View Single Post
Old Sep 30, 2019, 01:15 AM   #4
Radeon Arctic Islands
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,611
Napoleonic once held a door open for a complete strangerNapoleonic once held a door open for a complete strangerNapoleonic once held a door open for a complete stranger


Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
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.
I guess it's the trend nowdays with games; either you are a hardcore PC GAME, or you live long enough to see yourself become a console port
Napoleonic is offline   Reply With Quote