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
65 Watt TDP 12-core Ryzen 9 3900 Overclocked LCS and LN2 (Updated)
AMD still has got a few surprises left for the desktop Ryzen 3000 series, we expect the 3500, the 3950X but as it seems a Ryzen 9 3900 is inbound as well, that part would be pretty amazing at it would over 12 cores / 24 threads with a base-clock of 3.1 GHz and only a 65 Watt TDP.
It was motherboard manufacturer Biostar that spilled the beans, as it referenced the Ryzen 9 3900 as motherboard compatible. It is assumed the boost clock is 4.2 GHz for this part. The base clock is 700 MHz lower than that of the Ryzen 9 3900X in order to match that TDP of 65 watts.
Update:
The processor already turned up in a Ryzen Pro model, but now as well in some benchmarks and set an overclocking record even. Toms hardware reported that overclocker Allen "Splave" Golibersuch overclocked a non-official AMD Ryzen 9 3900, and with he help of liquid nitrogen reached an impressive 5.5 GHz. With 4,319 points Cinebench doesn't look bad either, Geekbench 3 was enough for 6,924 points in the single-core score and 77,106 points in the multi-core score.
With a Enermax Liqtech II AiO liquid cooling Golibersuch reached 4.35 GHz on all cores at a voltage of 1.375 volts, which showed 3,420 points in the Cinebench R15. Unknown still remains what the processor will cost and when it will appear.
theoneofgod
Senior Member
Posts: 4092
Joined: 2014-01-17
Senior Member
Posts: 4092
Joined: 2014-01-17
#5714730 Posted on: 09/26/2019 03:49 PM
Shame the 3800X isn't cheaper than the 3700X. That would be great.
hah, intel could teach you a thing or two here, ever seen their T models? "35w" desktop i7 models? they sell for higher prices than K models, its not about the lower performance, its about the super high efficiency! " /s
Shame the 3800X isn't cheaper than the 3700X. That would be great.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5714733 Posted on: 09/26/2019 03:55 PM
Part of me questions why AMD didn't release this model first, since the 3900X is the model that suffered the worst single-core boost clock results. Even without the ABBA update, a CPU like the 3900 ought to sustain boost clocks just fine.
If the point of releasing the 3900X first was to show the best of AM4, well, wouldn't that have been the 3950X?
What AMD is doing with these chiplets thing is awesome !
No chip(let) goes into the bin, even if it's really really bad out of the production line - As long as it can still compute, somebody will buy it.
Can't wait to see dirt cheap 4-core Ryzen 3s that would be perfect for a very low cost office computer or for mom&pop computer who sits idle or off 99% of the time.
Indeed. The interesting thing is how they could still make a decent product even if 2 of the 8 dies are functional, since you could pair a couple of those dies together.
At this rate, quad cores should pretty much be the lowest-end product for desktop PCs. I think 2c/4t CPUs are still relevant for mobile an IoT devices. I assume that if a die has only 1 functional core, AMD would just throw it out.
Part of me questions why AMD didn't release this model first, since the 3900X is the model that suffered the worst single-core boost clock results. Even without the ABBA update, a CPU like the 3900 ought to sustain boost clocks just fine.
If the point of releasing the 3900X first was to show the best of AM4, well, wouldn't that have been the 3950X?
What AMD is doing with these chiplets thing is awesome !
No chip(let) goes into the bin, even if it's really really bad out of the production line - As long as it can still compute, somebody will buy it.
Can't wait to see dirt cheap 4-core Ryzen 3s that would be perfect for a very low cost office computer or for mom&pop computer who sits idle or off 99% of the time.
Indeed. The interesting thing is how they could still make a decent product even if 2 of the 8 dies are functional, since you could pair a couple of those dies together.
At this rate, quad cores should pretty much be the lowest-end product for desktop PCs. I think 2c/4t CPUs are still relevant for mobile an IoT devices. I assume that if a die has only 1 functional core, AMD would just throw it out.
SamuelL421
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 2017-08-22
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 2017-08-22
#5714734 Posted on: 09/26/2019 03:59 PM
I am extremely excited to see this chip! Binning aside, 12 cores at 65w has huge potential for those of us interested in workstation or DTR notebooks. The Acer Helios 500 laptop used a 2700 at 65w, before that ASUS had similar 17'' laptop with the 1700 65w.
I really hope Acer or Asus takes a look at the 3900. A 12 core mobile workstation based on the latest Ryzen would be an immediate purchase for me.
I am extremely excited to see this chip! Binning aside, 12 cores at 65w has huge potential for those of us interested in workstation or DTR notebooks. The Acer Helios 500 laptop used a 2700 at 65w, before that ASUS had similar 17'' laptop with the 1700 65w.
I really hope Acer or Asus takes a look at the 3900. A 12 core mobile workstation based on the latest Ryzen would be an immediate purchase for me.
Kool64
Senior Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 2006-10-21
Senior Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 2006-10-21
#5714745 Posted on: 09/26/2019 04:47 PM
To add to this the 46.49 SMU is allowing my 3700X to boost to 4.4 regularly and on the single core test of Cinebench 20.
Ehm, no .. they just are covering and filling every segment of the market. Word right now is that the 3950X is managing the 4.7 GHz Turbo fine, but that the all-core base frequency is the challenge.
To add to this the 46.49 SMU is allowing my 3700X to boost to 4.4 regularly and on the single core test of Cinebench 20.
TLD LARS
Senior Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 2017-03-01
Senior Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 2017-03-01
#5714774 Posted on: 09/26/2019 06:35 PM
A 3900 conservatively overclocked at 4 ghz allcore, could be a fantastic replacement for my 1700, next year when the 4000 serie arrives.
A 3950 clocked at 3 ghz with a 75-85w TDP could also be a possibility, depending on how good the 3700X is selling.
A 3900 conservatively overclocked at 4 ghz allcore, could be a fantastic replacement for my 1700, next year when the 4000 serie arrives.
A 3950 clocked at 3 ghz with a 75-85w TDP could also be a possibility, depending on how good the 3700X is selling.
Xdrqgol
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2018-08-28
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2018-08-28
#5714783 Posted on: 09/26/2019 07:36 PM
Chiplet that does not meet 3950X requirements goes to 3800X or 3700X.
Chiplet that does not meet 3900X requirements goes to 3600X or 3600.
Considering 3600 is 3.6~4.2GHz chip, 3900 in this thread is lowest matching as it is 3.1~4.2GHz.
Chiplet that does not meet 3950X requirements, MIGHT go 3900x, 3800X or 3700X.
If you think about it, they will aim to bin the best for 3950x and the started already since it was launched...trust me , this is how business goes. They binned and looking through stats understood / learned that they have many that could not land on either 3900x/3800x/3700x speed wise thus they are creating this new 3900 to get some profit. It is that simple really.. I do not think we need to argue on this, AMD has been always smart on using resources and it is fair doing so. Depending on price 3900 can be useful for some workstations..
My understanding from these circumstances is that 3950x will be really limited ...like REALLY limited...price will skyrocket due to this and already did...soo good luck getting one for a good price.
Chiplet that does not meet 3950X requirements goes to 3800X or 3700X.
Chiplet that does not meet 3900X requirements goes to 3600X or 3600.
Considering 3600 is 3.6~4.2GHz chip, 3900 in this thread is lowest matching as it is 3.1~4.2GHz.
Chiplet that does not meet 3950X requirements, MIGHT go 3900x, 3800X or 3700X.
If you think about it, they will aim to bin the best for 3950x and the started already since it was launched...trust me , this is how business goes. They binned and looking through stats understood / learned that they have many that could not land on either 3900x/3800x/3700x speed wise thus they are creating this new 3900 to get some profit. It is that simple really.. I do not think we need to argue on this, AMD has been always smart on using resources and it is fair doing so. Depending on price 3900 can be useful for some workstations..
My understanding from these circumstances is that 3950x will be really limited ...like REALLY limited...price will skyrocket due to this and already did...soo good luck getting one for a good price.
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 2015-11-21
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 2015-11-21
#5714796 Posted on: 09/26/2019 08:11 PM
no you can't, maybe you haven't followed or didn't understand what was going on these past months but buying cheaper and overclocking is over, that era has ended
- AMD sells you cpu that can borderline do what they should, there's no (serious) overclocking ever, not with normal or even watercooling for normal every day usage
- Intel now follows by rebranding or splitting the 9900k that can or not manage 5.0Ghz on all cores
I'll repeat a comment I made months ago, cars (at least europeans) are the same nowadays, years ago they over-built engines and you could easily get more horsepower out of them, now they make lighter engines that can sustain the power they sell the car for and not much more..which is...absolutely logical ! why would you sell something that does "15" for the price of something that does "10" it makes no sense
buy something that does what you want, don't expect to get much more
or you can get the 3900 and overclock it as a 3900x with less money
no you can't, maybe you haven't followed or didn't understand what was going on these past months but buying cheaper and overclocking is over, that era has ended
- AMD sells you cpu that can borderline do what they should, there's no (serious) overclocking ever, not with normal or even watercooling for normal every day usage
- Intel now follows by rebranding or splitting the 9900k that can or not manage 5.0Ghz on all cores
I'll repeat a comment I made months ago, cars (at least europeans) are the same nowadays, years ago they over-built engines and you could easily get more horsepower out of them, now they make lighter engines that can sustain the power they sell the car for and not much more..which is...absolutely logical ! why would you sell something that does "15" for the price of something that does "10" it makes no sense
buy something that does what you want, don't expect to get much more
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9860
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9860
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5714818 Posted on: 09/26/2019 10:06 PM
Chiplet that does not meet 3950X requirements, MIGHT go 3900x, 3800X or 3700X.
If you think about it, they will aim to bin the best for 3950x and the started already since it was launched...trust me , this is how business goes. They binned and looking through stats understood / learned that they have many that could not land on either 3900x/3800x/3700x speed wise thus they are creating this new 3900 to get some profit. It is that simple really.. I do not think we need to argue on this, AMD has been always smart on using resources and it is fair doing so. Depending on price 3900 can be useful for some workstations..
My understanding from these circumstances is that 3950x will be really limited ...like REALLY limited...price will skyrocket due to this and already did...soo good luck getting one for a good price.
No. 3950X uses 8C/16T chiplet. Most of chiplets that get out of fabs are without need to disable 2cores. 1st step is actual disablement of bad cores.
That greatly reduces opportunity to even get chiplet into 3900X/3600X/3600/3900 category. But as it gets there, 3900 is easy to make as only one chiplet needs to meet boosting requirements. Other can boost to 4GHz only and still be used.
3950X is only about clocks at some voltage target. As production improves over time, 3950X will be plenty. 3900X will become rarer than it is now.
What will improve is actual spread of demand. Many of those waiting for 3900X will go for 3900 or 3950X.
Chiplet that does not meet 3950X requirements, MIGHT go 3900x, 3800X or 3700X.
If you think about it, they will aim to bin the best for 3950x and the started already since it was launched...trust me , this is how business goes. They binned and looking through stats understood / learned that they have many that could not land on either 3900x/3800x/3700x speed wise thus they are creating this new 3900 to get some profit. It is that simple really.. I do not think we need to argue on this, AMD has been always smart on using resources and it is fair doing so. Depending on price 3900 can be useful for some workstations..
My understanding from these circumstances is that 3950x will be really limited ...like REALLY limited...price will skyrocket due to this and already did...soo good luck getting one for a good price.
No. 3950X uses 8C/16T chiplet. Most of chiplets that get out of fabs are without need to disable 2cores. 1st step is actual disablement of bad cores.
That greatly reduces opportunity to even get chiplet into 3900X/3600X/3600/3900 category. But as it gets there, 3900 is easy to make as only one chiplet needs to meet boosting requirements. Other can boost to 4GHz only and still be used.
3950X is only about clocks at some voltage target. As production improves over time, 3950X will be plenty. 3900X will become rarer than it is now.
What will improve is actual spread of demand. Many of those waiting for 3900X will go for 3900 or 3950X.
bobblunderton
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 2017-02-15
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 2017-02-15
#5714838 Posted on: 09/26/2019 11:37 PM
Folks, remember, AMD is a business. They are in business to make money, first and foremost.
So as a business, if I do X amount of production runs and end up with a ton of 6c 12t dies, and it costs me Y$, I have two choices here.
1.) I could send a truck full of 3500/3500x (unreleased), 3600/3600x which are plentiful and not in short supply.
2.) I could (seeing as these don't quite always cut the mustard for 3900X), make a new slightly lower-power-target SKU for those wanting the "in-high-demand 12-core 24-thread 3900x chips" at 65w VS 105w 3900 12-core 24-thread chip. These 12-cores have been flying off shelves, and this will help sate the market demand a bit for the 3900x, allowing the business (AMD) to satisfy some demand for the 3900x with the 3900 *AND* give people an alternative. PLUS, these rake in TWICE the money per box in the truck, and seeing CPU's from one angle as solely cash per cubic meter, a truckload of 3900's at 400$*, the 3900's would be worth almost double what the 3600-class chips would be, on a basis of per truck shipment.
(*give or take, maybe it'll knock the 3800x down a bit, that'd be logical)
So as you can see, from a business perspective, if you take those 6c 12t dies and throw two of them in a CPU, you're going to make twice as much per box in sales as you would from a 3600 - and that's completely ignoring the product stock / demand situation. Taking this demand situation into account, it's only logical that AMD would desire to meet market demand *AND* increase the bottom line.
Remember folks, it's not only a missed sale if someone doesn't have the ability to purchase a 12-core 24-thread chip from AMD - they may indeed grab an intel offering, which is not only a missed sale for AMD, but a sale for the competition! That's super-bad in business economics - you never want that. It's almost better to give customers things close to at-cost, in turn keeping your customer very happy and generally loyal, then to provide your competitor with a sale giving the customer an opportunity to become associated with another brand/business where you may lose them in the long-term.
"AMD's contract with TSMC is suffering from poor yields, early process node etc"
It's one of the only 7nm offerings they could pick up, to allow them to do what ZEN was truly designed to do. I would have done the same thing AMD did. It sure has it's risks, but it's slowly beginning to really look like the diamond in the rough in a sea of otherwise over-plentiful intel quad-cores. I'd be quite thankful for what you get, it's moving the industry forward. AMD is just doing what NVidia, Intel and all other people who make hardware in tiered product rangers do, binning and segmenting the market as demand and supply dictates. Remember, ALL manufacturers do this!!!
AMD's very smart to make the 3900 - people want an upgrade, not 'just a little more' cpu than their quad-core intel chip, they want DOUBLE, or at-least a substantial noticeable bump in performance. They want to feel good with their purchase of new computer goodies when they have an upgrade itch - or just the need for more power under the hood so-to-speak. I know I was, when I replaced my 5-year-old 4790k machine with a 3700x / Asrock x570 Phantom Gaming 4 system. I can say I am overly satisfied with it, and how it runs BeamNG Drive maps, content creation, modeling, graphics and sound work, and yes even RimWorld of all things. Completely wiped the floor with the 4790k, and surpassed all expectation by leaps and bounds - the gobs of L3 cache REALLY help, too.
*note / off-topic / for the record :
No boost issues either, goes over rated spec on release day bios with the *stock* cooler. Scraped off (but did not scrub off) most the stock thermal paste with a credit card, and put merely a quarter grain of liquid metal (as any more would squeeze out) on the top of the CPU, and I don't ever see temps of 80c even (too little is better than too much).
No windowed case, no LED's except the CPU cooler fan, no flashy disco-ball hanging in there (I'm almost 40). Just a non-descript black Fractal full-tower that's sound-insulated that does everything I need and keeps going without a fuss. Part of me wishes I had gotten the 12-core 24-thread chip, but ah-well, I'll grab the 16-core when if ever it sees a mark-down in a year or two.
No unrecoverable WHEA PCI-E errors either, no blue-screens. Just for the record.
That said: if you just game, even a 4790k which I upgraded from, will be just fine for a few more years unless things are really getting slow for you with a lot of units on screen in certain titles.
No benchmark or review could have prepared me for the AMAZEMENT and jaw-opening performance improvement most of my programs saw. I had no idea.
@Hilbert Hagerdoon (sorry if I spelled it wrong), please consider adding BeamNG Drive to your benchmark list; running lots of cars with traffic really works the CPU to max, and no-one seems to be using it currently. You can add in AI traffic via a traffic app in the app panel of the game.
Folks, remember, AMD is a business. They are in business to make money, first and foremost.
So as a business, if I do X amount of production runs and end up with a ton of 6c 12t dies, and it costs me Y$, I have two choices here.
1.) I could send a truck full of 3500/3500x (unreleased), 3600/3600x which are plentiful and not in short supply.
2.) I could (seeing as these don't quite always cut the mustard for 3900X), make a new slightly lower-power-target SKU for those wanting the "in-high-demand 12-core 24-thread 3900x chips" at 65w VS 105w 3900 12-core 24-thread chip. These 12-cores have been flying off shelves, and this will help sate the market demand a bit for the 3900x, allowing the business (AMD) to satisfy some demand for the 3900x with the 3900 *AND* give people an alternative. PLUS, these rake in TWICE the money per box in the truck, and seeing CPU's from one angle as solely cash per cubic meter, a truckload of 3900's at 400$*, the 3900's would be worth almost double what the 3600-class chips would be, on a basis of per truck shipment.
(*give or take, maybe it'll knock the 3800x down a bit, that'd be logical)
So as you can see, from a business perspective, if you take those 6c 12t dies and throw two of them in a CPU, you're going to make twice as much per box in sales as you would from a 3600 - and that's completely ignoring the product stock / demand situation. Taking this demand situation into account, it's only logical that AMD would desire to meet market demand *AND* increase the bottom line.
Remember folks, it's not only a missed sale if someone doesn't have the ability to purchase a 12-core 24-thread chip from AMD - they may indeed grab an intel offering, which is not only a missed sale for AMD, but a sale for the competition! That's super-bad in business economics - you never want that. It's almost better to give customers things close to at-cost, in turn keeping your customer very happy and generally loyal, then to provide your competitor with a sale giving the customer an opportunity to become associated with another brand/business where you may lose them in the long-term.
"AMD's contract with TSMC is suffering from poor yields, early process node etc"
It's one of the only 7nm offerings they could pick up, to allow them to do what ZEN was truly designed to do. I would have done the same thing AMD did. It sure has it's risks, but it's slowly beginning to really look like the diamond in the rough in a sea of otherwise over-plentiful intel quad-cores. I'd be quite thankful for what you get, it's moving the industry forward. AMD is just doing what NVidia, Intel and all other people who make hardware in tiered product rangers do, binning and segmenting the market as demand and supply dictates. Remember, ALL manufacturers do this!!!
AMD's very smart to make the 3900 - people want an upgrade, not 'just a little more' cpu than their quad-core intel chip, they want DOUBLE, or at-least a substantial noticeable bump in performance. They want to feel good with their purchase of new computer goodies when they have an upgrade itch - or just the need for more power under the hood so-to-speak. I know I was, when I replaced my 5-year-old 4790k machine with a 3700x / Asrock x570 Phantom Gaming 4 system. I can say I am overly satisfied with it, and how it runs BeamNG Drive maps, content creation, modeling, graphics and sound work, and yes even RimWorld of all things. Completely wiped the floor with the 4790k, and surpassed all expectation by leaps and bounds - the gobs of L3 cache REALLY help, too.
*note / off-topic / for the record :
No boost issues either, goes over rated spec on release day bios with the *stock* cooler. Scraped off (but did not scrub off) most the stock thermal paste with a credit card, and put merely a quarter grain of liquid metal (as any more would squeeze out) on the top of the CPU, and I don't ever see temps of 80c even (too little is better than too much).
No windowed case, no LED's except the CPU cooler fan, no flashy disco-ball hanging in there (I'm almost 40). Just a non-descript black Fractal full-tower that's sound-insulated that does everything I need and keeps going without a fuss. Part of me wishes I had gotten the 12-core 24-thread chip, but ah-well, I'll grab the 16-core when if ever it sees a mark-down in a year or two.
No unrecoverable WHEA PCI-E errors either, no blue-screens. Just for the record.
That said: if you just game, even a 4790k which I upgraded from, will be just fine for a few more years unless things are really getting slow for you with a lot of units on screen in certain titles.
No benchmark or review could have prepared me for the AMAZEMENT and jaw-opening performance improvement most of my programs saw. I had no idea.
@Hilbert Hagerdoon (sorry if I spelled it wrong), please consider adding BeamNG Drive to your benchmark list; running lots of cars with traffic really works the CPU to max, and no-one seems to be using it currently. You can add in AI traffic via a traffic app in the app panel of the game.
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 2008-10-13
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 2008-10-13
#5714863 Posted on: 09/27/2019 02:02 AM
no you can't, maybe you haven't followed or didn't understand what was going on these past months but buying cheaper and overclocking is over, that era has ended
- AMD sells you cpu that can borderline do what they should, there's no (serious) overclocking ever, not with normal or even watercooling for normal every day usage
- Intel now follows by rebranding or splitting the 9900k that can or not manage 5.0Ghz on all cores
I'll repeat a comment I made months ago, cars (at least europeans) are the same nowadays, years ago they over-built engines and you could easily get more horsepower out of them, now they make lighter engines that can sustain the power they sell the car for and not much more..which is...absolutely logical ! why would you sell something that does "15" for the price of something that does "10" it makes no sense
buy something that does what you want, don't expect to get much more
So why do I reach a 2600x while overclocking my 1600. Yea thought so.
And your anology of small turbo engines for the average vs what you can do on your own is really stupid.
no you can't, maybe you haven't followed or didn't understand what was going on these past months but buying cheaper and overclocking is over, that era has ended
- AMD sells you cpu that can borderline do what they should, there's no (serious) overclocking ever, not with normal or even watercooling for normal every day usage
- Intel now follows by rebranding or splitting the 9900k that can or not manage 5.0Ghz on all cores
I'll repeat a comment I made months ago, cars (at least europeans) are the same nowadays, years ago they over-built engines and you could easily get more horsepower out of them, now they make lighter engines that can sustain the power they sell the car for and not much more..which is...absolutely logical ! why would you sell something that does "15" for the price of something that does "10" it makes no sense
buy something that does what you want, don't expect to get much more
So why do I reach a 2600x while overclocking my 1600. Yea thought so.
And your anology of small turbo engines for the average vs what you can do on your own is really stupid.
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2016-08-01
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2016-08-01
#5714891 Posted on: 09/27/2019 05:53 AM
@Agonist i would agree although there is tweaking to be done to squeeze out every single percentage of performance you can ... the days that you would get a 3ghz chip and practically add 33% of performance or more by boosting to 4+ ghz are long gone .
@TheThread
maybe i am getting old but the hunt for mhz is stale for me i see people push their cpu to absolute max for example ((imaginary cpu at 3.5ghz stock)) instead of 4.2 ghz to 4.4 where they need increase voltage to get and all that for what ? get 3-4 fps on a game ... finish a render in 57 seconds instead of 58 ... i would gladly take the take the 4.2 ghz i do not think i loose almost anything and is much more sustainable in the long run tweak ... the only reason i see on it is to do it cause is a hobby and you enjoy doing it ... i even see some people changing their cpu or over paying for 100 or 200 mhz witch i find absurd how big of a difference has an r7 1700 @ 3.8 vs one that can do 3.9 or a 9900k that can do 5.1 with one that can do 4.9 at this point in my opinion the only way to get really better performance is to get a better cpu ...either more cores if your workload favor em ..or wait for the next generation/s
@Agonist i would agree although there is tweaking to be done to squeeze out every single percentage of performance you can ... the days that you would get a 3ghz chip and practically add 33% of performance or more by boosting to 4+ ghz are long gone .
@TheThread
maybe i am getting old but the hunt for mhz is stale for me i see people push their cpu to absolute max for example ((imaginary cpu at 3.5ghz stock)) instead of 4.2 ghz to 4.4 where they need increase voltage to get and all that for what ? get 3-4 fps on a game ... finish a render in 57 seconds instead of 58 ... i would gladly take the take the 4.2 ghz i do not think i loose almost anything and is much more sustainable in the long run tweak ... the only reason i see on it is to do it cause is a hobby and you enjoy doing it ... i even see some people changing their cpu or over paying for 100 or 200 mhz witch i find absurd how big of a difference has an r7 1700 @ 3.8 vs one that can do 3.9 or a 9900k that can do 5.1 with one that can do 4.9 at this point in my opinion the only way to get really better performance is to get a better cpu ...either more cores if your workload favor em ..or wait for the next generation/s
Shagula
Senior Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 2009-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 2009-05-10
#5714893 Posted on: 09/27/2019 05:55 AM
Would be a nice surprise if this CPU is destined for the new PlayStation or Xbox
Would be a nice surprise if this CPU is destined for the new PlayStation or Xbox
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 2008-10-13
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 2008-10-13
#5714900 Posted on: 09/27/2019 07:11 AM
@Agonist i would agree although there is tweaking to be done to squeeze out every single percentage of performance you can ... the days that you would get a 3ghz chip and practically add 33% of performance or more by boosting to 4+ ghz are long gone .
@TheThread
maybe i am getting old but the hunt for mhz is stale for me i see people push their cpu to absolute max for example ((imaginary cpu at 3.5ghz stock)) instead of 4.2 ghz to 4.4 where they need increase voltage to get and all that for what ? get 3-4 fps on a game ... finish a render in 57 seconds instead of 58 ... i would gladly take the take the 4.2 ghz i do not think i loose almost anything and is much more sustainable in the long run tweak ... the only reason i see on it is to do it cause is a hobby and you enjoy doing it ... i even see some people changing their cpu or over paying for 100 or 200 mhz witch i find absurd how big of a difference has an r7 1700 @ 3.8 vs one that can do 3.9 or a 9900k that can do 5.1 with one that can do 4.9 at this point in my opinion the only way to get really better performance is to get a better cpu ...either more cores if your workload favor em ..or wait for the next generation/s
Yea I do miss pulling some cool overclocks. I had my 2.66ghz X5650 @ 4.6ghz with just an H100.
Honestly I just go for the best overclock, not max overclock. My 1600 will do 4.1 but most of the time I run it at 3.75 because it only needs a tiny bump in voltage to do so and temps stay way low. And in gpu bound games, i usually run stock 3.4 boost.
@Agonist i would agree although there is tweaking to be done to squeeze out every single percentage of performance you can ... the days that you would get a 3ghz chip and practically add 33% of performance or more by boosting to 4+ ghz are long gone .
@TheThread
maybe i am getting old but the hunt for mhz is stale for me i see people push their cpu to absolute max for example ((imaginary cpu at 3.5ghz stock)) instead of 4.2 ghz to 4.4 where they need increase voltage to get and all that for what ? get 3-4 fps on a game ... finish a render in 57 seconds instead of 58 ... i would gladly take the take the 4.2 ghz i do not think i loose almost anything and is much more sustainable in the long run tweak ... the only reason i see on it is to do it cause is a hobby and you enjoy doing it ... i even see some people changing their cpu or over paying for 100 or 200 mhz witch i find absurd how big of a difference has an r7 1700 @ 3.8 vs one that can do 3.9 or a 9900k that can do 5.1 with one that can do 4.9 at this point in my opinion the only way to get really better performance is to get a better cpu ...either more cores if your workload favor em ..or wait for the next generation/s
Yea I do miss pulling some cool overclocks. I had my 2.66ghz X5650 @ 4.6ghz with just an H100.
Honestly I just go for the best overclock, not max overclock. My 1600 will do 4.1 but most of the time I run it at 3.75 because it only needs a tiny bump in voltage to do so and temps stay way low. And in gpu bound games, i usually run stock 3.4 boost.
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1272
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1272
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5714926 Posted on: 09/27/2019 08:19 AM
Its more likely that the Xbox/PS chips will be like the unreleased Ryzen chips for the rumoured new Surface laptop.
Low power, 8c/16t with a largish discrete GPU.
Would be a nice surprise if this CPU is destined for the new PlayStation or Xbox
Its more likely that the Xbox/PS chips will be like the unreleased Ryzen chips for the rumoured new Surface laptop.
Low power, 8c/16t with a largish discrete GPU.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: 2010-01-03
hah, intel could teach you a thing or two here, ever seen their T models? "35w" desktop i7 models? they sell for higher prices than K models, its not about the lower performance, its about the super high efficiency! " /s