Question Resist The 3950X?

[DefinitelyNotTom]

I bought the 3900x the first week it came out. STILL have not opened it to build my pc.

I already thought I went overboard because most of the time I'd just browse the web, do very little gaming, occasional 4k video editing maybe but not a lot.

Yet I can't get out of my mind that the 3950x is 25-33% faster in many tests and I keep my pcs for many years before thinking of upgrading again, so the better I get on the front end the better I feel down the road.

Some told me I could have got by with an i3, though, so I assume I should resist? lol.

One thing about it, though, I am not biased towards anything, so it does make me laugh seeing reviews where any of the tests that ODO NOT make the 3950x look much better than the 3900x, they don't just leave it at that, they start making excuses for it, which shows bias.

Also, notice the new intel has BETTER results than even the 3950x on some tests, yet people insisted intel was as far as they could go with their current tech last year and couldn't touch amd this year. Notice on the intel mobile cpus that a 1.3ghz is faster than last year's 1.8ghz, which shows they did have further they could go with their tech.

 

[CountMike]

I bought the 3900x the first week it came out. STILL have not opened it to build my pc.

I already thought I went overboard because most of the time I'd just browse the web, do very little gaming, occasional 4k video editing maybe but not a lot.

Yet I can't get out of my mind that the 3950x is 25-33% faster in many tests and I keep my pcs for many years before thinking of upgrading again, so the better I get on the front end the better I feel down the road.

Some told me I could have got by with an i3, though, so I assume I should resist? lol.

One thing about it, though, I am not biased towards anything, so it does make me laugh seeing reviews where any of the tests that ODO NOT make the 3950x look much better than the 3900x, they don't just leave it at that, they start making excuses for it, which shows bias.

Also, notice the new intel has BETTER results than even the 3950x on some tests, yet people insisted intel was as far as they could go with their current tech last year and couldn't touch amd this year. Notice on the intel mobile cpus that a 1.3ghz is faster than last year's 1.8ghz, which shows they did have further they could go with their tech.

Well, if you have some extra money, why not. 3950 is at least double the price than comparable Intel.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Well, if you have some extra money, why not. 3950 is at least double the price than comparable Intel.

only way that is true is if you mean for gaming. I care less about gaming than any other tests as I usually just game on consoles.

Comparable "overall" from intel costs $1k.

 

[CountMike]

only way that is true is if you mean for gaming. I care less about gaming than any other tests as I usually just game on consoles.

Comparable "overall" from intel costs $1k.

6 fast cores are still and will be for some time quite enough for gaming. Frequency counts much less now so that leaves only IPC and number of cores for massive multitasking. Very large number of serious applications are still single core/thread bound. Intel seems to be playing with own customers but AMD is on serious upgrade path (for now). Next couple of years it's all AMD for innovation.