AMD Delays 3950X Launch, says TR3 is coming...

NKD said:
If it was thermals AMD would have known it a long time ago. Still it’s two separate chiplets. Epyc has up to 8 so the ratio doesn’t change much when it comes to cores vs package.
Click to expand...

Ok man I have no idea nor does anyone then. Its all.speculation. honestly 16 cores on am4 is not something I'd want because you need absolute monster cooling to remove the heat.

I have 7x120mm custom loop and I'm getting 65c to 70c peak still on 3900x. It would hit 90c instantly on wraith cooler. Cant imagine I wouldn't be hitting 90c on water with 16 cores jammed in there.

Epyc isn't trying to achieve 4.7ghz either btw so keep that in mind.
 
ManofGod said:
It has already been announced that TSMC are having turn around times increase on their 7nm process parts, primarily because of demand. This is not new news, although I appreciate the OP letting us know about the 3950x delays.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read about that. A 2 month wait has been turned into 6 months.
 
tangoseal said:
Ok man I have no idea nor does anyone then. Its all.speculation. honestly 16 cores on am4 is not something I'd want because you need absolute monster cooling to remove the heat.

I have 7x120mm custom loop and I'm getting 65c to 70c peak still on 3900x. It would hit 90c instantly on wraith cooler. Cant imagine I wouldn't be hitting 90c on water with 16 cores jammed in there.

Epyc isn't trying to achieve 4.7ghz either btw so keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

4 more cores won’t add 20c in temps though. I mean are we talking 90c on wraith cooler running avx? If so that would make sense but from what I have read if it’s clamped down nice temps don’t really go to 90c with wraith unless Ofcourse your ambient is above 30c.

on my 3900x with my 360 AIO. I barely hit 60c during gaming and its in the 70s running no avx stress test. I think it should be fine and I really don't expect people to stick with wraith on it. That is sort of dumb decision on AMDs part. Intel doesn't even include coolers for their CPUs on the higher end. May be AMD should just sell the chip and leave it up to the user for cooling for a 16 core chip, its literally running in to threadripper category there.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
4 more cores won’t add 20c in temps though. I mean are we talking 90c on wraith cooler running avx? If so that would make sense but from what I have read if it’s clamped down nice temps don’t really go to 90c with wraith unless Ofcourse your ambient is above 30c.

on my 3900x with my 360 AIO. I barely hit 60c during gaming and its in the 70s running no avx stress test. I think it should be fine and I really don't expect people to stick with wraith on it. That is sort of dumb decision on AMDs part. Intel doesn't even include coolers for their CPUs on the higher end. May be AMD should just sell the chip and leave it up to the user for cooling for a 16 core chip, its literally running in to threadripper category there.
Click to expand...

I feel that AMD really just doesn't want to invade dedicated hedt space. Heating issues/non issues aside, a 16 core desktop.part would make a 16 core hedt part possibly unsellable except to those that specifically want quad channel or more pcie.
 
tangoseal said:
I feel that AMD really just doesn't want to invade dedicated hedt space. Heating issues/non issues aside, a 16 core desktop.part would make a 16 core hedt part possibly unsellable except to those that specifically want quad channel or more pcie.
Click to expand...

Delaying the 3950x by two months isn’t going to fix anything if that’s AMDs issue though.
 
tangoseal said:
I feel that AMD really just doesn't want to invade dedicated hedt space. Heating issues/non issues aside, a 16 core desktop.part would make a 16 core hedt part possibly unsellable except to those that specifically want quad channel or more pcie.
Click to expand...

That is why they are starting threadripper at 24 cores.
 
RamonGTP said:
Delaying the 3950x by two months isn’t going to fix anything if that’s AMDs issue though.
Click to expand...

Thats why its likely inventory build up at this point. I think they expect to sell a shit load even 750.
 
i think it's a case of supply and demand they have "bitten" off more than they chew. Don"t think they realized just how popular these new processor's would be. i don't have any data but these things are talked about every where and you see more individuals with them in there signature's for what ever that's worth. my .2 cents.
 
NKD said:
Thats why its likely inventory build up at this point. I think they expect to sell a shit load even 750.
Click to expand...

I really doubt it’s for inventory buildup. Holding inventory for no reason goes against various business metrics.
 
honegod said:
An unknown reason does not equal no reason.
Click to expand...

Obviously I was equating “inventory buildup” due to a demand = no reason.

In the business world, excessive demand isn’t a reason to hold back product, incur additional costs, and tie up cash.
 
kamikazi said:
Yeah I read about that. A 2 month wait has been turned into 6 months.
Click to expand...


considering apple just released the iphone 11 with a 7nm a13 bionic processor it's not really that surprising since they are TSMC's biggest customer. everyone else got thrown to the bottom of the priority list for fab time.
 
Dayaks said:
I really doubt it’s for inventory buildup. Holding inventory for no reason goes against various business metrics.
Click to expand...

It does if you are holding on to excessive inventory. May be they don't have enough to satisfy the demand as of now and next batch is around the corner. Who knows its all speculation at this point. But i do think its inventory related in general.
 
NKD said:
It does if you are holding on to excessive inventory. May be they don't have enough to satisfy the demand as of now and next batch is around the corner. Who knows its all speculation at this point. But i do think its inventory related in general.
Click to expand...

How does that make more sense than selling what you have now?
 
RamonGTP said:
How does that make more sense than selling what you have now?
Click to expand...

So why won’t they release it now? It absolutely has to do with them pushing it back. If I had to bet it’s probably because of epyc. Since 3950x uses 2 full chiplets it makes sense they might be going to EPYC chips due to demand, where AMD stashing less for 3950x and not having enough to fill the channel in September.
 
NKD said:
So why won’t they release it now? It absolutely has to do with them pushing it back. If I had to bet it’s probably because of epyc. Since 3950x uses 2 full chiplets it makes sense they might be going to EPYC chips due to demand, where AMD stashing less for 3950x and not having enough to fill the channel in September.
Click to expand...

We don't know, all we can do is guess. My guess would err on the side that makes more sense. Excessive inventory does not make sense. Not only would delaying the 3950x not make sense if they did have excessive inventory, but there is no evidence to suggest that excessive inventory even exists. There is high demand and low supply already for the 3900x, and we have Apple using up most of TSMC's fab capacity. It just doesn't make sense on any metric.
 
RamonGTP said:
We don't know, all we can do is guess. My guess would err on the side that makes more sense. Excessive inventory does not make sense. Not only would delaying the 3950x not make sense if they did have excessive inventory, but there is no evidence to suggest that excessive inventory even exists. There is high demand and low supply already for the 3900x, and we have Apple using up most of TSMC's fab capacity. It just doesn't make sense on any metric.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they had excessive inventory. You kinda missed my whole point. 3950x uses full 8 core chiplets so do all epyc chips. It’s likely they delayed it because they are putting more to fill the epyc demand as a lot of manufacturers already launched servers based on them. That is a more viable explanation then anything else.
 
Last edited:
RamonGTP said:
We don't know, all we can do is guess. My guess would err on the side that makes more sense. Excessive inventory does not make sense. Not only would delaying the 3950x not make sense if they did have excessive inventory, but there is no evidence to suggest that excessive inventory even exists. There is high demand and low supply already for the 3900x, and we have Apple using up most of TSMC's fab capacity. It just doesn't make sense on any metric.
Click to expand...
I think he was saying they are trying to build up inventory for release so it's not a paper release. It looks bad when you have barely any inventory at launch. They possibly want to build up enough inventory to launch, they can't keep enough 3900x in stock, so inventory is already an issue and these are higher binned. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing just giving my opinion on what was trying to be conveyed.
 
DrDoU said:
i think it's a case of supply and demand they have "bitten" off more than they chew. Don"t think they realized just how popular these new processor's would be. i don't have any data but these things are talked about every where and you see more individuals with them in there signature's for what ever that's worth. my .2 cents.
Click to expand...

The sales figures at mindfactory show massive sales. I don't think they did anticipate the demand, they're outselling Intel close to 2:1 in the enthusiast space. It's a good problem to have, I guess, especially as it's not driven by a mining craze that, while good for sales, didn't build any momentum in the PC space.
 
bobzdar said:
The sales figures at mindfactory show massive sales. I don't think they did anticipate the demand, they're outselling Intel close to 2:1 in the enthusiast space. It's a good problem to have, I guess, especially as it's not driven by a mining craze that, while good for sales, didn't build any momentum in the PC space.
Click to expand...
I hope AMD has been working with Samsung Foundry as well, at least for some 7nm RNDA cards either Navi 14 or 12 or both. Great sells for CPUs may lock out TSMC production of RNDA cards in the future. TSMC 6 month lead makes it hard to add more orders when needed in a short period of time. Looks like AMD is once again limited by production (not a good place to be in) plus can lead to price hikes as time goes on. It would be very short sighted if AMD did not also worked with Samsung, unless TSMC has an exclusivity contract for a reduce cost contract of some sorts that they must buy all 7nm parts from TSMC.
 
noko said:
I hope AMD has been working with Samsung Foundry as well, at least for some 7nm RNDA cards either Navi 14 or 12 or both. Great sells for CPUs may lock out TSMC production of RNDA cards in the future. TSMC 6 month lead makes it hard to add more orders when needed in a short period of time. Looks like AMD is once again limited by production (not a good place to be in) plus can lead to price hikes as time goes on. It would be very short sighted if AMD did not also worked with Samsung, unless TSMC has an exclusivity contract for a reduce cost contract of some sorts that they must buy all 7nm parts from TSMC.
Click to expand...

There are a number of issues with this line of thinking. First of all is spreading out your technology to additional places if you do not need to. Second is the fact that the TSMC and Samsung 7nm processes are not the same. You can't use the exact same tape out made for one company's process and port it directly to the other. Changes would need to be made. Even if AMD wanted to make those changes you could have serious issues regarding possible performance differences. One company's process might be quite a bit better than the other regarding clock speeds or even thermals. Having noticeable differences between two CPUs of the exact same model running stock is very bad.

The only way something like this would make sense would be for AMD to have CPUs made at one company and GPUs at another.
 
SmokeRngs said:
There are a number of issues with this line of thinking. First of all is spreading out your technology to additional places if you do not need to. Second is the fact that the TSMC and Samsung 7nm processes are not the same. You can't use the exact same tape out made for one company's process and port it directly to the other. Changes would need to be made. Even if AMD wanted to make those changes you could have serious issues regarding possible performance differences. One company's process might be quite a bit better than the other regarding clock speeds or even thermals. Having noticeable differences between two CPUs of the exact same model running stock is very bad.

The only way something like this would make sense would be for AMD to have CPUs made at one company and GPUs at another.
Click to expand...
Nvidia sources both, AMD sources both Global Foundary and TSMC - what are you talking about? No one said the same product, as in Navi 12 or 14 or both could be taped out at Samsung, made at Samsung while TSMC concentrates on Ryzen and Navi 10. Plus new APU's which the current ones are at Global Foundry -> could go to Samsung. It is a liability to be limited to one Foundry and more prudent to have multiple sources for chips, like Nvidia and well as like AMD currently. Samsung also has 7nm tech, is ready for production. AMD has made a deal with Samsung for AMD technology already, no word for 7nm node production. Not sure your point of spreading out your technology -> Samsung is going to use it, have explicit details of it, Navi and all it's intricacies, engineering access much more than just tape out information. Maybe AMD will have Navi 2 made at Samsung - would make sense.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14492/samsung-amds-gpu-licensing-an-interesting-collaboration
 
kamikazi said:
Why is Gigabyte saying their 3900x tops out at 4.1 GHz all core, but the 3950x does 4.3 all core? If they are comparing the 3900x stock to the 3950x manually OC'd, that's pretty disingenuous. I would think every 3900x can manually OC to 4.3 all core at 1.35 to 1.36v for a Cinebench run.
Click to expand...

I sort of glossed over the 25.5% performance improvement stock over stock. It should be closer to 33%. This is more of a 3900x scaled up to 15 cores.
 
kamikazi said:
Why is Gigabyte saying their 3900x tops out at 4.1 GHz all core, but the 3950x does 4.3 all core? If they are comparing the 3900x stock to the 3950x manually OC'd, that's pretty disingenuous. I would think every 3900x can manually OC to 4.3 all core at 1.35 to 1.36v for a Cinebench run.
Click to expand...

I run mine at 4.4Ghz at 1.375v.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top