Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   General Hardware (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   BIOSTAR leaks AMD Ryzen 9 3900 CPU, featuring 12 cores, 24 threads and 4.3Ghz Boost (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34050027)

acroig Sep 29, 2019 11:46 AM

BIOSTAR leaks AMD Ryzen 9 3900 CPU, featuring 12 cores, 24 threads and 4.3Ghz Boost
 
"Were basically looking at a slightly slower model of the 3900X. Since AMD had trouble hitting 3900Xs advertised 4.7Ghz, were pretty sure that the 3900 will be the best alternative option. That is of course if its price is noticeably lower than the one for the 3900X."

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/biost...z-turbo-boost/

Nagorak Sep 29, 2019 08:47 PM

Yeah, honestly it's not worth paying up for the higher boost. 4.3 GHz vs 4.7 GHz looks like a big difference. But the reality is once you're running a multithreaded task it drops down to around the same speed anyway. So, when playing a game it's going to be more like 4.3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz (or maybe 4.1 GHz at worst). The lower binned parts don't have the high single core boost, but their multicore frequency doesn't drop down as far proportionally.

To be completely honest, if you're running tasks that rely heavily on the absolute max single core performance then you should be buying Intel anyway. If single core performance is literally all you need then even a 9600K would get you there, just clock it up to 5.3 GHz.

I don't know what this is going to be priced at though. I guess probably $450? Otherwise it's getting close to the 3800X. More importantly, maybe it will actually be readily available whereas the 3900X would not be. This also doesn't bode well for the 3950X though.

pax Sep 29, 2019 10:01 PM

Its like the 3700 vs 3800... just oc it a bit more.

Id love a 3950 non x.

Napoleonic Sep 30, 2019 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagorak (Post 1338154502)
Yeah, honestly it's not worth paying up for the higher boost. 4.3 GHz vs 4.7 GHz looks like a big difference. But the reality is once you're running a multithreaded task it drops down to around the same speed anyway. So, when playing a game it's going to be more like 4.3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz (or maybe 4.1 GHz at worst). The lower binned parts don't have the high single core boost, but their multicore frequency doesn't drop down as far proportionally.

To be completely honest, if you're running tasks that rely heavily on the absolute max single core performance then you should be buying Intel anyway. If single core performance is literally all you need then even a 9600K would get you there, just clock it up to 5.3 GHz.

I don't know what this is going to be priced at though. I guess probably $450? Otherwise it's getting close to the 3800X. More importantly, maybe it will actually be readily available whereas the 3900X would not be. This also doesn't bode well for the 3950X though.

Look at the base clocks, 3.8 GHz on the X version vs a turtling slow speed of 3.1 GHz on the non x version... The non x version may have trouble hitting 3.8-4 GHz on all core load or even relatively medium threaded games, this 3900 non x may end up being slower than 3600x/3700x in gaming.

andino Oct 1, 2019 12:53 AM

Didn't know that the 3900x was not hitting the advertised speeds. Looked it up. Up 5.6 percent of 3900x's aren't hitting the advertised speeds.

What the hell happened?

And is this partly to blame for AMD constantly delaying the 3950x?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright 1998-2011 Rage3D.com