3950X Who's waiting for it?

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
Sometimes you have to feed the inner nerd. In your case though, do you think the upgrade to a 3700X would even be worth it? You're looking at $600 minimum for a 15% increase in IPC but loss of 4 cores, which almost seems like a sidegrade at best.

It's more of an upgrade in gaming than you'd think. I've done lots of testing on the Threadripper lately, and in Destiny 2, I can see minimum frame rates as low as 36FPS at 4K. Its even worse on a manual overclock rather than PBO. In contrast, the Core i9 9900K @ 5.0GHz has a minimum of 56FPS in the same area doing the same thing. It's odd because the Threadripper actually has much higher maximum frames and similar averages, but the lows are in the toilet comparatively. When actually gaming at 4K, the Intel provides a smooth gaming experience no matter what, and the Threadripper simply doesn't. I haven't tested the Ryzen 3000 series too much in this game as I just got a fix for it yesterday. (Chipset driver, not BIOS.) I have only verified that I can launch Destiny 2 on the 3900X.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
It really depends on the type of multi-tasking you do. I have windows open everywhere when I work. Excel, Photoshop, and all kinds of things (including games) may be running at that time but I never noticed any boost in performance or responsiveness going from my 8c/16t Core i7 5960X @ 4.5GHz to a 12c/24t AMD Threadripper 2920X using PBO or a manual overclock to 4.2GHz on all cores. The only thing I've ever done on my own PC that I've noticed that much of an improvement with was multi-tasking and having multiple VM's running in the back ground. That's where I've seen the benefit of additional cores. That said, I have no desire to do that on my gaming rig.

I've been running HEDT systems for years, but mostly because I've needed the extra PCIe lanes for one reason or another. At this point, I think I've pretty much figured out how to work around that. My next upgrade will probably be a Ryzen 3000 series CPU. However, I am not sure if I want to spring for the 3900X or not. The nerd in me wants the Ryzen 9 3950X, but truthfully, I'd be better served by the 3700X or the 3800X and using the extra cash to buy another one of those 1TB Inland SSD's or something.

I run workloads that should be on HEDT rigs, but I am always too cheap/broke, and so I build beefy mainstream rigs instead. When Athlon X2 came out, I was all over that. Single core -> Dual core was probably the most noticeable upgrade I've ever had. The difference in multitasking was night and day.

Then went to a Core 2 Quad Q6600 when it dropped in price enough to become reasonable. Honestly, not as big of an upgrade. But it was still nice. Went 2600k when that came out, over the 2500k, because HT. Stayed on that rig for ages because nothing Intel was releasing in the mainstream segment was worth the cost of entry. I wanted more cores/threads, but Intel wanted to bend me over on price in order to get them. HEDT pricing... no thanks.

So when Ryzen came out, I was all over that. Near-HEDT performance. Mainstream price. I still wanted the 6900k at the time, because it was faster in games and a tiny bit faster in productivity workloads. But not for that price. Nope. Now that I can drop a 3900X in this board? Kind of glad I didn't go the Intel route on this.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
I'm the opposite, I've always had HEDT rigs but I've rarely done anything work load wise that justified them. In part, I've done it because I wanted to have them and I can afford it. But now that HEDT processors have gone from $1,000 on the upper end to almost $2,000, it's beyond even what I'm willing to pay for bragging rights. I came to the realization that a standard Ryzen rig or Core i9 9900K would be far better for my needs than anything in the HEDT space would be.

The most ridiculous machine I've ever had was a dual LGA 771 Skulltrail system with two Core 2 Extreme QX9775's at 4.0GHz. I had eight cores back when it wasn't even possible to have that many in a single CPU. At least, not in a desktop.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I'm the opposite, I've always had HEDT rigs but I've rarely done anything work load wise that justified them. In part, I've done it because I wanted to have them and I can afford it. But now that HEDT processors have gone from $1,000 on the upper end to almost $2,000, it's beyond even what I'm willing to pay for bragging rights. I came to the realization that a standard Ryzen rig or Core i9 9900K would be far better for my needs than anything in the HEDT space would be.

The most ridiculous machine I've ever had was a dual LGA 771 Skulltrail system with two Core 2 Extreme QX9775's at 4.0GHz. I had eight cores back when it wasn't even possible to have that many in a single CPU. At least, not in a desktop.

I'm not waiting around for the 3950X because I think 12 cores (at that speed) will probably be enough even for my workloads - maybe even overkill, as I'm not exactly suffering with the 2700X I have in here right now. The line between mainstream and HEDT is becoming very fuzzy. That's real promising for folks like me. I don't have to make as many tradeoffs. With Gen 1 Zen, I had to eat up to a 20% gaming performance drop to get the multithreaded performance I wanted, and I sacrificed Photoshop performance for compiling/video/rendering performance. With the Zen+ chip, single thread got a nice boost. Less sacrifice.

With a 3900X it's like I'm hardly leaving any single threaded performance worth mentioning on the table, and getting +50% cores/threads at the same time, and for non-HEDT pricing! It's a beautiful thing, mang.

Although I'm glad Destiny 2 isn't a game I give a damn about.
 

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,610
I definitely wanted to wait but the geeky itch got the better of me.

I was goofing around the web and Microcenter happened to have the 3900x in stock, so ... bingo bango ... weekend free time down the drain as I transplanted parts into a new rig.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I definitely wanted to wait but the geeky itch got the better of me.

I was goofing around the web and Microcenter happened to have the 3900x in stock, so ... bingo bango ... weekend free time down the drain as I transplanted parts into a new rig.

No Microcenters in Florida, I'm afraid.

Ever since the Tiger Direct stores closed down, we've been without a brick-and-mortar parts store.
 

DogsofJune

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,091
Find someone who is near a MC. Wouldn't be the first time some around here bought MC hardware and shipped it.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
I'm not waiting around for the 3950X because I think 12 cores (at that speed) will probably be enough even for my workloads - maybe even overkill, as I'm not exactly suffering with the 2700X I have in here right now. The line between mainstream and HEDT is becoming very fuzzy. That's real promising for folks like me. I don't have to make as many tradeoffs. With Gen 1 Zen, I had to eat up to a 20% gaming performance drop to get the multithreaded performance I wanted, and I sacrificed Photoshop performance for compiling/video/rendering performance. With the Zen+ chip, single thread got a nice boost. Less sacrifice.

With a 3900X it's like I'm hardly leaving any single threaded performance worth mentioning on the table, and getting +50% cores/threads at the same time, and for non-HEDT pricing! It's a beautiful thing, mang.

Although I'm glad Destiny 2 isn't a game I give a damn about.

Waiting for a fix sucked. I want to upgrade but it's the game I've been playing the most lately. I haven't seen a processor or platform compatibility issue like this since the late 1990's.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
Waiting for a fix sucked. I want to upgrade but it's the game I've been playing the most lately. I haven't seen a processor or platform compatibility issue like this since the late 1990's.

How has the fix worked? Any other negative side effects. I'm already running a beta bios so I'm a little apprehensive about also running beta chipset drivers.
 

motqalden

[H]ard|DCOTM x4
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
2,592
I did not wait but i might get one if it keeps decent clocks all threads load.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
How has the fix worked? Any other negative side effects. I'm already running a beta bios so I'm a little apprehensive about also running beta chipset drivers.

The "fix" allows you to start and run Destiny 2 for the most part.

I've done some performance testing on it and frankly, it's less than ideal. I've had all sorts of problems with the game. If I tab out of the screen goes black and I'll see the task bar, but its generally unresponsive. I can't even check task manager or anything while playing the game. If I'm in a loading screen and I hit F1 to mess around with my gear, the game renders the system largely unresponsive. I can hit "sign out" and recover without a full reboot, but its still annoying. More importantly, it behaves like my Threadripper system. Very low minimum FPS with very high maximums and an average that looks good until you look at the rest of the data. Basically, the game's performance is inconsistent at best and the averages only look good because you simply get enough frames at higher rates to bring up the number.

At 4K, here are the preliminary results:

upload_2019-7-30_21-1-49.png


For the MSI board I used the Ryzen 9 3900X. The ASUS board is using a Core i9 9900K @ 5.0GHz. I do have data for the Intel at stock speeds, but the overclock doesn't make that much of a difference. The AMD is running PB2, and frankly, I wouldn't game on it any other way. Both are using the fastest RAM I have for each platform. Basically, best case scenarios for both using what I have to test with. You can see the Intels average is less than that of the AMD, but the Intel has minimums which are more than twice as fast as AMD's. AMD has a significant lead in the maximum FPS, but I don't think that really matters. It's the same story with Threadripper. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the average was around 79FPS and the minimums on that one were around 36FPS with PBO. The Threadripper also had a higher maximum than the Ryzen 9 3900X did. Very bizarre performance from the AMD side of the fence in this game.

Just a note, I don't have the full set of data on the Ryzen 2700X as I never finished that testing given the time constraints of the original review and the issues I had. However, it's minimums were around 32FPS at 1080P and 4K. I want to say the average was something like 203FPS vs. 222FPS on the 3900X. I'm trying to finish the X570 motherboard review, so I'll have to dig into that stuff later.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
Thanks for the update. My Destiny 2 performance "felt" ok but I didn't actually test it and the new chipset drivers appear to have broken my MSI Afterburner OSD
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
Thanks for the update. My Destiny 2 performance "felt" ok but I didn't actually test it and the new chipset drivers appear to have broken my MSI Afterburner OSD

I'm going to actually try a Ryzen 5 3600X and see what happens with Destiny 2. I suspect it might actually work better than the Ryzen 9 3900X due to only having a single CCD.
 

ochadd

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
I want to wait and see what the next Threadripper and Intel HEDT are. I've always stuck with the consumer stuff and envied the longevity of the big dogs. Not cheaping out this time around and want 16 cores or more, quad channel memory, and PCIe 4 or 5. No good reason other than it would be fucking awesome.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
I want to wait and see what the next Threadripper and Intel HEDT are. I've always stuck with the consumer stuff and envied the longevity of the big dogs. Not cheaping out this time around and want 16 cores or more, quad channel memory, and PCIe 4 or 5. No good reason other than it would be fucking awesome.

It is awesome, but the pricing of the CPU's has gotten way out of control on that side. I'd probably buy those CPU's anyway, except that I can't really make use of the extra cores. So I'm in essence spending two to three times (or more) money for a processor that isn't actually faster for my usage. That's not to say I'll never be on HEDT again, there is every probability I will. But unfortunately, I have not been satisfied by my Threadripper's performance in gaming which is what's leading me back towards the mainstream options.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
It is awesome, but the pricing of the CPU's has gotten way out of control on that side. I'd probably buy those CPU's anyway, except that I can't really make use of the extra cores. So I'm in essence spending two to three times (or more) money for a processor that isn't actually faster for my usage. That's not to say I'll never be on HEDT again, there is every probability I will. But unfortunately, I have not been satisfied by my Threadripper's performance in gaming which is what's leading me back towards the mainstream options.

9900k or 3700X/3900X?

Call me curious.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,715
I'm going to actually try a Ryzen 5 3600X and see what happens with Destiny 2. I suspect it might actually work better than the Ryzen 9 3900X due to only having a single CCD.
In Ryzen Master under gaming mode yab you can turn off a CCD? Might be worth a try. For the 3950x that would give 8 cores vice 6 for the 3900x. Have not seen any test done doing this for games.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
In Ryzen Master under gaming mode yab you can turn off a CCD? Might be worth a try. For the 3950x that would give 8 cores vice 6 for the 3900x. Have not seen any test done doing this for games.

Yes, I can. It's been tested on earlier Ryzen CPU's. It does yield some benefits and should work here. However, I have to test a Ryzen 5 3600X anyway so I'll just swap CPU's. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,274
9900k or 3700X/3900X?

Call me curious.

That's a good question. I'm leaning towards Ryzen, but given that gaming is more demanding than anything I do productivity wise, Intel would be a good fit for me. I also don't have to deal with the BS of memory compatibility and so on. I'm half tempted to stay on Threadripper and just deal with it until the next HEDT options are released from Intel and AMD.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
That's a good question. I'm leaning towards Ryzen, but given that gaming is more demanding than anything I do productivity wise, Intel would be a good fit for me. I also don't have to deal with the BS of memory compatibility and so on. I'm half tempted to stay on Threadripper and just deal with it until the next HEDT options are released from Intel and AMD.

Yeah. Maybe a baby Threadripper from the next gen would actually be cheaper, because you already have sunk platform cost.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,792
I'm waiting as of now officially. I wanted to get a 3900x but couldn't get one in any reasonable amount of time. Been waiting for 2.5 weeks, and would have had to wait at least another 1.5 week.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
5,571
i just hope this extra time they have given themselves they are actually producing the chips.... i ordered my 3900x on the 7th i still haven't seen it, i hope your producing emm shits right now, so when people click order in September, that shits delivered....
Same...
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
888
I'm certainly considering the 3950X. Right now I'm content with my 2700X, but, the fact I can just drop in a 3900X or 3950X? Super tempting. I'm thinking this is going to be a bit like my 2600K system though regardless of which Ryzen 3rd gen I get. I had that from 2011 until October of last year, so roughly 7 1/2 years. I don't want to do that again, but, if I could get another 4-5 years out of the CPU (also part of why I opted for 64 GB rather than 32 GB) and just deal with graphics upgrades (though with the 2080 Ti I won't see a change there for at least another generation either).

It's just a very exciting time right now for processors. The last time I remember it being this interesting was the Athlon 64 X2 and then the Core 2 Quads. I'd been dreaming of even an 8-core chip for years and Intel just wasn't offering when it came to the mainstream lineup with that. Took Ryzen to push them to it and it's been a blast seeing AMD really crank up like this. I guess I've always been partial to AMD, both as an underdog and also as my first systems were AMD 386 and 486 machines followed by a K6-2.
 

killroy67

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
1,364
$800 and if your lucky you can boost to 4.7ghz on one core launching snipping tool :ROFLMAO:
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,362
Waiting for that "Baby Threadripper" myself. Me needs mah Pcie lanes!

baby threadripper has the exact same lanes as all other 3000 series am4 processors because baby threadripper is am4.

Real threadripper will have far more lanes as the socket supports more wiring to the cpu.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,362
$800 and if your lucky you can boost to 4.7ghz on one core launching snipping tool :ROFLMAO:


Current 3900x owners are only hitting 4500 to 4550 peak for just mere seconds at the most.

3950x is probably going to be even harder to hit its peak and I am guess the best silicon would hit 4600 max. Unless your exotic cooling and even then its not gauranteed.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Current 3900x owners are only hitting 4500 to 4550 peak for just mere seconds at the most.

3950x is probably going to be even harder to hit its peak and I am guess the best silicon would hit 4600 max. Unless your exotic cooling and even then its not gauranteed.

C'mon man, let 'em dream!
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Current 3900x owners are only hitting 4500 to 4550 peak for just mere seconds at the most.

3950x is probably going to be even harder to hit its peak and I am guess the best silicon would hit 4600 max. Unless your exotic cooling and even then its not gauranteed.

honestly if someones buying the 3950 for it's boost clock then they have no business owning the processor most likely.
 

killroy67

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
1,364
Current 3900x owners are only hitting 4500 to 4550 peak for just mere seconds at the most.

3950x is probably going to be even harder to hit its peak and I am guess the best silicon would hit 4600 max. Unless your exotic cooling and even then its not gauranteed.

Yes I know this, it was meant as sarcasm.
 
Top