ASUS STRIX B550-I Gaming review
Kioxia Exceria 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD review
Samsung 870 QVO 2TB SSD review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - June 2020
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming review
MSI MEG Z490 Godlike review
TeamGroup Cardea Zero Z340 M.2 NVMe review
AMD Ryzen RAM scaling - performance effect in games
Elgato WAVE:3 review
Gigabyte B550i Aorus PRO AX review
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
Posted by: on: 11/15/2019 03:40 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 « 2 3 4 5 > »
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 378
Senior Member
Posts: 378
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:21 PM
Beast!
I wonder why it isn't quite as good in gaming when it beats or matches the 9900k in most synthetic single-threaded tests?
despite what you read here and there, a lot of games still care more about clock speed than threads or cores, that's why
I've made my own benchmarks overclocking and downclocking my 9900k (to see what I should expect switching to AMD) some games don't care much but in some you lose a good 20fps
hey going to see how Borderlands 3 behaves since it's one of the most demanding recent games for me (with an acceptable quality/performance ratio) brb ^^
Beast!
I wonder why it isn't quite as good in gaming when it beats or matches the 9900k in most synthetic single-threaded tests?
despite what you read here and there, a lot of games still care more about clock speed than threads or cores, that's why
I've made my own benchmarks overclocking and downclocking my 9900k (to see what I should expect switching to AMD) some games don't care much but in some you lose a good 20fps
hey going to see how Borderlands 3 behaves since it's one of the most demanding recent games for me (with an acceptable quality/performance ratio) brb ^^
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7302
Senior Member
Posts: 7302
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:24 PM
Beast!
I wonder why it isn't quite as good in gaming when it beats or matches the 9900k in most synthetic single-threaded tests?
From what I gathered it's first and foremost because Intel and the many "sandy bridge" iterations and refinements have been out for so long, and have been the standard for developers, and are therefore used to that architecture and its strong points, that it will take a while before they catch up with AMD's. The gap has shrunk with each Ryzen generation and I'm sure 2 years from now it will be even smaller or go in AMDs favor in many games. That and the fact that raw boost clocks on 9900K are simply higher (but at the same time equally hotter too).
As a gamer primarily, I would still advice people to go for AMD this time around, even if it's not the king in gaming, it's better bang for your buck, better future-proof, a whole lot cooler and unless you game at 1080p, the difference at higher resolutions as HH pointed out, is even less significant anyway.
Now talking about the 3950X, even though it's definitely out of my price range, I have to admit I am a bit jelly that it gets a 4.7 max single core boost over my 3900X's 4.6. But at the same time, it's is a (small) perk the top of the line CPU, well, the X570 line at least, definitely deservers. :p
Beast!
I wonder why it isn't quite as good in gaming when it beats or matches the 9900k in most synthetic single-threaded tests?
From what I gathered it's first and foremost because Intel and the many "sandy bridge" iterations and refinements have been out for so long, and have been the standard for developers, and are therefore used to that architecture and its strong points, that it will take a while before they catch up with AMD's. The gap has shrunk with each Ryzen generation and I'm sure 2 years from now it will be even smaller or go in AMDs favor in many games. That and the fact that raw boost clocks on 9900K are simply higher (but at the same time equally hotter too).
As a gamer primarily, I would still advice people to go for AMD this time around, even if it's not the king in gaming, it's better bang for your buck, better future-proof, a whole lot cooler and unless you game at 1080p, the difference at higher resolutions as HH pointed out, is even less significant anyway.
Now talking about the 3950X, even though it's definitely out of my price range, I have to admit I am a bit jelly that it gets a 4.7 max single core boost over my 3900X's 4.6. But at the same time, it's is a (small) perk the top of the line CPU, well, the X570 line at least, definitely deservers. :p
MonstroMart
Senior Member
Posts: 680
Senior Member
Posts: 680
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:31 PM
From what I gathered it's first and foremost because Intel and the many "sandy bridge" iterations and refinements have been out for so long, and have been the standard for developers, and are therefore used to that architecture and its strong points, that it will take a while before they catch up with AMD's. The gap has shrunk with each Ryzen generation and I'm sure 2 years from now it will be even smaller or go in AMDs favor in many games. That and the fact that raw boost clocks on 9900K are simply higher (but at the same time equally hotter too).
As a gamer primarily, I would still advice people to go for AMD this time around, even if it's not the king in gaming, it's better bang for your buck, better future-proof, a whole lot cooler and unless you game at 1080p, the difference at higher resolutions as HH pointed out, is even less significant anyway.
Now talking about the 3950X, even though it's definitely out of my price range, I have to admit I am a bit jelly that it gets a 4.7 max single core boost over my 3900X's 4.6. But at the same time, it's is a (small) perk the top of the line CPU, well, the X570 line at least, definitely deservers. :p
Personally if i would care about games only and would spend 500$ on a new CPU it would be the 9900k. But i would definitely avoid the current i5 9600k at all cost. I don't think under 8 threads will cut it 2-3 years from now in the most demanding new titles. The 7600k is aging badly and i think the same will eventually happen to the 9600k.
From what I gathered it's first and foremost because Intel and the many "sandy bridge" iterations and refinements have been out for so long, and have been the standard for developers, and are therefore used to that architecture and its strong points, that it will take a while before they catch up with AMD's. The gap has shrunk with each Ryzen generation and I'm sure 2 years from now it will be even smaller or go in AMDs favor in many games. That and the fact that raw boost clocks on 9900K are simply higher (but at the same time equally hotter too).
As a gamer primarily, I would still advice people to go for AMD this time around, even if it's not the king in gaming, it's better bang for your buck, better future-proof, a whole lot cooler and unless you game at 1080p, the difference at higher resolutions as HH pointed out, is even less significant anyway.
Now talking about the 3950X, even though it's definitely out of my price range, I have to admit I am a bit jelly that it gets a 4.7 max single core boost over my 3900X's 4.6. But at the same time, it's is a (small) perk the top of the line CPU, well, the X570 line at least, definitely deservers. :p
Personally if i would care about games only and would spend 500$ on a new CPU it would be the 9900k. But i would definitely avoid the current i5 9600k at all cost. I don't think under 8 threads will cut it 2-3 years from now in the most demanding new titles. The 7600k is aging badly and i think the same will eventually happen to the 9600k.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12781
Senior Member
Posts: 12781
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:35 PM
Both Anandtech and GN's processor wouldn't hit 4.7 - maxed out at 4.65 -- likewise my 3900x doesn't hit 4.6, maxes out 50mhz shy as well.
They should have just said the max for these two processors were 4.5 and 4.6.
Looks like it performs well and the price/perf, especially in multithreaded workloads is insane.
I have to admit I am a bit jelly that it gets a 4.7 max single core boost over my 3900X's 4.6. But at the same time, it's is a (small) perk the top of the line CPU, well, the X570 line at least, definitely deservers.
Both Anandtech and GN's processor wouldn't hit 4.7 - maxed out at 4.65 -- likewise my 3900x doesn't hit 4.6, maxes out 50mhz shy as well.
They should have just said the max for these two processors were 4.5 and 4.6.
Looks like it performs well and the price/perf, especially in multithreaded workloads is insane.
pages « 2 3 4 5 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2458
Nope, but on the other hand it has never been this cheap either.
Personally I know I have no use for it.