VideoCardz: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X to become world’s first 16-core gaming CPU

Status
Not open for further replies.
juanrga said:
You got it backwards. Intel TDP figures are real and represent real dissipation [1]. AMD is the one using meaningless marketing values. E.g. that 105W 2700X has a real 140W TDP.

[1] Don't link to some review measuring auto-overclocked chip.
Click to expand...

Come on, don't you have an unsourced graph, preferably from some European site nobody has ever heard of? One that runs counter to almost every other bit of info available.

Next you'll be making one post where it's imperative that we include AVX in the calculations for IPC differences, and then post later that only games matter since you're predominantly a gamer.
 
where's the announcement? seems like all the rumors were fake!
 
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14527/the-amd-next-horizon-gaming-keynote-live-blog

IMG_20190610_161625.jpg
 
very good pricing if you ask me, specially a 16c/32t CPU. I am more interesting what you can get on all cores.

Though I think the 12c/24t is the one to get IMO
 
wyqtor said:
What I don't get is why Intel and AMD won't offer CPU models with lower core counts and high clocks. As a gamer, I would very much prefer a cheaper 4-core CPU that reaches 5.5 GHz on at least two cores over a 16-core CPU that only reaches 4.7 GHz. Even a dual-core i3 @ 5.5 GHz would be better for playing single-threaded simulation flight simulators and games like Cities Skylines, Oxygen Not Included, or Factorio.
Click to expand...

Like a higher clocking Pentium Gold G5600. But you know, for the price, that one still puts up excellent single thread numbers. If you have more money, i5-9600KF. That gets you close to the very top, for not too much dollar.
 
too rich for me... though i dont really need to build a new system till cyberpunk next year, so who knows. maybe itll be a little closer to my budget in april next year.
 
To give you guys an idea of why this chip exists:

Just this weekend I set up a render in Blender to utilise 28 of my 32 threads, then I was able to play games online smoothly with my friend while the image rendered in the background.

This is on a first gen 1950X, and the image rendered faster than any 8 core could muster, AND I was playing games online.
 
Its a pity to wait until September, but I anticipate that by then there will be some new high end motherboards to coincide with this launch ; if nothing else, some BIOS updates and revisions. Now what I need to see between now and its release is an honest release window for Threadripper's next entry, so I can decide if I'm going to pull the trigger on this or wait...
 
RanceJustice said:
Its a pity to wait until September, but I anticipate that by then there will be some new high end motherboards to coincide with this launch ; if nothing else, some BIOS updates and revisions. Now what I need to see between now and its release is an honest release window for Threadripper's next entry, so I can decide if I'm going to pull the trigger on this or wait...
Click to expand...

It sounds like there are tons of 570 boards ready to launch in a few weeks. You can always tell if a CPU is good by how many different mobo models companies like Asus release. Asus already lists 11 570 boards... Gigabyte and MSI also have a ton of boards listed already. Looks like AMD is getting some good day one support.
 
Chimpee said:
To be fair, a $750 CPU isn't really a gaming CPU for the vast majority of gamers.
Click to expand...

I see it more of a, you can do compute and game very well in the same package, and you don't have to spend up for an HEDT platform that would game worse (lower clocks). Quite reasonable for what it is.
 
ChadD said:
It sounds like there are tons of 570 boards ready to launch in a few weeks. You can always tell if a CPU is good by how many different mobo models companies like Asus release. Asus already lists 11 570 boards... Gigabyte and MSI also have a ton of boards listed already. Looks like AMD is getting some good day one support.
Click to expand...

ASUS is supposed to end up having 30 boards for x570.
 
Brackle said:
very good pricing if you ask me, specially a 16c/32t CPU. I am more interesting what you can get on all cores.

Though I think the 12c/24t is the one to get IMO
Click to expand...

Agreed on both fronts. $750 is less than double the 8 core part which is simply unheard of.
 
juanrga said:
You got it backwards. Intel TDP figures are real and represent real dissipation [1]. AMD is the one using meaningless marketing values. E.g. that 105W 2700X has a real 140W TDP.

[1] Don't link to some review measuring auto-overclocked chip.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, wow, Asking for a link to a non-Auto-Overclocked chip, how the tables have turned on Intel. You do realize the 9700 and 9900 series pulls WAY more power than their TDP indicates? Wait, silly question, I'm sure you know.

Intel's marketing and astroturfing department is in overdrive, using arguments they previously cited as irrelevant like "when you disable Auto-Overclocking..." and "Look at the REAL power draw...!"
 
NWRMidnight said:
Really.. i remember people paying over $1000+Intel's extreme cpu's..... For gaming, with their non extreme running $800+ and people where grabbing them lime crazy.
Click to expand...
But I don't recalled vast majority pay over 1k for it. Likewise, I doubt a vast majority will pay $750 CPU for gaming.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I see it more of a, you can do compute and game very well in the same package, and you don't have to spend up for an HEDT platform that would game worse (lower clocks). Quite reasonable for what it is.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for the clock and amount of cores you get, a person can multitask and game at the same time. I am glad AMD at least moving the bar for CPU,
 
Brackle said:
They do and have in the past...I mean Intel held the crown for a very long time. Some of their best CPU's were $1000.
Click to expand...
I am not disagreeing that, I am just saying the vast majority of users don't buy expensive CPUs to game. Same when Intel had $1000 CPU, still the same when AMD have a $750 CPU, at least AMD gives you a great core boost with a great core counts.
 
Chimpee said:
I am not disagreeing that, I am just saying the vast majority of users don't buy expensive CPUs to game. Same when Intel had $1000 CPU, still the same when AMD have a $750 CPU, at least AMD gives you a great core boost with a great core counts.
Click to expand...

I honestly have to disagree. Some people think that buying the most expensive CPU will be the best for gaming. I mean just look at Dell, Alienware etc etc. People are suckers for marketing, now a majority of hardware enthusiasts know better, but a lot of average joes are blind.

Need I bring up the $1000 monitor stand? LOL
 
Brackle said:
I honestly have to disagree. Some people think that buying the most expensive CPU will be the best for gaming. I mean just look at Dell, Alienware etc etc. People are suckers for marketing, now a majority of hardware enthusiasts know better, but a lot of average joes are blind.

Need I bring up the $1000 monitor stand? LOL
Click to expand...

To be fair, people spending that kind of dough generally isn't concern about price per performance. You make it sound like no enthusiast ever bought a 1k CPU and your average joes are much more price sensitive.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
'Best' needs a qualifier; after a point, Intel's best CPUs are no longer the best CPUs for gaming. Same for AMD with Ryzen 2, and we should probably expect the twelve-core Ryzen 3 to out-game the sixteen-core.
Click to expand...

just depends on clock speed. The IPC will be the same with all the CPU's, it is going to come down to cache, latency and clock speed. I expect the 16c to maybe hit 4.7ghz on 1-2 cores. I except to maybe get 4.4-4.5ghz on all cores on water if you are lucky.

The 12core I expect to be the best CPU for gaming just because I think it will have a better chance to hit 5ghz on all cores. https://siliconlottery.com/ is going to make A LOT of money if they sell high clocked Ryzen 3k chips.
 
Chimpee said:
To be fair, people spending that kind of dough generally isn't concern about price per performance. You make it sound like no enthusiast ever bought a 1k CPU and your average joes are much more price sensitive.
Click to expand...

I guess i just lost a lot of faith in humanity nowadays....seems like the human race is going backwards in evolution laugh.

That 1k monitor stand sealed that deal for me.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
'Best' needs a qualifier; after a point, Intel's best CPUs are no longer the best CPUs for gaming. Same for AMD with Ryzen 2, and we should probably expect the twelve-core Ryzen 3 to out-game the sixteen-core.
Click to expand...
For those with High End water Cooling sure
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top