How to: Firmware Update the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
Posted by: on: 11/15/2019 02:40 PM [
91 comment(s) ]
The review today hardly will need an introduction, the monolith has arrived, the consumer, and not even HEDT, the sixteen-core processor in the Ryzen 3000 family, the Ryzen 9 3950X. It is fast, feisty, agile and even affordable. Join us in a review of the Ryzen 9 3950X processor.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4
Angushades
Senior Member
Posts: 210
Senior Member
Posts: 210
Posted on: 11/15/2019 05:08 AM
I’m not sure how sponsoring a game has anything to do with it but are you saying that unreal engine 4 run equally good on amd and intel. Sponsored games would have something to do with marketing lol when I brought crisis it said plays best on intel extreme cpu , means jackshit. I know improved access to memory does improve some performance but if you get the same nanoseconds to what intel is you will still see that the intel is faster in gaming due to optimisation.
^ If latency is not the issue then explain why then AMD would sponsor a game in which both Intel and Nvidia out perform their offerings? Borderlands 3 is a recent game that has an AMD splash screen instead of Intel or Nvidia. Why on earth throw money at a game that is optimized far better for the competition than your own? Lots of factors affect latency. Everything mentioned from hardware to engines being optimized for ring bus all have an effect on latency. Memory latency is just a subpart of the latency issue. One in Which AMD still needs to address. What was their solution to mitigate the latency penalty when the IF clock does not match the MEMCLK? Faster Frequency? Tweaked timings? Both? If that right there is not admitting to their weakness I do not know what is.
I’m not sure how sponsoring a game has anything to do with it but are you saying that unreal engine 4 run equally good on amd and intel. Sponsored games would have something to do with marketing lol when I brought crisis it said plays best on intel extreme cpu , means jackshit. I know improved access to memory does improve some performance but if you get the same nanoseconds to what intel is you will still see that the intel is faster in gaming due to optimisation.
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 5530
Senior Member
Posts: 5530
Posted on: 11/15/2019 05:51 AM
Yes, the last straw Intel holding on for average consumers.hmm
9900k is still the Gaming King.hmm
Yes, the last straw Intel holding on for average consumers.hmm
ladcrooks
Senior Member
Posts: 369
Senior Member
Posts: 369
Posted on: 11/15/2019 08:11 AM
The King will have to abdicate soon Prince AMD is here :p
9900k is still the Gaming King.hmm
The King will have to abdicate soon Prince AMD is here :p
JjX
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Posted on: 11/15/2019 08:24 AM
Thx For the review,
Maybe use WinXP should help for comparaison and o/c !
Thx For the review,
Maybe use WinXP should help for comparaison and o/c !
slicer
Senior Member
Posts: 115
Senior Member
Posts: 115
Posted on: 11/15/2019 09:11 AM
Intels 9900K/S is still Gaming King for 720p/1080p, but who in a right mind buys these kinds of CPU's to play with those resolutions- nobody!
Everybody who buys 9900K/S or 3900X/3950X will probably have already bought RTX2080Ti and will game maxed out minimum at 1440p resolution, probably at 2160p resolution.
And in 4K fro gaming, actually Ryzen 5 3600 is best bang for buck when paired with RTX2080Ti.
Everybody gaming maxed out 720p-2160p -- 9900K/S is your sauce.
Everybody gaming 1440p-2160p and rendering tasks - 3900X/3950X is your gravy
Everybody only gaming at 4K -- 3600 is all you need.
Intels 9900K/S is still Gaming King for 720p/1080p, but who in a right mind buys these kinds of CPU's to play with those resolutions- nobody!
Everybody who buys 9900K/S or 3900X/3950X will probably have already bought RTX2080Ti and will game maxed out minimum at 1440p resolution, probably at 2160p resolution.
And in 4K fro gaming, actually Ryzen 5 3600 is best bang for buck when paired with RTX2080Ti.
Everybody gaming maxed out 720p-2160p -- 9900K/S is your sauce.
Everybody gaming 1440p-2160p and rendering tasks - 3900X/3950X is your gravy
Everybody only gaming at 4K -- 3600 is all you need.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Posted on: 11/15/2019 09:21 AM
Wrong!! Please use your own brain stop repeat information found on YouTube. It’s most likely because game developers have had 10 years of ring bus to optimise with also because you have had game engine built around such technologies. Has any big game dev stated that amd is slower because of the higher latency ....nope. It may seem If you improve memory speed you get higher fps but those things are no directly correlated in all games.
From phone please for give me.
When I tune the memory on my 3900x and the infinity fabric, my latency go down, and the performane goes up
There is no doubt memoryspeed and turning up the IF helps in many games.
You do you
Wrong!! Please use your own brain stop repeat information found on YouTube. It’s most likely because game developers have had 10 years of ring bus to optimise with also because you have had game engine built around such technologies. Has any big game dev stated that amd is slower because of the higher latency ....nope. It may seem If you improve memory speed you get higher fps but those things are no directly correlated in all games.
From phone please for give me.
When I tune the memory on my 3900x and the infinity fabric, my latency go down, and the performane goes up
There is no doubt memoryspeed and turning up the IF helps in many games.
You do you
Abc666
Member
Posts: 91
Member
Posts: 91
Posted on: 11/15/2019 10:57 AM
Well written review Hilbert.
Holy crap, AMD is going in deep on intel with this 3950X.
3 years ago the most powerfull mainstream CPU was the 7700k with only 4 cores/8 threads. Now we have 16 cores/32 threads
When TR3 lands, there really is zero reason to buy HEDT from intel.
Well written review Hilbert.
Holy crap, AMD is going in deep on intel with this 3950X.
3 years ago the most powerfull mainstream CPU was the 7700k with only 4 cores/8 threads. Now we have 16 cores/32 threads
When TR3 lands, there really is zero reason to buy HEDT from intel.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 9030
Senior Member
Posts: 9030
Posted on: 11/15/2019 11:13 AM
Pretty much a non-issue for anyone above 1080p.
9900k is still the Gaming King.hmm
Pretty much a non-issue for anyone above 1080p.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Posted on: 11/15/2019 11:22 AM
Until faster GPU's is coming
1440p is the new 1080p
Pretty much a non-issue for anyone above 1080p.
Until faster GPU's is coming
1440p is the new 1080p
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Posted on: 11/15/2019 12:52 PM
Intels 9900K/S is still Gaming King for 720p/1080p, but who in a right mind buys these kinds of CPU's to play with those resolutions- nobody!
Everybody who buys 9900K/S or 3900X/3950X will probably have already bought RTX2080Ti and will game maxed out minimum at 1440p resolution, probably at 2160p resolution.
And in 4K fro gaming, actually Ryzen 5 3600 is best bang for buck when paired with RTX2080Ti.
4K is a resolution only a non gamer or poorly informed gamer with no experience of high frame rates would choose (or if you have a really nice TV since 4K is default today)
1440p ok but the problem is that uh 99% of monitors out there are garbage and that the good ones are still TNs often in 1080p or ish resolutions, again something a real gamer would know
let's check steam
that said I totally agree that to play in 1440p or 4K only AMD makes sense today the difference becomes too small, but I have to add that AMD is more expensive than Intel then because who is going to buy a 3900x or a 3950x without a good X570 motherboard ? (the same people who buy a 80k BMW and put on 50$ tires on them I guess...plenty of those) the only ones I'm interested in are all 450+€ personnally and if you check that DerBauer video well the only good one is actually around 800$ for me ><
removed video
Intels 9900K/S is still Gaming King for 720p/1080p, but who in a right mind buys these kinds of CPU's to play with those resolutions- nobody!
Everybody who buys 9900K/S or 3900X/3950X will probably have already bought RTX2080Ti and will game maxed out minimum at 1440p resolution, probably at 2160p resolution.
And in 4K fro gaming, actually Ryzen 5 3600 is best bang for buck when paired with RTX2080Ti.
4K is a resolution only a non gamer or poorly informed gamer with no experience of high frame rates would choose (or if you have a really nice TV since 4K is default today)
1440p ok but the problem is that uh 99% of monitors out there are garbage and that the good ones are still TNs often in 1080p or ish resolutions, again something a real gamer would know
let's check steam
Recent Activity 59.6 hours past 2 weeks
and those were slow weeks as I had other things to do, i have a full time job too btw, just so you know what I consider "gaming"that said I totally agree that to play in 1440p or 4K only AMD makes sense today the difference becomes too small, but I have to add that AMD is more expensive than Intel then because who is going to buy a 3900x or a 3950x without a good X570 motherboard ? (the same people who buy a 80k BMW and put on 50$ tires on them I guess...plenty of those) the only ones I'm interested in are all 450+€ personnally and if you check that DerBauer video well the only good one is actually around 800$ for me ><
removed video
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2804
Senior Member
Posts: 2804
Posted on: 11/15/2019 01:05 PM
It seems we have a new king in town because this CPU is a beast! Well done AMD. For someone like me is too expensive and it´s useless but it doesn´t change the fact that is the most powerful CPU right now.
As for it being slower than Intel in gaming, i don´t know why everyone is surprised by it. Games still love higher clocks and they don´t past scale well over more than 4/6/8 cores so it´s normal that the 9900K is still faster in games.
Great review as always!
It seems we have a new king in town because this CPU is a beast! Well done AMD. For someone like me is too expensive and it´s useless but it doesn´t change the fact that is the most powerful CPU right now.
As for it being slower than Intel in gaming, i don´t know why everyone is surprised by it. Games still love higher clocks and they don´t past scale well over more than 4/6/8 cores so it´s normal that the 9900K is still faster in games.
Great review as always!
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9479
Senior Member
Posts: 9479
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:29 PM
When I tune the memory on my 3900x and the infinity fabric, my latency go down, and the performane goes up
There is no doubt memoryspeed and turning up the IF helps in many games.
You do you
Just another AMD apologist. Really they aren’t needed anymore as AMD has admirably closed the performance gap in gaming to almost a non-factor and kills Intel in most productivity workloads. Users like this are so used to blaming others for AMD that they can’t help themselves.
I personally think AMD will be able to overcome this latency hurdle in the coming Zen revisions as their CPU department has been delivering on almost all of their promises as of late.
Intel needs to drop 14nm+++++++++++++++++ and move on.
When I tune the memory on my 3900x and the infinity fabric, my latency go down, and the performane goes up
There is no doubt memoryspeed and turning up the IF helps in many games.
You do you
Just another AMD apologist. Really they aren’t needed anymore as AMD has admirably closed the performance gap in gaming to almost a non-factor and kills Intel in most productivity workloads. Users like this are so used to blaming others for AMD that they can’t help themselves.
I personally think AMD will be able to overcome this latency hurdle in the coming Zen revisions as their CPU department has been delivering on almost all of their promises as of late.
Intel needs to drop 14nm+++++++++++++++++ and move on.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:25 PM
Until faster GPU's is coming
1440p is the new 1080p
Not with raytracing
Also, 8K monitors are starting to appear - 8K is the new 4K
Until faster GPU's is coming
1440p is the new 1080p
Not with raytracing
Also, 8K monitors are starting to appear - 8K is the new 4K
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:51 PM
Not with raytracing
Also, 8K monitors are starting to appear - 8K is the new 4K
And you're point is?
Not with raytracing
Also, 8K monitors are starting to appear - 8K is the new 4K
And you're point is?
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12496
Senior Member
Posts: 12496
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:56 PM
The same as yours? He's making the same point you did. The question is which one of you is right and honestly I think it's @D3M1G0D. I think raytracing adoption along with 4K/8K is going to surpass QHD adoption.
And you're point is?
The same as yours? He's making the same point you did. The question is which one of you is right and honestly I think it's @D3M1G0D. I think raytracing adoption along with 4K/8K is going to surpass QHD adoption.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:19 PM
8k monitors is not starting to appear. 4k is now starting to appear 120hz+ (after years with 60hz). Still too expensive for most people...
The same as yours? He's making the same point you did. The question is which one of you is right and honestly I think it's @D3M1G0D. I think raytracing adoption along with 4K/8K is going to surpass QHD adoption.
8k monitors is not starting to appear. 4k is now starting to appear 120hz+ (after years with 60hz). Still too expensive for most people...
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12496
Senior Member
Posts: 12496
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:35 PM
8K monitors don't exist? That's weird because I can buy one right now.
The fact is the majority of PC gamers currently run 1080p. Pricing for 4K w/HDR is dropping steadily, the amount of monitors with 1440p that support real HDR is essentially zero. HDMI 2.1 completely removes the bandwidth concerns for 4K/120 along with G-Sync Compat/Freesync (variable range from 60-120) and companies like LG who are starting to push 4K/120Hz in TVs are going to force competition to do the same. Couple all that with RT adoption aka a GPU heavy technology coming down in the pipelines in next generation consoles + those consoles focusing on 4K TV performance, along with mulitthreaded zen based CPUs and it's pretty clear where the future is going. It's definitely not 1440p and it's definitely not single thread performance bound scenarios.
8k monitors is not starting to appear. 4k is now starting to appear 120hz+ (after years with 60hz). Still too expensive for most people...
8K monitors don't exist? That's weird because I can buy one right now.
The fact is the majority of PC gamers currently run 1080p. Pricing for 4K w/HDR is dropping steadily, the amount of monitors with 1440p that support real HDR is essentially zero. HDMI 2.1 completely removes the bandwidth concerns for 4K/120 along with G-Sync Compat/Freesync (variable range from 60-120) and companies like LG who are starting to push 4K/120Hz in TVs are going to force competition to do the same. Couple all that with RT adoption aka a GPU heavy technology coming down in the pipelines in next generation consoles + those consoles focusing on 4K TV performance, along with mulitthreaded zen based CPUs and it's pretty clear where the future is going. It's definitely not 1440p and it's definitely not single thread performance bound scenarios.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:40 PM
My point is that graphics standards will continue to go up. By the time 1440p becomes the new 1080p there will be affordable 8K monitors, which will then be considered the new high-end. Graphics technologies like raytracing will also put an even greater emphasis on the GPU for gaming performance, making the CPU even less relevant than before.
The fact is, high-end gaming will always be bound by the GPU, not the CPU. This is why low-resolution testing is irrelevant - in no way does it indicate future performance.
8k monitors is not starting to appear. 4k is now starting to appear 120hz+ (after years with 60hz). Still too expensive for most people...
My point is that graphics standards will continue to go up. By the time 1440p becomes the new 1080p there will be affordable 8K monitors, which will then be considered the new high-end. Graphics technologies like raytracing will also put an even greater emphasis on the GPU for gaming performance, making the CPU even less relevant than before.
The fact is, high-end gaming will always be bound by the GPU, not the CPU. This is why low-resolution testing is irrelevant - in no way does it indicate future performance.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7722
Senior Member
Posts: 7722
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:48 PM
4K is a resolution only a non gamer or poorly informed gamer with no experience of high frame rates would choose (or if you have a really nice TV since 4K is default today)
Thats one large elitist uneducated statement there.
4K is a resolution only a non gamer or poorly informed gamer with no experience of high frame rates would choose (or if you have a really nice TV since 4K is default today)
Thats one large elitist uneducated statement there.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Senior Member
Posts: 842
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:50 PM
My point is that graphics standards will continue to go up. By the time 1440p becomes the new 1080p there will be affordable 8K monitors, which will then be considered the new high-end. Graphics technologies like raytracing will also put an even greater emphasis on the GPU for gaming performance, making the CPU even less relevant than before.
The fact is, high-end gaming will always be bound by the GPU, not the CPU. This is why low-resolution testing is irrelevant - in no way does it indicate future performance.
The fact is that people is different, so there is no rule here
Some want to play on 240hz monitors, some 165hz and some loves 60hz.
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
If you loves to play in gpubound scenarios all the time with low fps, then good for you
My point is that graphics standards will continue to go up. By the time 1440p becomes the new 1080p there will be affordable 8K monitors, which will then be considered the new high-end. Graphics technologies like raytracing will also put an even greater emphasis on the GPU for gaming performance, making the CPU even less relevant than before.
The fact is, high-end gaming will always be bound by the GPU, not the CPU. This is why low-resolution testing is irrelevant - in no way does it indicate future performance.
The fact is that people is different, so there is no rule here
Some want to play on 240hz monitors, some 165hz and some loves 60hz.
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
If you loves to play in gpubound scenarios all the time with low fps, then good for you
moo100times
Senior Member
Posts: 129
Senior Member
Posts: 129
Posted on: 11/15/2019 05:03 PM
I feel finally this is the Xmas present I can justify to myself. Thanks for the excellent review HH, top work as always.
I feel finally this is the Xmas present I can justify to myself. Thanks for the excellent review HH, top work as always.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7722
Senior Member
Posts: 7722
Posted on: 11/15/2019 05:08 PM
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
You keep insisting that Battlefield 5 doesn't perform that well with Ryzen 3000 at 1440p, and that's just not true.
Does the 9900k and other intel processors get better performance? Sure. How much? 4% or less
And now you're talking about 3440x1440, which would be even less of a difference, if any difference at all.
If you get a difference between your supposed systems like you claim, thats a you problem, not a processor problem. Fix your PC.
It's getting annoying, especially your pro-intel posts in AMD threads.
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
You keep insisting that Battlefield 5 doesn't perform that well with Ryzen 3000 at 1440p, and that's just not true.
Does the 9900k and other intel processors get better performance? Sure. How much? 4% or less
And now you're talking about 3440x1440, which would be even less of a difference, if any difference at all.
If you get a difference between your supposed systems like you claim, thats a you problem, not a processor problem. Fix your PC.
It's getting annoying, especially your pro-intel posts in AMD threads.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Posted on: 11/15/2019 05:13 PM
The fact is that people is different, so there is no rule here
Some want to play on 240hz monitors, some 165hz and some loves 60hz.
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
If you loves to play in gpubound scenarios all the time with low fps, then good for you
I have both a 1440p / 165 Hz monitor and a 4K / 60 Hz monitor. Although I like high refresh rate gaming for fast-paced games, I've also seen the enormous improvements in IQ that 4K offers (I also still see pixels and shimmering on my 4K monitor so know there's room for improvement). Many people here bought a 2080 Ti to game at 4K and I don't blame them - in terms of eye candy, there is simply no comparison.
Of course in the future, 4K will seem low compared to 6K or 8K monitors. I still remember the days of 320 x 240 gaming - when I first experienced 640 x 480, I was blown away (and 720p blew that away, which today is considered extremely low). What's new eventually becomes old, and graphics standards will continue to rise.
The fact is that people is different, so there is no rule here
Some want to play on 240hz monitors, some 165hz and some loves 60hz.
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
If you loves to play in gpubound scenarios all the time with low fps, then good for you
I have both a 1440p / 165 Hz monitor and a 4K / 60 Hz monitor. Although I like high refresh rate gaming for fast-paced games, I've also seen the enormous improvements in IQ that 4K offers (I also still see pixels and shimmering on my 4K monitor so know there's room for improvement). Many people here bought a 2080 Ti to game at 4K and I don't blame them - in terms of eye candy, there is simply no comparison.
Of course in the future, 4K will seem low compared to 6K or 8K monitors. I still remember the days of 320 x 240 gaming - when I first experienced 640 x 480, I was blown away (and 720p blew that away, which today is considered extremely low). What's new eventually becomes old, and graphics standards will continue to rise.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36826
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36826
Posted on: 11/15/2019 10:10 PM
Thread cleaned up a bit. Let's keep it that way okay?
Thread cleaned up a bit. Let's keep it that way okay?
pages 1 2 3 4
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 501
9900k is still the Gaming King.hmm