AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
Click here to post a comment for AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review on our message forum
nizzen
Fun cpu 🙂
Thank you for the great job boss!
Love from Norway
Loophole35
The new consumer desktop overall top performer is here. Thanks for the review reading now.
Andy Watson
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
Only issue with that CPU is it’s not Zen2 it’s Zen+.
D3M1G0D
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.
schmidtbag
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?
southamptonfc
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
I don't really think a CPU costing $750, can be considered 'for the masses'.
nizzen
Mostly due to Higher memorylatency...
Loophole35
@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
Nope, but on the other hand it has never been this cheap either.
Personally I know I have no use for it.
kakiharaFRS
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
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. 😛
MonstroMart
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
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
Administrator
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
Administrator
schmidtbag
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.
Clouseau
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
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
