Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, JustAnEngineer
just brew it! wrote:Wow, jumping all the way to a 3900X from a 7 year old 3770K rig has gotta be a pretty huge bump in performance!
Krogoth wrote:For mainstream stuff, not really that by much. 3900X will only show its muscles if you throw VMs, numbering-crunching and content creation stuff at it.
Waco wrote:3900X - 3770K = 130M...the difference between 3770k and 3900x...
JustAnEngineer wrote:3900X - 3770K = 130M
Waco wrote:Krogoth wrote:For mainstream stuff, not really that by much. 3900X will only show its muscles if you throw VMs, numbering-crunching and content creation stuff at it.
I think you severely underestimate the difference between a 3770k core and a 3900x...
Igor_Kavinski wrote:Yeah. Sucks that for mainstream CPUs, we are still stuck at sub-5GHz speeds. Wish Intel's NetBurst architecture would have reached 10GHz. At least, single-threaded apps would have been blazing fast. Which kinda makes me wonder. What if they had kept on developing NetBurst and just included a single NetBurst core in every CPU for single-threaded tasks? Then we could have had the best of both worlds.
Krogoth wrote:Waco wrote:Krogoth wrote:For mainstream stuff, not really that by much. 3900X will only show its muscles if you throw VMs, numbering-crunching and content creation stuff at it.
I think you severely underestimate the difference between a 3770k core and a 3900x...
Nope, it is pretty close under mainstream stuff. Zen2 isn't that much faster than Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge at low-threaded stuff assuming clockspeeds are equal.
just brew it! wrote:Given IPC improvements over the years, a 10Ghz Netburst core probably would not net you much of a gain even in single threaded performance, and might even be a step backwards.
Waco wrote:Krogoth wrote:Waco wrote:I think you severely underestimate the difference between a 3770k core and a 3900x...
Nope, it is pretty close under mainstream stuff. Zen2 isn't that much faster than Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge at low-threaded stuff assuming clockspeeds are equal.
They aren't the same clockspeeds nor are they similar in performance for lightly threaded workloads even if they were. 30-40% is not an unnoticeable difference.
Regardless - it's a huge step forward.
Xolore wrote:just brew it! wrote:Given IPC improvements over the years, a 10Ghz Netburst core probably would not net you much of a gain even in single threaded performance, and might even be a step backwards.
My napkin-math guess is that a netburst would have to hit around 15Ghz just to keep up with modern Sky Lake based cores in single threaded loads and that's assuming the load isn't using anything newer than SSE3...
K-L-Waster wrote:Netburst at 10+GHz would have thermal output approaching that of a nuclear reactor....
Krogoth wrote:Waco wrote:Krogoth wrote:For mainstream stuff, not really that by much. 3900X will only show its muscles if you throw VMs, numbering-crunching and content creation stuff at it.
I think you severely underestimate the difference between a 3770k core and a 3900x...
Nope, it is pretty close under mainstream stuff. Zen2 isn't that much faster than Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge at low-threaded stuff assuming clockspeeds are equal. 3770K easily boosts to its maximum of 3.9Ghz and can OC'ed easily to 4.2Ghz. 3900X is lucky to boost 4.5Ghz sustained. The difference between the isn't that dramatic unless you throw workloads that scale well beyond one or two-threads. That throws it squarely under number-crunching, content creation, VMs and power multi-tasking.
3900X is a very powerful workhorse CPU that has utterly disrupted the HEDT-scene, but frankly it is overkill for non-power users.
I think you vastly overestimate the demands of mainstream software and workloads. FYI, I have done comparisons between my current 9700K and 3570K systems. The 9700K only pulls ahead by significant margins under number-crunching, content creation and VMs (Thanks to proper VT-D support which 3570K lacks). Under mainstream stuff you would be hard-pressed to find a noticeable difference.
Krogoth wrote:It is closer to a 10-25% at best for overwhelming majority of mainstream stuff and games out there. There's a reason users held onto their Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge systems for so dang long. They are only biting upgrade bullet mostly to get newer standards and interfaces. Getting extra cores just sweetens the deal.
People held on to SB/IB systems (I was one of them) because the Intel cost of entry was so high for what felt like very little progress forward. 4 cores of SB to 4 cores of Skylake was a decent and very noticeable jump in performance, but it's still 4 cores to 4 cores at a huge cost of entry. I only purchased a 6700K because I had to review a Z170 motherboard.
Waco wrote:Okay. I'm done.