I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks. Something in the back of my head just tells me that my x370 asus crosshair vi hero might still have issues with the 16 core. Although that 14 phase VRM on the gigabyte aurous extreme does look tasty and quite tempting.....

There are some typos I guess in the PCIE page (page 5 of 6). For example:

If a Ryzen 3000 family proc is used, ...

If NO 3000 series is used, the chips will fall back to PCIE 3.0 ... And obviously the last sentence on that page should say 16 cores instead of 17. @Hilbert Hagedoorn : Would you please correct that? Thanks a lot. 🙂

CPC_RedDawn:

I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks.

I was a bit stunned when Robert Hallock showed an i9 vs Ryzen 9 3900X playing Division 2 in 1440p, while streaming to YouTube with OBS using the slow preset. i9 did 1.6 FPS while Ryzen 9 did almost 60 FPS. Anyone interested can see it here ... : [youtube=yxPBXNuX6Xs] (Starts with normal gameplay then starts streaming)

Exclusive! The Cause of Chernobyl melt down! https://i.postimg.cc/mrcGsDvD/MT2-CDQZRBJC2-NLDO563-KULAQUY.jpg

Webhiker:

I was a bit stunned when Robert Hallock showed an i9 vs Ryzen 9 3900X playing Division 2 in 1440p, while streaming to YouTube with OBS using the slow preset. i9 did 1.6 FPS while Ryzen 9 did almost 60 FPS. Anyone interested can see it here ... : [youtube=yxPBXNuX6Xs] (Starts with normal gameplay then starts streaming)

It was rather unfair. I have fine tuned streaming profile for low 6Mbps upload (Twitch limit for regular users). It is actually "Placebo" with good dozen of parameters and 48fps on 1080p. (I game at 96fps when I stream as RX-580 can't really do much more and keep fps stable.) I am sure that 9900K would do 60fps steadily with those settings. AMD simply used some default preset which is not fine tuned to get best IQ per bandwidth while optimally using CPU. It is easy to choke even that 16C/32T CPU just by doubling search radius for motion + increase number of frames which can be referenced (forwards/backwards).

Fox2232:

It was rather unfair. I have fine tuned streaming profile for low 6Mbps upload (Twitch limit for regular users). It is actually "Placebo" with good dozen of parameters and 48fps on 1080p. (I game at 96fps when I stream as RX-580 can't really do much more and keep fps stable.) I am sure that 9900K would do 60fps steadily with those settings. AMD simply used some default preset which is not fine tuned to get best IQ per bandwidth while optimally using CPU. It is easy to choke even that 16C/32T CPU just by doubling search radius for motion + increase number of frames which can be referenced (forwards/backwards).

I believe the point was to prove what is possible with a 12 core CPU that can also be used fore gaming. Not to choke a CPU on purpose, all though it did prove the point.

CPC_RedDawn:

I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks.

12 core for me as well, all though the 3700X / 3800X looks tempting as well. I finally got 3533 MHz ram stable (3600 MHz here I come) on my 2700X and now it's almost time to replace it. I'm also interested to see how they overclock, especially the 3600X.

Well, I'm not impressed... Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either! P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.

I'm going to scrape together the money for the 3950X. So far I've been lucky to ride the edge of good CPUs and I see no reason to back off this time either Spoiler: "Pre-Wintel"

MOS 8502 -> MC68000 -> MC68020 -> MC68060 ->

A64 1800+ -> A64 X2 3800+ -> C2D E6600 -> i7 2600K -> r9 3950X? Seems good to me. 🙂

barbacot:

Well, I'm not impressed... Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either! P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.

intel ipc reducing every windows patch. 😕

barbacot:

Well, I'm not impressed... Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either! P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.

Don't forget that : Some people do have a ryzen gen1 motherboard ( no need to purchase a new one). The gaming performance will be on par with intel and the applicative will be better.(some people do use their PC for work also.) For these peaple this is a no brainer choice. Cheaper AND better. For the other i would say: why not using this occasion to send a message to Intel : You have to work.Conureence is a good thing.

I'm a bit surprised the cIOD has so many functions. Considering the whole modular design, I'd have expected some of the "less important" features like the outbound PCIe lanes or USB controllers would've been external chips. But, since it's manufactured at a higher node and probably is under much less stress than the CCXs, I'm sure there's less strict tolerances for defects, and in turn, cheaper to produce them. The AVX improvements will be a major help for AMD in benchmarks. I'd say that was their greatest weakness against Intel.

typhon6657:

Just picked up a new i9 9900k for $380 cash LOL!!! See you guys when Ryzen gen 3 comes out. Unless Intel responds sooner. I sold my 8086k 5.2ghz de lidded for over $400. Win for me! Super happy Ryzen making people sell i9's cheap LOL!!!

Uh... had it not occurred to you people are ditching their i9s because they intend to upgrade to Ryzen? Sure, there's nothing especially bad about a 9900K, especially when you got more profit in the end, but it's a bit amusing that you seem oblivious as to why it was cheaper in the first place.

barbacot:

Well, I'm not impressed... Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either! P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.

If this didn't impress then I don't know what will. We now have a 12-core CPU that goes toe toe with Intel's best 9900K for the same price which is like getting 4 free cores vs Intel. I do feel you on the highest end 8-core as I would have liked a higher binned skew with higher clocks but maybe they are saving that for later this fall once they have more production. The 3700x is going to be a heck of a deal especially when overclocked as it will likely be close to 9900k performance for $329.

The 3950X would be cool AF to own but it's also expensive compared to 3900X which feels like the one which is financially more sound.

JamesSneed:

The 3700x is going to be a heck of a deal especially when overclocked as it will likely be close to 9900k performance for $329.

I can't wait to see how well it overclocks.

Not sure it will be worth upgrading my 1800x. They are pricier than the 1st gen. I bought my 1800x for 440$ CAD two years ago which is the equivalent of 330$ USD. The same amount of money will buy me a 3700x this time around. I'll wait for the reviews but i will surely wait next year for the 3800x to be less expensive to upgrade. This will also this give me time to be sure Ryzen 3000 CPUs are stable on x370. They will be good cpus for someone looking to upgrade though. I'll never get that for some people if AMD doesn't beat Intel by a 25% margin it's not impressive but Intel can keep releasing incremental upgrades on an annual basis and be impressive. I think the numbers are looking good for someone willing to upgrade an old system now. Gaming it's pretty much on par with Intel CPUs released 6 months ago at the same price point they are sold now. Yes Intel will come with something better in the upcoming months (not talking about that binned CPU but news CPUs) but you can always wait for something better and at one point you have to make a choice. Not sure Intel is ready for PCI-E 4. Will probably have to wait 2020 for Intel to be on PCI-E 4. The choice will probably be simple. If you game and work or care about having a PCI-E 4 nvme drive then AMD. If you just game and don't care for PCI-4 then Intel for better support. Personally i would not build a new computer now without PCI-E 4 as i usually keep my motherboards 6-7 years and i work more than i game so i would not want to be stuck on a PCI-E 3 nvme drive for the next 6-7 years.

MonstroMart:

Not sure it will be worth upgrading my 1800x. They are pricier than the 1st gen. I bought my 1800x for 440$ CAD two years ago which is the equivalent of 330$ USD. The same amount of money will buy me a 3700x this time around. I'll wait for the reviews but i will surely wait next year for the 3800x to be less expensive to upgrade. This will also this give me time to be sure Ryzen 3000 CPUs are stable on x370.

I think you would get a pretty good jump in single core performance going from an 1800x to a 3700x, some 20% at the very least. But of course that depends entirely on what you want out of your pc. I'll personally get that 3700x and not upgrade for the next 5 years, at least.

@CPC_RedDawn quantity doesnt equal quality. i prefer 10/12 phases done properly, rather than some could-have-done-better-job 14.. havent had anything but asus/asrock in the past 8y, especially since msi/gigabyte usually offer less (model/features) in the same price range, dont even own a ryzen yet, so things might have changed ..

Ricardo:

I think you would get a pretty good jump in single core performance going from an 1800x to a 3700x, some 20% at the very least. But of course that depends entirely on what you want out of your pc. I'll personally get that 3700x and not upgrade for the next 5 years, at least.

I don't care all that much about single core performance for now. My 1800x is not really a bottleneck for my 1070 at 2k and apparently i'll have to wait next year for a worthwhile upgrade to my 1070. I game maybe 3-6 hours a week and my backlog is so big i play mostly 3-4 years old game unless a game like Cyberpunk just got released. I do a lot of freelance work so i work a lot more with my PC. I work many hours a day with it and i use VMs a lot and do lot of cpu intensive tasks (lot of multitasking too). Most of the software i use are well optimized for multi-threads. I'll likely wait next year and grab a 3800x on sale when nVidia or AMD will finally decide to release something worthwhile upgrading to from a 1070 that is not costing me ~1 grand CAD. Anyway my computer is 2 years old and usually i don't upgrade unless it's 3 years old. Still very interested to read the reviews cause i'll buy one of these just not this year.

It's more than I expected, I'll just analyse the reviews and decide which one to buy. 😀