A new benchmark between Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9 9900K shows Ryzen 9 being the clear winner for the Blender rendering tests:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=3900x-9900k-400&num=8
If you use Cycles or any pathtracer at least, then itâs not even a contest, the top-end Ryzen model just blows the 9900K to smithereens.
With early rumors about tech. like SMT4 for Ryzen 4, Intel needs to get their concepts like EMiB and Foveros into a consumer chip ASAP to stay competitive. If the CPU war ends in favor of AMD, then there will be no reason for AMD to perform intensive R&D instead of just maximum returns for the shareholders (because they will likely be pressured to do so).
Now of course, it could be hard to imagine AMD becoming the big bad market leader and Intel becoming the scrappy underdog with good value. However, them being a public company will be under pressure to jack up prices and to focus on refreshes, and the shareholders can even give Lisa Su the boot if they donât get that.
On all rendering fronts for AMD vs Intel⌠till now, I found only one exception where Intel does better:
LuxCoreRender was also tossed in for this open-source physically based renderer. LuxCoreRender isnât developed by Intel but does make use of their Embree library and Threaded Building Blocks (TBB). LuxCoreRender ended up being faster on the Xeon Platinum server with those Intel components, but then again most LuxCoreRender usage is done with OpenCL on GPUs.
source: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=rome-embree-ospray&num=4
The result looks a bit strange and low to me (may be, because Iâm used to GPUs numbers). It may be something related to Embree and AVX usage but it is more likely to be related to some synchronization problem related to the very high count of AMD Epic threads (i.e. 256).
Oh, might well be⌠I noticed a user having an issue running LuxCore using 72 threads. If there really is a bug, that would explain it.
The 16 core 32 thread Ryzen 9 is about to come out, and the reviews are already being published.
In short, people who do 3D will really like this as it blows away most of the other chips in rendering and other creation tasks. It also does pretty well in single-threaded tasks, though on games the performance is very dependent on how the underlying engine works. The only bad thing is that 16 cores at clocks close to 4.7 ghz does not come with low temperatures and power consumption, so you might need to invest in buying and then maintaining a liquid cooling solution.
1 Like
Bah, thatâs nothing. The 128 core AMD Epyc will blow you away⌠Literally 
3 Likes
though different market sectors and, well ⌠the cost⌠(both financial and sanity of noise 
)
But yeah, that is a Wowzers I want One type of system.
More Ryzen-powered prebuilt options coming
Yes, Ryzen is starting to show up more if you prefer the prebuilt PCâs from the larger vendors (because of cost, support, or other factors). They may not offer the best performance compared to picking your own parts, but itâs still a good thing for customers because the majority of people just want a PC they know will work.
Intel⌠canât strike back yet?
As Ryzen processors grab 80-90 percent of the sales at some hardware stores in countries like Germany. Intel is warning that their 10nm process wonât be as productive, and possibly not near as robust as their proven 14nm process. This could mean lower yields, higher prices, and the company not having something truly competitive again until 2021.
What this also means for consumers (speculation on my part), AMD could see this as the opening they need to jack up prices for Ryzen 4xxx processors and beyond if the rumors of a 15 percent IPC increase is true. With AMD firmly leading in CPU technology, the shareholders will start to expect greater returns on their investment.
Who knows, in a few years it might be Intel who is the scrappy underdog trying to give you the best value 
1 Like
Ryzen 3 3xxx and the B550 boards
At long last, AMD is releasing the budget options for the Zen 2 chips, representing a significant leap for the lower end. The claim AMD makes is that compared to the equivalent Intel chips, gaming performance is 20 percent faster and creative/rendering performance is a whopping 75 percent faster (thanks to even these chips now having SMT).
One thing Iâve noticed in the last couple of years is that you no longer hear anything about Intel releasing new rounds of junky Celeron chips, which AMD could probably take credit for.
Ryzen 3xxx reviews
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-3-3100-and-3300x-review.html
The impressive part is that these bargain-level CPUâs provide a computing power similar to what a top-end PC wouldâve gotten you a few years ago (at least for content creation). Power consumption runs a little on the high side because of the X570 boards, but most people on a budget will probably spring for a lower-end B550 board when they are released.
1 Like
AMD listens to users, will allow users to slot Zen3 onto Zen+ boards.
While Zen1 board owners are out of luck, this leads to AMD (largely) keeping its promise about supporting the AM4 socket through 2020. However, I anticipate that you will still need to get a future 6xx motherboard if you want to ensure you get every scrap of performance the chips can offer (due to new features and the like).
Ryzen 3xxxXT chips?
If the rumor is correct, AMD is planning to release a Zen2 refresh in July to take on Intel Comet Lake (with base and boost speeds increased by 300 Mhz and 200 Mhz respectively). The pricing meanwhile will be the same as the non XT chips as of this month, but to avoid cannibalism the non XT chips will see their prices slashed.
Overall, it is thought that the frequency boost along with other changes will allow for an up to 10 percent performance improvement, which will be enough to keep AMD close to Intel in single-threading until Zen3 is released.