Ryzen 3950X disappointment

doubletake said:
You can't get that anywhere, Intel included, so how the hell could you possibly expect AMD to do it on a 16-core part?
Click to expand...
heh, guess i lost perspective in the hype and my expectations got too high
 
erek said:
Only 4.3 GHz all core WATER REQUIRED

Why not 5.0 GHz All Core from factory for a change?
Click to expand...

If AMD could do 5.0GHz on all cores, it would. It's simply not possible on the Zen 2 architecture and process node using ambient cooling. Why would you have thought otherwise? We knew there was no chance in hell of hitting clocks like that based on existing Ryzen 3000 series processors. 4.1GHz-4.3GHz is the wall for these cores. Adding more in the same package doesn't help. It makes it more difficult to achieve.

Anyone who held out hope for more was either uninformed on the subject or delusional.

thebufenator said:
Was never even a possibility
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.

doubletake said:
You can't get that anywhere, Intel included, so how the hell could you possibly expect AMD to do it on a 16-core part?
Click to expand...

Intel's upcoming Core i9 9900KS is supposed to offer 5.0GHz clocks on all eight cores. Given that we've seen clocks like that on Core i9 9900K and 9900KF series CPU's through overclocking on AIO's since they released, this only requires careful binning on Intel's part.

erek said:
heh, guess i lost perspective in the hype and my expectations got too high
Click to expand...

I'd say so. All Ryzen CPU's in a given architecture all hit roughly the same wall. AMD has been releasing processors at the edge of what the silicon can do for years now. If it could have clocked any processor higher in the past reliably, and had it run in most normal situations, it would have. All things being equal higher clocks equal higher performance. AMD definitely would have released existing CPU's at 5.0GHz all core if it could. That would have knocked Intel out of the park more decisively and boosted sales.
 
Agreed and the more cores we get, the more difficult it will be to hit all core overclocks consistent especially on lower process nodes. I am sure 3 of the 16 cores would hopefully hit the advertised boost on the box.
 
Dan_D said:
If AMD could do 5.0GHz on all cores, it would. It's simply not possible on the Zen 2 architecture and process node using ambient cooling. Why would you have thought otherwise? We knew there was no chance in hell of hitting clocks like that based on existing Ryzen 3000 series processors. 4.1GHz-4.3GHz is the wall for these cores. Adding more in the same package doesn't help. It makes it more difficult to achieve.

Anyone who held out hope for more was either uninformed on the subject or delusional.
Click to expand...

my biggest problem with this is that it has to be pushed hard with water to achieve all core 4.3... i'm not into overclocking myself so this is tough :(
 
erek said:
my biggest problem with this is that it has to be pushed hard with water to achieve all core 4.3... i'm not into overclocking myself so this is tough :(
Click to expand...

And doing so isn't even worth while outside of very specific benchmarks or use cases. I've done this type of testing and you are better off leaving it alone and letting Precision Boost 2 do its thing. If you set all the cores to 4.3GHz, you lose single-threaded performance which hurts you more than you might think. These CPU's still achieve 4.0GHz+ all core, so 4.3GHz isn't much of a boost outside of specific scenarios most desktop users will never benefit from.

Actually overclocking CPU's to 4.3GHz if they can do it is quite easy. It's only two or three settings that you have to manipulate to make this happen in most cases.
 
thanks for everyone's insight on this! much appreciated!
 
For what its worth. My all core load with a -0.10v offset is 4.25ghz. Single core is 4525mhz and lowest is 4475mhz on a 3800x
 
I leave my 3700x on all auto. It's really nice, I get 4300 mhz all core during gaming loads where the clocks really matter, elsewhere (h264, stress tests, etc) a bit lower but worth it for the low temps.

Also, the 5ghz thing is funny to me. Everyone would have loved a 5ghz 2700x because of the nice round number, but given the boost in single threaded performance, my 3700x essentially is a 5ghz 2700x. Wasn't the IPC gain roughly 15%? 4300 * 1.15 = 4945.

Of course, I'd still like 5ghz because that's even more performance! but performance is performance in the end.
 
erek said:
Only 4.3 GHz all core WATER REQUIRED


Why not 5.0 GHz All Core from factory for a change?
Click to expand...

Wait is 4.3 on all 16 cores supposed to be disappointing ?

Still .... if we can get 4.3 all core on a 16 core part these are going to be hard to find. :) Intels Cascade part is going to be 2 cores short... 600mhz short on boost... lack PCI 4... and still cost more even with the massive drops. It sounds like it will also be way short on all core overclock numbers unless Intel has magic 14nm+++++ process. lol
 
ChadD said:
Wait is 4.3 on all 16 cores supposed to be disappointing ?

Still .... if we can get 4.3 all core on a 16 core part these are going to be hard to find. :) Intels Cascade part is going to be 2 cores short... 600mhz short on boost... lack PCI 4... and still cost more even with the massive drops. It sounds like it will also be way short on all core overclock numbers unless Intel has magic 14nm+++++ process. lol
Click to expand...

yah, i want to see 5 all core from factory and stock
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
ChadD said:
Wait is 4.3 on all 16 cores supposed to be disappointing ?

Still .... if we can get 4.3 all core on a 16 core part these are going to be hard to find. :) Intels Cascade part is going to be 2 cores short... 600mhz short on boost... lack PCI 4... and still cost more even with the massive drops. It sounds like it will also be way short on all core overclock numbers unless Intel has magic 14nm+++++ process. lol
Click to expand...

erek said:
yah, i want to see 5 all core from factory and stock
Click to expand...

Looks like Intel’s current 18 core can do 4.6 all core at 500 watts.

Not exactly sure why you’re hell bent on the 5Ghz number for all core... if you need that many cores just go with a higher core count Thread Ripper that is coming out.

Basically Intel 8 core can do 5Ghz or if you go high core count you lose some Hz.
 
I don't get where your unbelievable expectations came from erek. Really odd considering how much you are on this forum and followed the AMD 3000 series launch including test results. At least I thought you did. I guess you weren't paying attention or something. Not trying to be harsh, but man, this thread shocked the hell out of me when I read it. I thought somebody hacked erek's account at first.

erek said:
yah, i want to see 5 all core from factory and stock
Click to expand...
Enjoy your brand new Intel 9900KS, then. It's the only CPU that will have this capability.

Also, dibs on your new AMD platform build that I assume you will be selling shortly? Just kidding, I don't need a new system.
 
Dan_D said:
Why? We new this was going to be the case based on the 3900X
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Ryzen 3000, especially the 3900x and 3950x don't overclock for shit.

This is actually a pretty large improvement over what anyone should have expected.

Ryzen 3000 has better IPC than Intel currently does though, so it doesn't need to hit the same clocks.

erek said:
heh, guess i lost perspective in the hype and my expectations got too high
Click to expand...

Reasonable expectations for 3950x was that it would be a marginal at best overclocker, and that it might barely hit advertised single core max boost of 4.7ghz, but still at that it would be pretty awesome CPU.

Intel has nothing consumer that can touch it in multicore, but they continue to carry the per core performance lead, albeit with a smaller margin.
 
This whole thread is very confusing... thought it was a shitpost at first, but yeah, sorry man, it was never close to being in the cards to begin with :(

Expectations out of whack aside... why do you need 5Ghz on all 16C? Judging by your sig rig, you're clearly doing something thread-aware (or going for e-peen, i get it ;)), why not overcome it with more cores? What kind of workloads are we talking about here?

If the answer is just cuz, can't help ya much there.
 
This is along the lines of wishing that a monitor manufacturer's next offering would be a monitor with every feature you want in a monitor with absolutely no trade offs. It just isn't going to happen. If AMD could have managed 5.0GHz all core on any Ryzen 3000 variant, it would have done it. That would have crushed Intel's offerings in the segment by a wide margin. They are very close IPC wise, but Intel still pulls ahead occasionally only because it has a clock speed advantage.
 
The frequency in which it runs is not what's important. What's important is, is it efficient and is it fast at doing what its supposed to do?

I believe that the days of overclocking are going to be over soon. They were fun times indeed!
 
4.3 is good when you think it's 16 cores. Anyone have any numbers on of it hits is bost clocks? If it hits it's 4.7 number it's single threaded gaming numbers should be very respectable.
 
I had a 5.0 GHz 6-core overclock. Honestly, it was fun just to get to 5GHz, i won't lie, but that was about it. The sport.

I've now set back to stock and set Windows to balanced profile, which is better for fan noise and I feel it is more optimized that way since I don't even game that much.

Outside of benchmarking / overclocking for fun no one really needs 5GHz.
 
pendragon1 said:
^^that's your problem. you expect it to do something never promised.
Click to expand...

doubletake said:
You can't get that anywhere, Intel included, so how the hell could you possibly expect AMD to do it on a 16-core part?
Click to expand...
Cause THIS!: ;)

upload_2019-10-4_23-34-40.png


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top