mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-10-29, 15:51   #1
scan80269
 
"Sam"
Jun 2019
California, USA

3010 Posts
Default Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-10900X

I'm curious to know which of these two CPUs can yield faster iteration times at the current wavefront (FFT 5120K):

1. AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - 12 core, 3.8GHz base, 64MB L3, dual channel DDR4-3200, 105W TDP

2. Intel Core i9-10900X - 10 core, 3.7GHz base, 19.25MB total cache, quad channel DDR4-2933, 165W TDP, AVX-512

The Ryzen has much larger total cache while the Cascade Lake-X supports quad channel DDR4 and AVX-512.
scan80269 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-29, 16:41   #2
nomead
 
nomead's Avatar
 
"Sam Laur"
Dec 2018
Turku, Finland

33010 Posts
Default

I don't have access to it anymore, but a friend ran mprime benchmarks on his 3900X when he received it - a single run, no tweaks, DDR4-3000. One worker at 5120K = 2,44 ms / iter.

I would be interested in a comparison too, as even with the processor price cuts, the i9-10900X system will be more expensive (motherboard plus four sticks of memory).
nomead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-29, 17:19   #3
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

BD716 Posts
Default

My guess would be the i9-10900X because of the quad channel RAM and AVX512. Memory speed is the most important thing for Prime95.

I wish I had access to computers like this to test.

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2019-10-29 at 17:19
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-31, 16:54   #4
scan80269
 
"Sam"
Jun 2019
California, USA

111102 Posts
Default

There's a post in the perpetual benchmark thread for Core i7-9800X Skylake-X with DDR4-3600 memory showing approximately 2.7ms/iter for 5120K FFT.

Assuming i9-10900X with 3600 memory would be close to this, it looks like 3900X may have a slight edge, possibly because of the FFT fitting into the L2/L3 cache, along with power & cost advantages.
scan80269 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-31, 19:07   #5
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

29·101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scan80269 View Post
There's a post in the perpetual benchmark thread for Core i7-9800X Skylake-X with DDR4-3600 memory showing approximately 2.7ms/iter for 5120K FFT.

Assuming i9-10900X with 3600 memory would be close to this, it looks like 3900X may have a slight edge, possibly because of the FFT fitting into the L2/L3 cache, along with power & cost advantages.
The L3 cache cache on the 3900X is split in four 16 MB chunks, one per CCX, and it's a victim cache, and not unified, so it's unlikely the FFT is fitting. The 3900X is basically two 3600 put together, but they'll share memory bandwidth so I don't expect the 3900X would be much faster than a 3600 for that matter. The 3600 with 3600 MHz memory is probably a sweet combination.
Mark Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-10-31, 21:06   #6
nomead
 
nomead's Avatar
 
"Sam Laur"
Dec 2018
Turku, Finland

5128 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rose View Post
The L3 cache cache on the 3900X is split in four 16 MB chunks, one per CCX, and it's a victim cache, and not unified, so it's unlikely the FFT is fitting. The 3900X is basically two 3600 put together, but they'll share memory bandwidth so I don't expect the 3900X would be much faster than a 3600 for that matter. The 3600 with 3600 MHz memory is probably a sweet combination.
Well the R5-3600 (with DDR4-3600 memory, too) is 5.01 ms/iter at 5120K... so yes, there's quite some difference at that FFT size. The Ryzen 3600 chip is quite sweet for double checking though (I have one), but there's a big drop off in performance above about 3456K FFT size, again somehow pointing to the FFT plus some extra data fitting inside that 32 MB L3 cache. Whether it's in chunks or not, it seems to matter.

See the comparison plot in another thread.
nomead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-11-01, 15:59   #7
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

1011011100012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomead View Post
Well the R5-3600 (with DDR4-3600 memory, too) is 5.01 ms/iter at 5120K... so yes, there's quite some difference at that FFT size. The Ryzen 3600 chip is quite sweet for double checking though (I have one), but there's a big drop off in performance above about 3456K FFT size, again somehow pointing to the FFT plus some extra data fitting inside that 32 MB L3 cache. Whether it's in chunks or not, it seems to matter.

See the comparison plot in another thread.
Interesting! Thanks for the link.
Mark Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-15, 22:11   #8
simon389
 
Aug 2013

3·29 Posts
Default

I don’t understand how the AMD 3900X has a faster FFT benchmark than my Intel 9800X (see benchmark thread) considering the 9800X has quad channel memory and the 3900X has only dual channel.

Does a faster FFT mean it can crunch PRPs faster as well?

Last fiddled with by simon389 on 2019-12-15 at 22:40
simon389 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-15, 22:56   #9
xx005fs
 
"Eric"
Jan 2018
USA

21210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon389 View Post
I don’t understand how the AMD 3900X has a faster FFT benchmark than my Intel 9800X (see benchmark thread) considering the 9800X has quad channel memory and the 3900X has only dual channel.

Does a faster FFT mean it can crunch PRPs faster as well?
Yes, though it really depends on the FFT size. Since Zen 2 have massive L3 caches, it can somewhat compensate for the dual vs quad channel memory. However, as FFT size becomes larger, the L3 cache can hold less and less portion of the FFT size, and the rest has to be stored in memory. That's why Zen 2 will be faster than 9800x on current wavefront.
xx005fs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-16, 01:12   #10
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

2·3·52·72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon389 View Post
I don’t understand how the AMD 3900X has a faster FFT benchmark than my Intel 9800X (see benchmark thread) considering the 9800X has quad channel memory and the 3900X has only dual channel.

Does a faster FFT mean it can crunch PRPs faster as well?
Be careful in what you are measuring. The benchmark thread may have data on which CPU could finish a single PRP test fastest, while most users care about throughput - how ll/PRP tests can the CPU finish in a given unit of time.
Prime95 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-16, 02:58   #11
scan80269
 
"Sam"
Jun 2019
California, USA

2×3×5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon389 View Post
I don’t understand how the AMD 3900X has a faster FFT benchmark than my Intel 9800X (see benchmark thread) considering the 9800X has quad channel memory and the 3900X has only dual channel.

Does a faster FFT mean it can crunch PRPs faster as well?
@simon389 for your 9800X results posted to the benchmark thread last year, was AVX-512 enabled for Prime95?
scan80269 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ryzen help Prime95 Hardware 9 2018-05-14 04:06
Ryzen 2 efficiency improvements M344587487 Hardware 3 2018-04-25 15:23
Help to choose components for a Ryzen rig robert44444uk Hardware 50 2018-04-07 20:41
29.2 benchmark help #2 (Ryzen only) Prime95 Software 10 2017-05-08 13:24
AMD Ryzen is risin' up. jasong Hardware 11 2017-03-02 19:56

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:50.

Fri Feb 26 16:50:20 UTC 2021 up 85 days, 13:01, 0 users, load averages: 1.96, 1.68, 1.65

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.