> Intel's hyperthreading nets you an extra 20%, depending on workload. AMD's Zen1 SMT, in comparison, was more like 40%. Add in something like the branch prediction working better on this problem pattern, or the cache being too small / wrong shape on the Intel, and another 20% is easy.
This is already measured in the existing benchmarks. You don't take the benchmarks and then add 60% to them arbitrarily.
Broadly speaking, Zen2 is slightly slower per-core to Coffee Lake (eg 3700X/3800X vs 9900K). Including whatever architectural features you care to name - that's built into the result. Skylake-X is slightly slower per-core than Coffee Lake due to the mesh architecture, let's say 5%, so perhaps roughly on par with Zen2. Nowhere near 40% different
And Fire Strike, specifically, is not one of the things that Intel suffers on (not to mention this architecture has hardware mitigations for most of the vulnerabilities). FireStrike is supposed to resemble physics processing for a game, there is not a lot of context switching (which is what Intel suffers on).
--
> Honestly, it looks like you're arguing with data at this point. It really does do 40% better per core.
Well, I'm not the one arguing that we need to be taking the benchmarks and adding 60% so it matches an anomalous data point ;)
Yes, this is absolutely an outlier or anomaly. No, it's not "arguing with data" to point out when a data point bucks a larger trend in the data as a whole.
We already know the relative per-core performance of Zen2 and Skylake-X, the difference is not 40%.
I'm not saying not to buy it. I'm just saying, this thread is going to look real embarrassing in a month or two when the 3950X doesn't have a magic 40% per-core performance gain over the existing Zen2 chips. 10980XE will be more expensive, and more power hungry... but it will be faster. Marginally.
This is already measured in the existing benchmarks. You don't take the benchmarks and then add 60% to them arbitrarily.
Broadly speaking, Zen2 is slightly slower per-core to Coffee Lake (eg 3700X/3800X vs 9900K). Including whatever architectural features you care to name - that's built into the result. Skylake-X is slightly slower per-core than Coffee Lake due to the mesh architecture, let's say 5%, so perhaps roughly on par with Zen2. Nowhere near 40% different
And Fire Strike, specifically, is not one of the things that Intel suffers on (not to mention this architecture has hardware mitigations for most of the vulnerabilities). FireStrike is supposed to resemble physics processing for a game, there is not a lot of context switching (which is what Intel suffers on).
--
> Honestly, it looks like you're arguing with data at this point. It really does do 40% better per core.
Well, I'm not the one arguing that we need to be taking the benchmarks and adding 60% so it matches an anomalous data point ;)
Yes, this is absolutely an outlier or anomaly. No, it's not "arguing with data" to point out when a data point bucks a larger trend in the data as a whole.
We already know the relative per-core performance of Zen2 and Skylake-X, the difference is not 40%.
I'm not saying not to buy it. I'm just saying, this thread is going to look real embarrassing in a month or two when the 3950X doesn't have a magic 40% per-core performance gain over the existing Zen2 chips. 10980XE will be more expensive, and more power hungry... but it will be faster. Marginally.