Intel Core i9-10900K tries hard but fails to beat the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X in Corona Render Test; Zen 3 Ryzen 4000 may further relegate Intel to the backseat

[Redaktion]

The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X could easily beat Intel's latest 10th gen Core i9-10900K in the Corona Render Test benchmark finishing nearly four minutes earlier than the latter. The Ryzen 9 3900X could do this despite running at lower clocks and lower temperatures. This is an indication that the upcoming Zen 3-based Ryzen 4000 CPUs with purported higher IPC can further dent prospects of Intel's Comet Lake-S and Rocket Lake-S offerings.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-tries-hard-but-fails-to-beat-the-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-in-Corona-Render-Test-Zen-3-Ryzen-4000-may-further-relegate-Intel-to-the-backseat.465784.0.html

[mark harris]

what a butthurt fanboy article.
There is plenty of other stuff where Intel beats "will-never-make-it-to-5Ghz" AMD as well.

[havefun]

what a butthurt fanboy article.
There is plenty of other stuff where Intel beats "will-never-make-it-to-5Ghz" AMD as well.

That "other stuff" is just intel's PR. In reality Intel 10k is on par with Zen+ and they have nothing competitive with 4000 Ryzens

[Medallish]

what a butthurt fanboy article.
There is plenty of other stuff where Intel beats "will-never-make-it-to-5Ghz" AMD as well.

I think there might be some projection going on here?

Anyone can see that Intel is pushing those 14nm skylake cores to their limit, and it's not pretty, it makes Zen2 look even better by comparison, even though it doesn't manage 5GHz.

[KH]

I think Mark is the butthurt fanboy here with that type of response.

[Shadowlugia41]

These two CPU's are completely different. It's like comparing a retail worker to an celebrity. The AMD chip is purposefully designed for this kind of task where the Intel one completely BLOWS it out of the water in what it was made to do. All these false comment responses are funny too.

[Leo Kuan]

To me, comparing cpu ghz is like comparing car engine rpm or how many cylinders. But  most buyers only care about the bottomline engine horse power/torque, its feul effiency and of course $$ I paid.

[Notobjective]

Yes, this was most definitely a fanboi article.  First off the time difference was only 3 minutes and 2 seconds not 4 minutes.  Strike one.

The 3900x has 20% more cores yet was only 8% faster.   Strike two

The author takes the results of one and only one test that leaked that may or may not even be real and claims an overall victor.  Strike 3

This whole article is just bs fanboi ranting, not journalism and most definitely not objective.

[Clocka]

Thanks to Vaidyanathan for the most pathetic biased piece of fluff I've read in years... oh and the whole world is into Esports now Vaidy, and AMD gets smashed in gaming... again!

[LJ]

Lmao, so many butthurt intel fanboi here that doesn't accept the true intel is getting a** whooping. :'(

[Spunjji]

Looks like the Intel FUD squad have arrived, each one with mutually contradictory statements but all batting for the same team. Well done, boys!

I'd be interested to find out these details:
1) The RAM used for the AMD system
2) Cooling used for both systems
3) Actual power consumption of the Intel system at full-tilt, rather than just the maximum temperature.

(1) Isn't likely to be too controversial, (2) is interesting because the Intel CPU is known to hit 90 degrees or above under 240mm AIO water coolers, and (3) is mostly for shits and giggles as Intel will likely be burning at least 50% more power to get worse results.

[jarfin]

yah, intels cpu 10900 14nm 8-core CANT beat 16-core 7nm am,d cpu...its hard try but fail..

so,where is news or message?

well, is it there so much much massive handicap amd cpu that if we seen hard, it can.

its not need much thinking to see that mad 7nm cpu is slow.

lets see even intel 10nm cpu against it, or if we want see fair battle its should be

amd 7nm 8.core VS intel 8.core 7nm cpu

after that if we see same words,i buy amd cpu.


come on.