understand that you wouldn't be interested in what he says, regardless of what he's talking about.

(Edit: somehow missed the second half of what you wrote. I stand by what I said, though it doesn't apply to you)
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
It's more like 10%... In Single-thread limited scenarios. That 10% is the difference between 60 and 66FPS... Once again: in those scenarios limited by single thread performance.
And that's with modern Ryzen processors. These new ones seem to be about 20% faster per core.
Click to expand...
It's looking like with Zen 2 Intel will be the one that's behind that 10% or so.
 
BloodyIron said:
I don't know what's up with the salt and naysaying in this thread. Front to back he's said this was speculation, not just in this video, but in the video in advance of CES too.

Missing the mark by 100mhz does not mean his speculation was false.

I watched both the video in advance of CES and the one above, and I completely agree with him. AMD is going to mop the floor with intel here, and there's statistics to back it up, as was presented literally in front of all of you.

Yes, they are engineering samples, but do you expect it to get _worse_ as they refine the process for release? No. That's not how this works. CPUs get better as they get refined for release.

I seriously don't get the salt here guys, it's like you';re not even paying attention to what he has to say, and not accepting that he _repeatedly says this is speculation_, despite how quite accurate it is.
Click to expand...


Who isn't paying attention? You? All you have to do is look to the past my friend. Here, I'll help you.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/4028vs3958

People are not "salty" ... they are "skeptical" .... big difference between the two.

We heard the same shit with Zen + about AMD "mopping" the floor with Intel.

And who really gives an actual fk about "power savings" .. Listen, if I own a Lambo, I'm gonna put in $4 a gallon high octane fuel and expect to get 5 miles a gallon. I doubt seriously kids are so concerned with saving a few pennies here and there.

But, I have my money ready. I'm a fan for performance, not a brand name.

Let's see how this thing overclocks and benches ...
 
eneq said:
AMD beating or even slightly loosing at half the power consumption is a huge deal when it comes to server farms. We already knew this from Epyc but this hammers it in even further.
Click to expand...

The Xeon servers I have at work are couple generations old, yet their power consumption is significantly lower than the servers they replaced.
The current quad core and even the 10 core CPU's average much less power than the old dual core servers they replaced because of the power saving features.
The CPU's rarely run at more than 50% usage during the day, and during the nights & weekends the CPU's average 1%-2%.
Going with a lower powered CPU wouldn't make much difference with my 8 servers.

I'm seeing far more power savings by replacing the old 7200RPM drives with SSD's.

Now I just need to upgrade to 10Gb ethernet, as I'm starting to max out the 1Gb cards :D

With SSD's & 10Gb ethernet I could probably do some more consolidation and get rid of one or two of my older servers, saving even more power.
 
FlawleZ said:
It's looking like with Zen 2 Intel will be the one that's behind that 10% or so.
Click to expand...


Maybe, I know one thing for sure. nVidia is still king when it comes to GPU's so there sure as hell won't be no 10% difference in that arena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top