Question Ryzen 3700/3900 + old CPU or Ryzen 3950?

Storx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
150
0
18,690
2
I am looking to upgrade my system in the very near future. I have been running the same CPU/Motherboard setup for roughly 8 years now I believe, but I have been very bottlenecked since upgrading GPUs and Monitors recently. My system currently is running i5 3570k with 16GB Ram heavily overclocked with EVGA 1080ti's in SLI on custom watercooling with 4k 60hz gaming monitor.

My rig is mainly used personally for gaming with the occasional video editing, but lately, I have been dabbling in streaming on twitch while I game and my system has been heavily holding me back. I upgraded to a pair of 1080ti's during the crypto mining crash, picking up used 1080tis for $250ea with worn out fans with the expectations to put them on water, so i have been running them in SLI and i quickly found that most games push the CPU to the mid to high 90 percentages and im only seeing 50-60% usage out of the GPUs during gaming, but i have been just living with it while waiting for Zen 2 to come out. Currently i game on the desktop pc, but been using my laptop to run the OBS Studio for processing the stream, since trying to run both on the desktop at the same time was heavily overloading it, requiring me to drop setting drastically previously.


My question is this...
Which route do you think is better for me...

(Ryzen 3700/3900) and keep my old 3750k desktop to run as the OBS streaming PC off the onboard display GPU

or

Should i just start over and shoot to the Ryzen 3950 and do it all on the new system? I would be using the 1080ti's in the new setup, so just new CPU/Motherboard/Ram
 

Storx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
150
0
18,690
2
Wait till the 7th of July for official reviews before you make a decision.
I actually was thinking of waiting for black friday to catch deals of all of them maybe.. just unsure if I should go big or mid-range to cover my basis... I don't plan on going with different GPU's, because my monitors are only rated for 4k @60hz and with the pair in SLI I am nearly hitting 60fps+ in all the games I play with all the bottlenecking I'm having now on the old 3570k
 

Storx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
150
0
18,690
2
The more i think about it, with the Ryzen 3700 benchmarks beating out the 9900k, leaning heavily at going the 3700 for my new gaming rig and just slide over the 3570k rig over and use it as my new streaming capture device in maybe a smaller case and use Synergy to control both PC's

Idea 1:

Monitor 1: 4k 60hz
Gaming Rig: Ryzen 3700 w/B450 or x470 board, NVME SSD, 2x 1080ti's SLI, 16gb Ram 3200mhz

Monitor 2: 4k 60hz
Old Rig: intel 3570k, 1 TB old sata SSD, 16gb, use onboard GPU for display on 2nd monitor.
 

CosmicDance

Proper
Jun 11, 2019
157
38
120
2
Your GFX cards are very competent for modern games, even with the likes of Battlefield V at 1440p or 4K.
I upgraded my system a month ago to a Ryzen 2700X and RTX 2070 and very happy with the CPU and GPU performance at 1080p, 1440 and 4K using a 60 HZ monitor.
In Battlefield V at 4K with High graphic settings the CPU is around 50-60% utilised.
GPU around 85-95%.
This game is poorly optimised though to say the least.

If I was ready to upgrade now like you are then I would wait a couple of weeks to see how these new 3rd gen Ryzens are performing in gaming.
They will obviously be a lot faster than the 2nd gen and more future proof.
The 2nd gen are excellent but for raw processing power by single core benchmarks in gaming at 1080p their Intel rivals beat them by quite a way.
Price wise the Ryzens are far cheaper.
At 1440p and 4K it is the GPU that takes the workload especially in games like Battlefield 1 or 5.

Battlefield 1 and 5 also utilise 6-8 cores very well so the Ryzen 2700X with 8 cores is very competent for the future too.

Andy
 

Storx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
150
0
18,690
2
I'd say go for the 3950, you'll get four times the cores. and eight times the threads with a new CPU, and IPC improvements will be substantial.
The only part that concerns me about the 3950 is will i honestly be able to use it, because i did a search on youtube and found people with the 16core intel 7960X complaining that many games would only use 4-8 of the cores at any given point, with a few only using 10 cores.. not a single game fully used all 16 cores in one review I watched.

Your GFX cards are very competent for modern games, even with the likes of Battlefield V at 1440p or 4K.
I upgraded my system a month ago to a Ryzen 2700X and RTX 2070 and very happy with the CPU and GPU performance at 1080p, 1440 and 4K using a 60 HZ monitor.
In Battlefield V at 4K with High graphic settings the CPU is around 50-60% utilised.
GPU around 85-95%.
This game is poorly optimised though to say the least.

If I was ready to upgrade now like you are then I would wait a couple of weeks to see how these new 3rd gen Ryzens are performing in gaming.
They will obviously be a lot faster than the 2nd gen and more future proof.
The 2nd gen are excellent but for raw processing power by single core benchmarks in gaming at 1080p their Intel rivals beat them by quite a way.
Price wise the Ryzens are far cheaper.
At 1440p and 4K it is the GPU that takes the workload especially in games like Battlefield 1 or 5.

Battlefield 1 and 5 also utilise 6-8 cores very well so the Ryzen 2700X with 8 cores is very competent for the future too.

Andy

That is why im kinda leaning towards the 3700, because im gonna guess it will be the best gaming CPU come after reviews start popping up with the lack of support for true multithread optimization beyond 4-8 cores..... for example one youtube video the guy was confused why he was getting the same fps as a 9700k in Far Cry Primal even tho it showed processing usage on all 16 cores.. so he disabled cores and found he would get the same exact FPS in the game between 9 cores and 16 cores... literally disabling half the CPU showed no reduction in gaming performance, but setting the cpu to only 8 active cores netted him about 5% increase in FPS... so he stated the game was trying to use all 16 cores but was not fully understanding how to use all the cores causing the data to be reprocessed on other cores, literally using cpu power for nothing..
 

xravenxdota

Prominent
Aug 26, 2017
245
24
715
9
I actually was thinking of waiting for black friday to catch deals of all of them maybe.. just unsure if I should go big or mid-range to cover my basis... I don't plan on going with different GPU's, because my monitors are only rated for 4k @60hz and with the pair in SLI I am nearly hitting 60fps+ in all the games I play with all the bottlenecking I'm having now on the old 3570k
Unfortunately here in south africa black friday sucks.We only get deals on selected product's which are usually crap. Bro i feel ya.I upgraded from an fx 4170 to a ryzen 5 2600 and only reason i upgraded was i help my friend a lot in fixing his pc and he told me i can spec a pc.I did go entry level to not rip the bank but i am happy as i don't play much games highest game i ran was nfs payback and forza horizon 3 others are single core crap games
 

hftvhftv

Honorable
Herald
May 26, 2014
817
108
11,240
29
The only part that concerns me about the 3950 is will i honestly be able to use it, because i did a search on youtube and found people with the 16core intel 7960X complaining that many games would only use 4-8 of the cores at any given point, with a few only using 10 cores.. not a single game fully used all 16 cores in one review I watched.




That is why im kinda leaning towards the 3700, because im gonna guess it will be the best gaming CPU come after reviews start popping up with the lack of support for true multithread optimization beyond 4-8 cores..... for example one youtube video the guy was confused why he was getting the same fps as a 9700k in Far Cry Primal even tho it showed processing usage on all 16 cores.. so he disabled cores and found he would get the same exact FPS in the game between 9 cores and 16 cores... literally disabling half the CPU showed no reduction in gaming performance, but setting the cpu to only 8 active cores netted him about 5% increase in FPS... so he stated the game was trying to use all 16 cores but was not fully understanding how to use all the cores causing the data to be reprocessed on other cores, literally using cpu power for nothing..
If you're gaming, then no, you probably won't use all 32 threads of the 3950X today, but, if you keep your PC as long as your kept your i5 CPU again, games could take advantage of that in the future. My FX 8350 at the time of release wasn't nearly as good as Intel CPUs in gaming since back then games still maybe only used 2 cores or at most 4, but now, I can play Apex Legends with two GTX 770s in SLI and still be held back by my GPUs, because games have started to use more cores.
 

Storx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
150
0
18,690
2
Where have you seen Ryzen 3700 benchmarks?
Ya, take a look at videos on youtube also, some are showing the 3600 is nearly equal to the 9900k and the 3700 surpassing it slightly on stock clocks, which makes me think an overclocked unit would leave it in the dust.

If you're gaming, then no, you probably won't use all 32 threads of the 3950X today, but, if you keep your PC as long as your kept your i5 CPU again, games could take advantage of that in the future. My FX 8350 at the time of release wasn't nearly as good as Intel CPUs in gaming since back then games still maybe only used 2 cores or at most 4, but now, I can play Apex Legends with two GTX 770s in SLI and still be held back by my GPUs, because games have started to use more cores.
Ya i understand what you are saying and the other benefit is they are binned the highest among all chiplets apparently, but the vast majority of games are only truly optimized for 4 cores even in 2019. Search on youtube per core gaming reviews

A good example was one Testing Games did, 9900k CPU 4.7Ghz All Core w/ GTX1080ti on 1440p resolution....

Battlefield 5, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 140
6 Cores: Average FPS 162
8 Cores: Average FPS 161

Project Cars, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 146
6 Cores: Average FPS 147
8 Cores: Average FPS 148

Assassin's Creed, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 70
6 Cores: Average FPS 86
8 Cores: Average FPS 87

Kingdom Come Deliverance, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 73
6 Cores: Average FPS 74
8 Cores: Average FPS 74

Far Cry 5, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 106
6 Cores: Average FPS 106
8 Cores: Average FPS 106

Witcher 3, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 113
6 Cores: Average FPS 112
8 Cores: Average FPS 111

Fallout 4, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 113
6 Cores: Average FPS 150
8 Cores: Average FPS 135

Metro Exodus, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 145
6 Cores: Average FPS 148
8 Cores: Average FPS 140

Hitman 2, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 100
6 Cores: Average FPS 102
8 Cores: Average FPS 101

Far Cry New Dawn, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 120
6 Cores: Average FPS 120
8 Cores: Average FPS 120

Grand Therft Auto V, 1440p, played for 10 minutes
4 Cores: Average FPS 106
6 Cores: Average FPS 111
8 Cores: Average FPS 108

So based on current gaming standards, yes games can technically "USE" all the cores, but most of the benefit and optimization of modern games is still stuck on 4 physical cores with the highest frequency/IPC it seems still.... atleast in 1440p gaming

also, the steam survey is still showing the dominant CPU still used on games is 4 cores still, so most developers are only optimizing games truly to 4 maybe 6 cores at this point in time, because all that extra work for 6+ core optimization is loss revenue to them...

 

Storx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
150
0
18,690
2
Purely the ONLY reason i am wanting to upgrade my system is because nearly every game I play, my system pegs to 95-99% on the CPU and creates issues in the game when it hits 99%, so occasionally I will have to turn down settings just slightly to top things out in the mid 90s and my GPUs are not getting fully utilized.
 

hftvhftv

Honorable
Herald
May 26, 2014
817
108
11,240
29
Purely the ONLY reason i am wanting to upgrade my system is because nearly every game I play, my system pegs to 95-99% on the CPU and creates issues in the game when it hits 99%, so occasionally I will have to turn down settings just slightly to top things out in the mid 90s and my GPUs are not getting fully utilized.
Well, of course in your new system even a Ryzen 5 3600 would be enough to fully utilize your graphics cards, but your interest in the Ryzen 9 CPUs leads me to believe you have a larger budget. You also have to remember that your computer does other things while gaming, if you like to listen to music in the background or leave websites open that extra power is going to allow you to do more multitasking.
 
So based on current gaming standards, yes games can technically "USE" all the cores, but most of the benefit and optimization of modern games is still stuck on 4 physical cores with the highest frequency/IPC it seems still.... atleast in 1440p gaming
Keep in mind that average FPS doesn't always capture the whole story. There is also FPS minimums (sometimes shown as 1% or 0.1% FPS) and FPS variance to consider. In some cases having extra cores/threads can provide a less variable FPS, which can feel smoother even if the average is lower.

But I agree that I don't see games taking significant advantage of more than 6C/12T for the next while. Maybe games will start being optimized for 8C/16T more often once the next gen consoles come out, in which case I guess you could maybe benefit from having a CPU with more cores than that if you want to stream or run stuff in the background.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS