Promo: Windows 10 Pro + Office 2016 for $33
MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT GamingX 8GB review
ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT EVO 8GB review
PowerColor Radeon RX 5500 XT Red Dragon 8GB review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming 8GB review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB review
Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 Super review
Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition Driver Overview
Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
Posted by: on: 11/15/2019 02:40 PM [
89 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
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Posted on: 11/14/2019 03:35 PM
The new consumer desktop overall top performer is here. Thanks for the review reading now.
The new consumer desktop overall top performer is here. Thanks for the review reading now.
Andy Watson
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Posted on: 11/14/2019 03:38 PM
Great review. If you need all those cores it looks great,
I'm actually more looking forward to seeing how the $50 dual core unlocked 3000g is going to do, I guess the review is out 19th, or is that when it is on sale and review embargo lifted before then? I guess you may not be able to say that even.
Great review. If you need all those cores it looks great,
I'm actually more looking forward to seeing how the $50 dual core unlocked 3000g is going to do, I guess the review is out 19th, or is that when it is on sale and review embargo lifted before then? I guess you may not be able to say that even.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Posted on: 11/14/2019 04:13 PM
Great review. If you need all those cores it looks great,
I'm actually more looking forward to seeing how the $50 dual core unlocked 3000g is going to do, I guess the review is out 19th, or is that when it is on sale and review embargo lifted before then? I guess you may not be able to say that even.
Only issue with that CPU is it’s not Zen2 it’s Zen+.
Great review. If you need all those cores it looks great,
I'm actually more looking forward to seeing how the $50 dual core unlocked 3000g is going to do, I guess the review is out 19th, or is that when it is on sale and review embargo lifted before then? I guess you may not be able to say that even.
Only issue with that CPU is it’s not Zen2 it’s Zen+.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 1997
Senior Member
Posts: 1997
Posted on: 11/14/2019 04:27 PM
Very nice results. It's amazing to see this kind of performance on a consumer platform, soundly beating the 2950X and even coming close to the 2970WX. I had doubts about this CPU before but now I can't wait to get my hands on one.
That's what I hate the most about AMD's lineup. I mean, is it really so difficult to release an APU with the current-generation tech? A staggered release makes no sense and is downright confusing.
Very nice results. It's amazing to see this kind of performance on a consumer platform, soundly beating the 2950X and even coming close to the 2970WX. I had doubts about this CPU before but now I can't wait to get my hands on one.
Only issue with that CPU is it’s not Zen2 it’s Zen+.
That's what I hate the most about AMD's lineup. I mean, is it really so difficult to release an APU with the current-generation tech? A staggered release makes no sense and is downright confusing.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4589
Senior Member
Posts: 4589
Posted on: 11/14/2019 04:36 PM
I'm curious how the results would stand in terms of clock-per-clock performance. Zen2 has lot of optimizations, and the 3950X has higher clock speeds, but the TR models have a lot more memory channels and don't have the I/O die (which I suspect hurts latency at times).
I don't really have that much of a problem with the staggered release, but I have a REAL big gripe with the way they classify generations. The 3000G should be called the 2000G, because it's Zen+. Same goes for all of the current mobile processors - they're all Zen+ but they're labeled as the 3000 series. It's not like Zen+ is bad and there isn't a newer generation for customers to pick from, so why change the name?
Very nice results. It's amazing to see this kind of performance on a consumer platform, soundly beating the 2950X and even coming close to the 2970WX. I had doubts about this CPU before but now I can't wait to get my hands on one.
I'm curious how the results would stand in terms of clock-per-clock performance. Zen2 has lot of optimizations, and the 3950X has higher clock speeds, but the TR models have a lot more memory channels and don't have the I/O die (which I suspect hurts latency at times).
That's what I hate the most about AMD's lineup. I mean, is it really so difficult to release an APU with the current-generation tech? A staggered release makes no sense and is downright confusing.
I don't really have that much of a problem with the staggered release, but I have a REAL big gripe with the way they classify generations. The 3000G should be called the 2000G, because it's Zen+. Same goes for all of the current mobile processors - they're all Zen+ but they're labeled as the 3000 series. It's not like Zen+ is bad and there isn't a newer generation for customers to pick from, so why change the name?
southamptonfc
Senior Member
Posts: 1806
Senior Member
Posts: 1806
Posted on: 11/14/2019 04:51 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?
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?
Ziggymac
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:07 PM
I don't really think a CPU costing $750, can be considered 'for the masses'.
I don't really think a CPU costing $750, can be considered 'for the masses'.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 801
Senior Member
Posts: 801
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:12 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?
Mostly due to Higher memorylatency...
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?
Mostly due to Higher memorylatency...
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:14 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?
@nizzen is right it's latency. Hope Zen3 get this under control, but as it stands it's not like it's far behind the 9900k.
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?
@nizzen is right it's latency. Hope Zen3 get this under control, but as it stands it's not like it's far behind the 9900k.
Kaleid
Senior Member
Posts: 2381
Senior Member
Posts: 2381
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:19 PM
Nope, but on the other hand it has never been this cheap either.
Personally I know I have no use for it.
I don't really think a CPU costing $750, can be considered 'for the masses'.
Nope, but on the other hand it has never been this cheap either.
Personally I know I have no use for it.
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:21 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: 7171
Senior Member
Posts: 7171
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:24 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: 598
Senior Member
Posts: 598
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:31 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: 12417
Senior Member
Posts: 12417
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:35 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.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36517
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36517
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:35 PM
I asked AMD exactly that again earlier this week. With no plausible answer.
Initially, I figured, it had to be memory latency related. Then I figured, it has to be inter-core CCX latency related. Then I figured, is that single-core high-frequency really that important for gaming? And then I realized that Intel has been dominating the processor market for like forever, of course, developers have been optimizing their game engines for the processor architecture that sell the best. Then there is yet another factor you need to include, Windows 10, it was not very well optimized for how Ryzen got core priority for the faster cores. It's there now though.
So yeah, there is no simple single reason that can point out and address as to why AMD is a tiny bit behind Intel, and pretty much in front of the rest of it all. It's a combination of factors, and some games react well or worse to that set of variables. You can tell though that it's definitely getting better. Not quite there yet, but the curve is definitely progressive good for AMD in terms of CPU limited gaming.
I wonder why it isn't quite as good in gaming when it beats or matches the 9900k in most synthetic single-threaded tests?
I asked AMD exactly that again earlier this week. With no plausible answer.
Initially, I figured, it had to be memory latency related. Then I figured, it has to be inter-core CCX latency related. Then I figured, is that single-core high-frequency really that important for gaming? And then I realized that Intel has been dominating the processor market for like forever, of course, developers have been optimizing their game engines for the processor architecture that sell the best. Then there is yet another factor you need to include, Windows 10, it was not very well optimized for how Ryzen got core priority for the faster cores. It's there now though.
So yeah, there is no simple single reason that can point out and address as to why AMD is a tiny bit behind Intel, and pretty much in front of the rest of it all. It's a combination of factors, and some games react well or worse to that set of variables. You can tell though that it's definitely getting better. Not quite there yet, but the curve is definitely progressive good for AMD in terms of CPU limited gaming.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36517
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36517
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:37 PM
57
They should have just said the max for these two processors were 4.5 and 4.6.
57
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4589
Senior Member
Posts: 4589
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:37 PM
I personally don't see this happening unless Zen chips are produced with a monolithic die, and that's just not going to happen. AMD is knowingly sacrificing some latency for the sake of increasing the overall performance at a lower price. For the most part, I think that sacrifice is very much worth-while.
The differences in latency are, for the most part, irrelevant, except to those who care about bragging rights. The only potential issue I see is with VR, since the last thing VR needs is worse latency.
At least the 7600K and 9600K don't have HT - Intel CPUs with HT are the ones that are aging terribly.
@nizzen is right it's latency. Hope Zen3 get this under control, but as it stands it's not like it's far behind the 9900k.
I personally don't see this happening unless Zen chips are produced with a monolithic die, and that's just not going to happen. AMD is knowingly sacrificing some latency for the sake of increasing the overall performance at a lower price. For the most part, I think that sacrifice is very much worth-while.
The differences in latency are, for the most part, irrelevant, except to those who care about bragging rights. The only potential issue I see is with VR, since the last thing VR needs is worse latency.
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.
At least the 7600K and 9600K don't have HT - Intel CPUs with HT are the ones that are aging terribly.
Clouseau
Senior Member
Posts: 2398
Senior Member
Posts: 2398
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:47 PM
Ryzen's Achilles' heal is latency for gaming. That is why it bests in synthetic benches and dies sometimes in games. The only way to mitigate that issue is by fine tuning the ram timings. Faster frequency plays a part but not as much as tuned timings. Going for 3600 CL16 B-die and clocking it to 3800 provided the IF can handle 1900 is the safest best bet. 3200 just cannot cut it. Sometimes the cost of those 3200 CL14 Flare-x sticks end up costing more than the 3600 CL16 sticks I am using. The prices are all a matter of timing.
Ryzen's Achilles' heal is latency for gaming. That is why it bests in synthetic benches and dies sometimes in games. The only way to mitigate that issue is by fine tuning the ram timings. Faster frequency plays a part but not as much as tuned timings. Going for 3600 CL16 B-die and clocking it to 3800 provided the IF can handle 1900 is the safest best bet. 3200 just cannot cut it. Sometimes the cost of those 3200 CL14 Flare-x sticks end up costing more than the 3600 CL16 sticks I am using. The prices are all a matter of timing.
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:47 PM
hey everyone I'm back from Borderlands 3 testing..and the least you can say is that the game doesn't care one bit about cpu clockspeed
I have a 1080Ti, don't mind the actual fps number I have a ton of crap running in the background and some unsolved HW problems also it's my personal game settings
9900k - cpu clock 5.1Ghz - north bridge clock 4.8Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 84.15
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.88
9900k - cpu clock 4.2Ghz - north bridge clock 3.9Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 83.75
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.94
good example of a game that doesn't care about cpu clock or is limited by the GPU more than the cpu -0.30fps with -900Mhz core clock !
after that don't say I'm an Intel fanboy I'm not doing the 9900k any favor here lol
hey everyone I'm back from Borderlands 3 testing..and the least you can say is that the game doesn't care one bit about cpu clockspeed
I have a 1080Ti, don't mind the actual fps number I have a ton of crap running in the background and some unsolved HW problems also it's my personal game settings
9900k - cpu clock 5.1Ghz - north bridge clock 4.8Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 84.15
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.88
9900k - cpu clock 4.2Ghz - north bridge clock 3.9Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 83.75
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.94
good example of a game that doesn't care about cpu clock or is limited by the GPU more than the cpu -0.30fps with -900Mhz core clock !
after that don't say I'm an Intel fanboy I'm not doing the 9900k any favor here lol
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12417
Senior Member
Posts: 12417
Posted on: 11/14/2019 05:49 PM
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?
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.
57
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?
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.
mackintosh
Senior Member
Posts: 237
Senior Member
Posts: 237
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:00 PM
I really miss the "good old days" when you just bought the fastest CPU. I'm getting too old for this.
I really miss the "good old days" when you just bought the fastest CPU. I'm getting too old for this.
Borys
Member
Posts: 77
Member
Posts: 77
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:04 PM
BEAST!
This cpu is to close the year with gold key! If this year was and still great to AMD next year will be amazing! Think that next year the 4K monitors will be more and more cheap and, who buy this chip with sure never will play at 1080p... so, in 2020 AMD will dominate the entire market, low, middle, high end and professional markets. Now, only fanatics will buy any cpu from Intel... when the 10980x hits the market at USD 1K this 3950x will be at USD 600.
AMD now is a uncontrollabe monster. Thank you very much AMD to bring to us great CPUs with great prices. I am now with a 3600 4.2 all cores and I am very pleased with the entire PC perfomance, and paid only USD 195 for this.
To finish, to Intel just rest one thing.... change Everthing very Fast or will see a collapse marketshare.
BEAST!
This cpu is to close the year with gold key! If this year was and still great to AMD next year will be amazing! Think that next year the 4K monitors will be more and more cheap and, who buy this chip with sure never will play at 1080p... so, in 2020 AMD will dominate the entire market, low, middle, high end and professional markets. Now, only fanatics will buy any cpu from Intel... when the 10980x hits the market at USD 1K this 3950x will be at USD 600.
AMD now is a uncontrollabe monster. Thank you very much AMD to bring to us great CPUs with great prices. I am now with a 3600 4.2 all cores and I am very pleased with the entire PC perfomance, and paid only USD 195 for this.
To finish, to Intel just rest one thing.... change Everthing very Fast or will see a collapse marketshare.
Caesar
Senior Member
Posts: 838
Senior Member
Posts: 838
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:08 PM
hey everyone I'm back from Borderlands 3 testing..and the least you can say is that the game doesn't care one bit about cpu clockspeed
I have a 1080Ti, don't mind the actual fps number I have a ton of crap running in the background and some unsolved HW problems also it's my personal game settings
9900k - cpu clock 5.1Ghz - north bridge clock 4.8Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 84.15
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.88
9900k - cpu clock 4.2Ghz - north bridge clock 3.9Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 83.75
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.94
good example of a game that doesn't care about cpu clock or is limited by the GPU more than the cpu -0.30fps with -900Mhz core clock !
after that don't say I'm an Intel fanboy I'm not doing the 9900k any favor here lol
Good analysis!
+1
Storywise, a bit like rtx 2000 cards revealed @$1200 where only a handful number of games used that technology....and whooops....3000 series coming soon.....
hey everyone I'm back from Borderlands 3 testing..and the least you can say is that the game doesn't care one bit about cpu clockspeed
I have a 1080Ti, don't mind the actual fps number I have a ton of crap running in the background and some unsolved HW problems also it's my personal game settings
9900k - cpu clock 5.1Ghz - north bridge clock 4.8Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 84.15
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.88
9900k - cpu clock 4.2Ghz - north bridge clock 3.9Ghz
- FramesPerSecondAvg: 83.75
- FrameTimeMsAvg: 11.94
good example of a game that doesn't care about cpu clock or is limited by the GPU more than the cpu -0.30fps with -900Mhz core clock !
after that don't say I'm an Intel fanboy I'm not doing the 9900k any favor here lol
Good analysis!
+1
Storywise, a bit like rtx 2000 cards revealed @$1200 where only a handful number of games used that technology....and whooops....3000 series coming soon.....
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Posted on: 11/14/2019 06:10 PM
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.
Didn't I write somewhere once on Guru3d forums that the "up to" marketing was annoying me because it reminded me of the "VW scandal" where they ran different parameters when a "benchmarking" cycle was detected ?
Mercedes also made an oopsie with EuroNCAP safety tests where the belt pre-tensioning while 5/5 stars at the test speed would crush your internal organs and pretty much kill you if the impact was at 80+kph.
With the "good old" Intel behavior at least you had a fixed number you could rely on, now it's complicated
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.
Didn't I write somewhere once on Guru3d forums that the "up to" marketing was annoying me because it reminded me of the "VW scandal" where they ran different parameters when a "benchmarking" cycle was detected ?
Mercedes also made an oopsie with EuroNCAP safety tests where the belt pre-tensioning while 5/5 stars at the test speed would crush your internal organs and pretty much kill you if the impact was at 80+kph.
With the "good old" Intel behavior at least you had a fixed number you could rely on, now it's complicated
pages 1 2 3 4
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 801
Fun cpu
Thank you for the great job boss!
Love from Norway