You mean a heat sink that no enthusiast would probably use? A heat sink that would probably gimp your boost clocks and certainly limit the shit out of an all core overclock?
Ahh and this is why we love you Dan, telling it how it is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean a heat sink that no enthusiast would probably use? A heat sink that would probably gimp your boost clocks and certainly limit the shit out of an all core overclock?
It was used for reviews of the 3700X in direct comparison to the 9900K. I am sure 3800X reviews will do the same.You mean a heat sink that no enthusiast would probably use? A heat sink that would probably gimp your boost clocks and certainly limit the shit out of an all core overclock?
Haven't we all learned that clock speed is far from the determining factor in regards to performance. No this isn't P4 vs Athlon... still look at the benchmarks folks AMD is besting Intel in almost everything at lower clocks. I have no idea why people are so hung up on hitting 5ghz. Does your epeen grow 10 inches when you break 4.97 gigawatts I mean gigahertz or something ?.
Keljian when are you going to correct your "last gasp" faux pas or is misquoting how you roll?
It's not as expensive as the Maximus XI Extreme.
Yes. It's the one thing I don't like about it but the thing does at least clock RAM extremely well. Which is the point.
Yep, but no fast rams :|Yep.. 2 slots.. though to be fair you can go up to 64 gig with two slots these days.
Yep, but no fast rams :|
I know, buy I enjoy OCing, that's mostly whyIt really doesn't make that much of a difference. Once your past about 3200MHz, you won't see very much change as clocks scale.
I know, buy I enjoy OCing, that's mostly why
How are new ryzens doing with timings? 3600 @ ?Fair enough. Case in point though, my Threadripper 2920X is actually faster using DDR4 3000MHz modules with better timings than it is using the DDR4 3600MHz modules I used in the benchmark testing against the Ryzen 9 3900X. Those modules have much worse timings. I used them to achieve memory clock speed parity. It wouldn't have done much better against the new Ryzen, as that had little impact on most of the tests but it does test better with the slower clocked yet better latency modules.
How are new ryzens doing with timings? 3600 @ ?
I've been rock solid on my 7700k with 3600 15-15-15 35 1t at 1,36vram. Totally pleased with it, but would need some more gigs.
Ok, good. Keep updated. Cheers!They'll run with tighter timings if that's what you are wondering. However, I don't yet know if they really benefit from tighter timings the way other Ryzen's seem to. That's something I've wanted to test and haven't yet.
I accept your apologyConsidering they mean basically the same thing in this context... is being pedantic how you roll?
It was used for reviews of the 3700X in direct comparison to the 9900K. I am sure 3800X reviews will do the same.
Keljian when are you going to correct your "last gasp" faux pas or is misquoting how you roll?
They'll run with tighter timings if that's what you are wondering. However, I don't yet know if they really benefit from tighter timings the way other Ryzen's seem to. That's something I've wanted to test and haven't yet.
This is something I'd really like to see rounded up. I feel heavily pressured to pay nearly double for a bdie kit than current prices for "other" 3600 kits up to c19.
Is the performance gap between 3600 c16 (or less) to c19 really going to mean anything in actual use?
I am actually working on an article revolving around the topic of memory latency vs. clock speeds. I can't say definitively, but for the most part I believe the answer is no. While Ryzen or any other AMD architecture since the Athlon 64 has always seemed to benefit some from lower latency modules, I've never seen anything to indicate that the gains received would have an impact in any real world situation to a degree that you could perceive. Meaning, its something that certainly can show up in benchmarks, but it isn't going to translate to the user experience in any meaningful way. I still have lots of testing to do, but that's what I believe is the case based on my current data.
Call me crazy but I went with the 9900kf when it was marked down for a couple days. I was thinking about a 3900x or 3800x but they were not in stock anywhere a few days ago when I needed to pull the trigger. Plus watching reviews, Steve from Hardware Unboxed/ Techspot had his 3900x die on him and there was some other little quirks that had me apprehensive about going with Ryzen right at launch.
Indeed, enthusiasts with lots of money.You mean a heat sink that no enthusiast would probably use? A heat sink that would probably gimp your boost clocks and certainly limit the shit out of an all core overclock?
Indeed, enthusiasts with lots of money.
For $90 extra plus $10 more, you could go from a 3800x to a 3900x. That's a huge jump. Likewise with Intel, you need to be super dedicated to the highest framerates, to justify a 9900K with a $90 cooler, rather than 4 more cores in a 3900x with the stock cooler.
Again, this may be irrelevant to people who use cases the size of suitcase and have money to spare. But these coolers absolutely have relevance.
Yeah a good cooler can last you many many years and through multiple builds. I used a Corsair A70 with my 2500k build and carried it over to my 4770k build. And I actually could still use the cooler again as it works perfectly but I decided with the 9900k build I just did to step up to something a little beefier (D15S) to cover me for the next couple of builds. And I guess if I decide to sell my previous PC with a 4770k locally then I will just leave that old cooler on there too. But no matter how you look at it getting 8 years out of a cooler sure was worth it.While I never profess to be anything but an enthusiast, I have had the D15 since the 4790~ era about 4-5 years ago. It's not new by any means and has been on a 3770k, 5775c, Ryzen 1700, as well as the 9900k. I have a mid-tower case. Point is, I've not needed to change it in years.
Indeed, enthusiasts with lots of money.
But keep in mind the costs of some of those aftermarket coolers. And also the skewed perspective some enthusiasts have. Especially reviewers, who don't pay for a lot of the stuff they use. Hardware unboxed for example, figured the price of a Dark Rock Pro 4 into their cost analysis of a 9900k Vs. a 3700x with the stock cooler. He called the Dark Rock Pro4 a "decent" cooler (its actually one of the most premium air coolers) and also low balled the price a lot, at $75. Dark Rock Pro 4 are actually about $90 before tax and shipping. Which not only skews the actually cost/value of that cooler with a 9900k, but was also an overkill comparison Vs. the cooler included with a 3700x. He should have priced something in the $30-$40 range (if he still wanted a relative improvement over a "stock" cooler). There are a few great options there, which would be fine for a 9900k.
For $90 extra plus $10 more, you could go from a 3800x to a 3900x. That's a huge jump. Likewise with Intel, you need to be super dedicated to the highest framerates, to justify a 9900K with a $90 cooler, rather than 4 more cores in a 3900x with the stock cooler.
And that's the whole point of this talk about stock coolers. AMD gives you one, an actual decent one. Hell, the Wraith Spire fits into a Node 202 or RVZ02, if you take the top portion off the fan shroud. And considering that some of the better low profile coolers have been discontinued and are now extremely priced, if you can find them at all: The vapor chambered Wraith Spire ain't a bad value and is actually a really good value, for smaller cases. Similarly, the Wraith Stealth could be used in the absolute smallest cases. And smaller cases are absolutely enthusiast use scenarios.
Again, this may be irrelevant to people who use cases the size of suitcase and have money to spare. But these coolers absolutely have relevance.
Also, since AMD's has a pretty sharp upper limit on clocks, a 360mm water cooler only gives 100mhz more average on the 3900x in Blender (Hardware unboxed's test), than the stock cooler. and averaged 1fps more in games. The value really shows itself with the stock coolers.
I see that point presented, pretty often. If you can spend X amount, you can spend Y more. While it is valid for some people, I don't think its a thoughtful point to make.I paid for most of the hardware I used for the entire time I worked for HardOCP. CPU's, RAM, graphics cards, PSU's etc. were always purchased by me. The only thing I got for free was motherboards. Occasionally I'd get PSU's or something else when Kyle would clean out his office but those were always things I received after my main machine was built. So that hardware always ended up in other machines. The point is, I always paid for my cooling. That's why I am not running a custom loop right now. If I could score one for free, I would. My second point, I've never seen anyone who can afford a 9900K and buy CPU's at that price point balk at a $90 cooler or even a $100-$150 AIO setup.
In the face of a synthetic benchmark?Really hard to even consider anything but 3900X in face of things like this:
Really hard to even consider anything but 3900X in face of things like this:
Really hard to recommend the 3800X in face of things like this:
Urr - 1080p? .. right.. few people game at 1080p these days..
I know it has become trendy to dump on synthetic benchmarks but they are still a far superior indicator of computational power than any game.In the face of a synthetic benchmark?
Yeah, and 0.2% has a 2080Ti. I would game at 1080p on a 1060 too.Nearly everyone games at 1080p these days.