BluRayHiDef
Banned
I don't plan on buying any CPUs any time soon (unless the Ryzen 4000 Series blows me away), but I was just checking out the Ryzen 9 3950x at Amazon; this processor has a whopping 16 cores and can process 32 threads simultaneously (two threads per core) @ 3.5GHz to 4.7GHz. However, while assessing its Cinebench R15 and R20 results, I observed that its single-core performance is inferior to that of several Intel CPUs that have less cores and that are manufactured via larger nodes, namely models from Intel's Core i7-8000, i9-9000, and i9-10000 Series, which are manufactured via several 14nm processes; to put things into perspective, the Ryzen 9 3950x is manufactured via a 7nm process.
Compounding these results are one of those for the 3950x's multi-core performance. As you can see, an Intel processor that has four less cores and runs at lower frequencies (Intel Xeon Gold 6126) has a higher score for multi-core performance in Cinebench R20.
So, considering that Intel's processors have better single-core performance and can even sometimes have better multi-core performance with less cores, would you say that AMD's success with Ryzen is due to genius engineering or simply the advantage of fitting more cores on a single die as a result of using smaller nodes?
Compounding these results are one of those for the 3950x's multi-core performance. As you can see, an Intel processor that has four less cores and runs at lower frequencies (Intel Xeon Gold 6126) has a higher score for multi-core performance in Cinebench R20.
So, considering that Intel's processors have better single-core performance and can even sometimes have better multi-core performance with less cores, would you say that AMD's success with Ryzen is due to genius engineering or simply the advantage of fitting more cores on a single die as a result of using smaller nodes?