Asustor Lockerstor 4 (AS6604T) NAS Review
Hitman III: PC graphics perf benchmark review
TeamGroup CX2 1TB SATA3 SSD review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 FTW3 Ultra review
Corsair 5000D PC Chassis Review
NZXT Kraken X63 RGB Review
ASUS Radeon RX 6900 XT STRIX OC LC Review
TerraMaster F5-221 NAS Review
MSI Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming X TRIO Review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6800 NITRO+ review
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 « < 5 6 7 8 > »
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 5593
Senior Member
Posts: 5593
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:24 PM
I would only accuse it of being misleading (or just outright false) advertising if the CPU can't achieve the stated clock speeds regardless of how good all the other conditions are. So if your system has ample power, sufficient cooling, a sufficient VRM configuration, and high-speed RAM, yet you still can't achieve the peak speed, I think you have a perfectly valid reason to complain. Unfortunately (and probably deliberately), AMD doesn't tell us what the ideal conditions are, which to me is a bigger problem.
That being said, I would be fine with a claim of "up to 5GHz" if all CPUs are actually capable of reaching that, provided specified ideal conditions.
Well, considering a lot of hardware reviewers were also getting issues reaching max boost clocks, I don't think this is a similar situation. As far as I'm concerned, AMD just screwed up and specified over-ambitious specs.
I mean some definitely hit the numbers but some don't. My 3900x doesn't. At what point does the marketing become misleading? Let's say 1/40 samples AMD ships hits 5ghz. Would everyone be fine with AMD saying "Up to 5 ghz turbo" ? What if it was 1/100? What if it was 1/1000?
I would only accuse it of being misleading (or just outright false) advertising if the CPU can't achieve the stated clock speeds regardless of how good all the other conditions are. So if your system has ample power, sufficient cooling, a sufficient VRM configuration, and high-speed RAM, yet you still can't achieve the peak speed, I think you have a perfectly valid reason to complain. Unfortunately (and probably deliberately), AMD doesn't tell us what the ideal conditions are, which to me is a bigger problem.
That being said, I would be fine with a claim of "up to 5GHz" if all CPUs are actually capable of reaching that, provided specified ideal conditions.
It sounds ridiculous but similar stuff already happened with the phone SoCs - where manufacturers would create custom profiles to for the SoC to run unthrottled for benchmarks but in actual applications they'd never hit the marketed frequency.
Well, considering a lot of hardware reviewers were also getting issues reaching max boost clocks, I don't think this is a similar situation. As far as I'm concerned, AMD just screwed up and specified over-ambitious specs.
barbacot
Senior Member
Posts: 508
Senior Member
Posts: 508
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:33 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?
If you search reviews on game specific sites you will see this cpu tested on much more games than here and overall the I9900 KS (5 GHZ turbo all cores, all the time) is the winner (overall)...
I think that this cpu was not created for gaming even if it is more than capable at this chapter but more for content creation and dealing with more difficult workloads that scale with core and thread counts, with clockspeed being less of a factor.
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?
If you search reviews on game specific sites you will see this cpu tested on much more games than here and overall the I9900 KS (5 GHZ turbo all cores, all the time) is the winner (overall)...
I think that this cpu was not created for gaming even if it is more than capable at this chapter but more for content creation and dealing with more difficult workloads that scale with core and thread counts, with clockspeed being less of a factor.
Dribble
Senior Member
Posts: 183
Senior Member
Posts: 183
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:37 PM
If you want lots of cores at a cheaper price then you can get a 3900X.
As for this one amazed it's not got more memory problems - dual channel with that many cores - it's gotta be a bottleneck sometimes. If I were looking for something with that many cores I'd probably just save a bit longer and get something with quad channel memory.
I don't really think a CPU costing $750, can be considered 'for the masses'.
If you want lots of cores at a cheaper price then you can get a 3900X.
As for this one amazed it's not got more memory problems - dual channel with that many cores - it's gotta be a bottleneck sometimes. If I were looking for something with that many cores I'd probably just save a bit longer and get something with quad channel memory.
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6260
Senior Member
Posts: 6260
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:39 PM
is that too hot??? i was eyeing this cpu despite recently i've bought the 3700X.
is that too hot??? i was eyeing this cpu despite recently i've bought the 3700X.
pages « < 5 6 7 8 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 508
Yes, beast and so on but I see that everybody is overlooking the same thing that was said here over and over about 9900k - this "beast" runs very hot.
In fact to quote:
So, at the price of 750 bucks add a decent LCS kit and you will pay near 1000 bucks!
There is no denying - it is a workhorse for content creation and as soon as I will find it in stock I will buy it for my workstation combined with a kraken x72.