News AMD Announces 16-Core 32-Thread Ryzen 9 3950X for $749, 4.7 GHz boost, Launches in September

[Redneck5439]

I compare CPU's on the value they give me at a certain price. If Intel'$ CPU cost $500.00 then I will compare it to AMD's closest priced CPU. If AMD can give me 4 extra cores then I'm still fine making that comparison because the prices are the same. I also look at the cost of the Motherboard, RAM, CPU Cooler and what ever else I need to make a complete system for a given CPU.

So AMD's Ryzen 3900X and the Intel 9900K to me are what I would compare. The proper Intel motherboard's are pricey for the Intel 9900K and it's looking like I would need one of the better X570 or possibly the rumored X590 motherboard to safely run and possibly overclock the 3900X so in this can lets just assume both Intel and AMD motherboards are going to be about the same price.

AMD ships with a respectable CPU Cooler although I doubt it will be of much use for overclocking or sustained work loads. Intel requires a ultra high end CPU Cooler like a Noctua NH-14 or better a high end AIO CPU Cooler or better to overclock. So in this case I am going to give the win to AMD because at least initially I can hold off on buying a CPU Cooler and can upgrade later.

AMD looses in RAM price. AMD Ryzen CPU's simply love lower timing, high speed memory so here we are looking at a minimum of DDR4-3200 CAS 15 or better from a reputable brand where the Intel 9900k can get away with lesser RAM as it is less dependent on memory speed and timings.

INTEL 9900K
============
CPU = ~$500
CPU Cooler = $90 (Noctua - NH-D14 64.95 CFM CPU Cooler) * May need to upgrade if overclocking is desired.
Motherboard = $250 (ASRock - Z390 Taichi Ultimate ATX LGA1151 Motherboard) ($120-$500+)
DDR4 2666 C15 = $170 (Corsair - Dominator Platinum 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-2666 Memory)
===============================================================================================================
TOTAL = $1010 USD

AMD 3900X
============
CPU = ~$500
CPU Cooler = Included * May need to upgrade for best performance and if overclocking is desired.
Motherboard = $190-$500+, I'm going to assume a solid motherboard will start around $250 like the ASRock Z390 Taichi Ultimate listed above.
DDR4 3200 C14 = $250 (G.Skill - Trident Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory)
===============================================================================================================
TOTAL = $1000 USD

My point exactly, a system build with a 9900K and a R9 3900X are probably going to be about the same cost, and are therefore in direct competition. We can't say for sure yet as we really don't know the pricing of the X570 motherboards, and we don't know if the R9 3900X can get away with smooth operation and overclocking on older X470 boards or if they will require the highest end X570 or possibly even a X590 (if true) motherboard.

In a nutshell the Ryzen 3000 series processors are going to mainly be judged on how much IPC, single core execution, latency, and gaming performance AMD was able to achieve with 7nm. If the IPC gains now put the 3000 series on equal single core/ gaming performance as the 9900K @ 5Ghz, which is possible, then AMD has a big win coming. A processor like the 3900X will be able to game on equal footing and totally dominate in workstation based tasks having an additional 4 cores and 8 threads. Time will tell, but I think the 3900X will come very close to the gaming performance of the 9900K, and even if the 9900K can "edge it out" @ 5Ghz I would give the overall win to the 3900X because of the extra muscle for streaming, and content creation.

 

[cryoburner]

$50 is not a lot of money for a binned 3600 CPU. I for one would opt for the 3600X ;-)

That is assuming there is any significant binning going on. At least in the case of existing Ryzen processors, they all generally overclock to a pretty similar level. The X parts might be more likely to get an extra 100 MHz or so, but that only amounts to about a 2% difference in CPU performance, which might not be worth spending that extra $50 for. It a lot like spending an extra $50 for slightly faster RAM. Unless you are not building on a budget, you need to draw the line somewhere, and if that's not the case, a higher core-count processor might be worth considering.

Of course, it's very possible that more significant binning could potentially occur on this new process node, and its yet to be seen how overclocking will compare. That's probably the main information to wait for before deciding on which option to get for overclocking. Of course, some might prefer getting better boost clocks out of the box, without overclocking, along with a better stock cooler, in which case the 3600X could make more sense.

I compare CPU's on the value they give me at a certain price. If Intel'$ CPU cost $500.00 then I will compare it to AMD's closest priced CPU. If AMD can give me 4 extra cores then I'm still fine making that comparison because the prices are the same. I also look at the cost of the Motherboard, RAM, CPU Cooler and what ever else I need to make a complete system for a given CPU.

Comparing processors based on their price point alone probably doesn't make much sense for most though. The vast majority of those building a higher-end system probably don't have much use for 12-cores with 24-threads at this time, and it seems questionable whether many will for a number of years. For things like gaming, and most desktop software, the benefits of going with more than 8-cores with 16-threads seem a bit questionable right now. If AMD manages to have processors that offer similar performance to a 9900K with the same number of cores and threads for around $100-$150 less, that certainly seems relevant, and it makes sense to also compare it to those.

While you mentioned looking at the total cost of a system, that also includes the cost of a graphics card and other components not directly tied to the CPU. And if one processor offers very similar performance while costing $100 less, that's more money that can be put toward that other hardware. For something like a gaming system, a higher-end graphics card could easily make for a much larger difference in performance than the relatively small performance differences between these processors.

 

[Redneck5439]

That is assuming there is any significant binning going on. At least in the case of existing Ryzen processors, they all generally overclock to a pretty similar level. The X parts might be more likely to get an extra 100 MHz or so, but that only amounts to about a 2% difference in CPU performance, which might not be worth spending that extra $50 for. It a lot like spending an extra $50 for slightly faster RAM. Unless you are not building on a budget, you need to draw the line somewhere, and if that's not the case, a higher core-count processor might be worth considering.

Of course, it's very possible that more significant binning could potentially occur on this new process node, and its yet to be seen how overclocking will compare. That's probably the main information to wait for before deciding on which option to get for overclocking. Of course, some might prefer getting better boost clocks out of the box, without overclocking, along with a better stock cooler, in which case the 3600X could make more sense.


Comparing processors based on their price point alone probably doesn't make much sense for most though. The vast majority of those building a higher-end system probably don't have much use for 12-cores with 24-threads at this time, and it seems questionable whether many will for a number of years. For things like gaming, and most desktop software, the benefits of going with more than 8-cores with 16-threads seem a bit questionable right now. If AMD manages to have processors that offer similar performance to a 9900K with the same number of cores and threads for around $100-$150 less, that certainly seems relevant, and it makes sense to also compare it to those.

While you mentioned looking at the total cost of a system, that also includes the cost of a graphics card and other components not directly tied to the CPU. And if one processor offers very similar performance while costing $100 less, that's more money that can be put toward that other hardware. For something like a gaming system, a higher-end graphics card could easily make for a much larger difference in performance than the relatively small performance differences between these processors.

You are of course assuming that the "vast majority" are only building a computer for gaming alone, and in that case no i9 9900K processors should have ever sold. For gaming alone your not going to need more than 6 cores and 12 threads which in the last generation would have meant that the i7 8700K should have been the only processor anyone was interested in. The 8700K can overclock to 5Ghz and for pure gaming cost/ performance is way better than the the i9 9900K. Moreover most people only interested in gaming alone are going to opt for a gaming console over a gaming computer. I think that the majority of people looking at a i9 9900K are looking for gaming and productivity muscle. If the R9 3900X and R9 3950X can achieve gaming parity with the i9 9900K (or a come very close to it) yet totally dominate it in streaming, rendering, editing, conversion ect... then there are a lot of users out there who are going to opt for the new high core count Ryzen processors.

Of course one of the most overlooked processors of the new Ryzen lineup may end up being the R7 3800X. If its higher cost (vs the 3700X) is all about binning and higher overclocking potential then the 3800X may be able to match the 9900K in gaming performance and edge it in productivity. If this holds true a lot of people will gravitate to the 3800X as it is $100 less than the 9900K. Only time will tell, but I expect the 3800X, 3900X, and 3950X to have gaming performance very close to the i9 9900K and if that is the case then the "best processor" is really going to be hard to judge. Gaming only the 9900K or 9900KS may still hold a very slight advantage but be more expensive than the 3800X, and not have nearly the same productivity performance of the 3900X and 3950X. In the case of the 3800X and 3900X deciding between them and i9 9900K may be a pretty tough choice.

 

[juanme555]

The biggest issue with more cores is software adoption. Everyone clamored that consoles using 8 core AMD CPUs would force game developers to utilize more cores. 6 years later and 8 cores doesn't mean squat in gaming, frequency still does as does IPC. So this will, per Lisa, be near Intel in IPC which means frequency will still win out the end game and in the mainstream market Intels 9th gen still holds that advantage pretty well from a stock perspective and even overclocking perspective.

While I would say it would be a good workstation CPU I feel that the dual channel memory will be the biggest bottleneck for it as workstation applications not only like multiple cores it also likes a lot of fast memory. Dual channel will not allow this CPU to really stretch its legs. Maybe when we move to DDR5, which is rumored to double bandwidth at the same speed, it would be a good fit.

With a new process and enhanced uArch we can hope that it will OC higher than Zen/Zen+. I think the biggest hold back was the 14nm process for Zen/Zen+, it was originally developed for low power products, while TSMCs 7nm should handle power better so maybe we will see good OCing out of it.

I will wait till TH and others get their hands on this to make full judgements. My inital view is it will push Intel in some areas but not enough to make them finally start a good price war.

Well the thing about that is that the consoles are based on the joke of a meme that the FX Apu's were , they werent real octa cores because the FX arc used modules , which were basically physical cores cut in 2 pieces and called it double of whatever they actually were , so the apus in the 8th gen consoles , which are basically a strongly nerfed FX8120 , weren't real octa cores , they were quad cores and very shitty ones at that.
Now we will have real 8 cores with 16 threads , high efficiency and an i9 9900k level of single threaded performance , greater multi-threaded , similar ipc's , etc etc etc.
It will literally be like going from a renault 12 to a Nissan GT-R R35.
I'll tell you man , anyone who thinks they will be playing AAA games decently in 2022 with a quad core is being delusional.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Well Xbox and PS4 apus are jaguar based just like the little known AM1 APUs.

The FX 8xxx cpus has 8 real cores, its just that 2 cores shared 1 floating point unit, hurting performance drastically.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Well the thing about that is that the consoles are based on the joke of a meme that the FX Apu's were , they werent real octa cores because the FX arc used modules , which were basically physical cores cut in 2 pieces and called it double of whatever they actually were , so the apus in the 8th gen consoles , which are basically a strongly nerfed FX8120 , weren't real octa cores , they were quad cores and very shitty ones at that.
Now we will have real 8 cores with 16 threads , high efficiency and an i9 9900k level of single threaded performance , greater multi-threaded , similar ipc's , etc etc etc.
It will literally be like going from a renault 12 to a Nissan GT-R R35.
I'll tell you man , anyone who thinks they will be playing AAA games decently in 2022 with a quad core is being delusional.

That's not correct. The consoles use custom Jaguar APUs and the Jaguar cores each had their own FP unit. Steamroller shared a FP unit between two cores.

And while I agree in a few years a quad core will basically become the dual core I very much doubt we will require 16 cores. That's my point. It will slowly move up the core ladder, not make a massive leap. Especially considering that beyond 4 cores is still a very small percentage of gamers:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

The majority is still dual and quad core users. Unless you are on a Mac. Which is still stuck at dual core for the majority.

And until I see third party reviews Zen 2 is all hype, and AMD is doing a damn good job at it. People are assuming its performance without any unbiased reviews and that's what they want as more people will buy it before good reviews can be done.

Well Xbox and PS4 apus are jaguar based just like the little known AM1 APUs.

The FX 8xxx cpus has 8 real cores, its just that 2 cores shared 1 floating point unit, hurting performance drastically.

That might change depending on the outcome of the lawsuit AMD is facing. However a CPU core gets defined there may or may not change that FX was a "true 8 core".

 

[juanme555]

That's not correct. The consoles use custom Jaguar APUs and the Jaguar cores each had their own FP unit. Steamroller shared a FP unit between two cores.

And while I agree in a few years a quad core will basically become the dual core I very much doubt we will require 16 cores. That's my point. It will slowly move up the core ladder, not make a massive leap. Especially considering that beyond 4 cores is still a very small percentage of gamers:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

The majority is still dual and quad core users. Unless you are on a Mac. Which is still stuck at dual core for the majority.

And until I see third party reviews Zen 2 is all hype, and AMD is doing a damn good job at it. People are assuming its performance without any unbiased reviews and that's what they want as more people will buy it before good reviews can be done.



That might change depending on the outcome of the lawsuit AMD is facing. However a CPU core gets defined there may or may not change that FX was a "true 8 core".

I didn't say you will need 16 cores , but the performance will escalate so much better at that point in time , so if you've got the money , go for it.
I think you can probably get away with the Ryzen 3600 untill 2021 , but the only safe bet right now is probably the 3700x with an RTX 2080Ti , i don't think you'll have to compromise much to get 60fps in 1080p in 4 years if you have that hardware.

 

[cryoburner]

Now we will have real 8 cores with 16 threads , high efficiency and an i9 9900k level of single threaded performance , greater multi-threaded , similar ipc's , etc etc etc.

Keep in mind, those cores will almost certainly be clocked lower in the consoles than what we see in desktop processors, in part due to them being integrated into an APU with a large number of graphics cores. One leak of an engineering sample for one of those console APUs listed it as having a 1.6GHz base and 3.2GHz boost clock, though those numbers could certainly be higher in the final hardware that makes its way into consoles next year. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if performance were only on par with or slightly below that of a first or second generation Ryzen processor. That's still a huge boost over what the current consoles are using, but probably not enough to make recent mid-range desktop processors obsolete any time soon.

Plus, consoles will often dedicate one or more cores to background tasks. So, for example, one core might be dedicated to the UI, or to downloading content in the background, or to streaming video, or other things. Both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 initially dedicated two of their cores to such tasks, making only six cores available to developers, though Microsoft later opened up a seventh core when Kinect voice features were not being utilized. So, there's a reasonable chance that the processors in these upcoming consoles may only offer performance roughly on par with something like a 6-core Ryzen 2600 at stock clocks. It's possible that optimization and things like faster access to memory could get a bit more performance out of the console hardware, but my guess would be that something like a Ryzen 3600 will hold up quite well on the desktop side for many years to come, assuming one isn't heavily multitasking while gaming. Developers are not going to ignore the majority of the PC market by optimizing their games to only run well on brand new high core-count processors.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Although the console chips may not benefit from the higher clocks of 2rd gen chips, they will benefit from the improved efficiency and other benefits from the new zen 2 architecture, assuming the apus are even loosely close to the new 3rd gen ryzen skews.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

I compare CPU's on the value they give me at a certain price. If Intel'$ CPU cost $500.00 then I will compare it to AMD's closest priced CPU. If AMD can give me 4 extra cores then I'm still fine making that comparison because the prices are the same. I also look at the cost of the Motherboard, RAM, CPU Cooler and what ever else I need to make a complete system for a given CPU.

So AMD's Ryzen 3900X and the Intel 9900K to me are what I would compare. The proper Intel motherboard's are pricey for the Intel 9900K and it's looking like I would need one of the better X570 or possibly the rumored X590 motherboard to safely run and possibly overclock the 3900X so in this can lets just assume both Intel and AMD motherboards are going to be about the same price.

AMD ships with a respectable CPU Cooler although I doubt it will be of much use for overclocking or sustained work loads. Intel requires a ultra high end CPU Cooler like a Noctua NH-14 or better a high end AIO CPU Cooler or better to overclock. So in this case I am going to give the win to AMD because at least initially I can hold off on buying a CPU Cooler and can upgrade later.

AMD looses in RAM price. AMD Ryzen CPU's simply love lower timing, high speed memory so here we are looking at a minimum of DDR4-3200 CAS 15 or better from a reputable brand where the Intel 9900k can get away with lesser RAM as it is less dependent on memory speed and timings.

INTEL 9900K
============
CPU = ~$500
CPU Cooler = $90 (Noctua - NH-D14 64.95 CFM CPU Cooler) * May need to upgrade if overclocking is desired.
Motherboard = $250 (ASRock - Z390 Taichi Ultimate ATX LGA1151 Motherboard) ($120-$500+)
DDR4 2666 C15 = $170 (Corsair - Dominator Platinum 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-2666 Memory)
===============================================================================================================
TOTAL = $1010 USD

AMD 3900X
============
CPU = ~$500
CPU Cooler = Included * May need to upgrade for best performance and if overclocking is desired.
Motherboard = $190-$500+, I'm going to assume a solid motherboard will start around $250 like the ASRock Z390 Taichi Ultimate listed above.
DDR4 3200 C14 = $250 (G.Skill - Trident Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory)
===============================================================================================================
TOTAL = $1000 USD

AMD wins....4 more cores, 8 more threads ;-)