Review: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X processor - 16 cores and 32 threads for the masses

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Nov 14, 2019.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,461
    Likes Received:
    5,487
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    AMD today uncovers the Ryzen 9 3950X performance benchmarks, we reviewed the processor extensively. It's the Ryzen 3000 processor with the sixteen cores, thirty-two threads cores and the fastest sing...

    Review: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X processor (16c/32t)
     
    DeskStar, Maddness, jura11 and 2 others like this.
  2. nizzen

    nizzen Master Guru

    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    159
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Fun cpu :)

    Thank you for the great job boss!
    Love from Norway
     
  3. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,414
    Likes Received:
    892
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    The new consumer desktop overall top performer is here. Thanks for the review reading now.
     
    Maddness and airbud7 like this.
  4. Andy Watson

    Andy Watson Member Guru

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    24
    GPU:
    960
    Great review. If you need all those cores it looks great,

    I'm actually more looking forward to seeing how the $50 dual core unlocked 3000g is going to do, I guess the review is out 19th, or is that when it is on sale and review embargo lifted before then? I guess you may not be able to say that even.
     

  5. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,414
    Likes Received:
    892
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Only issue with that CPU is it’s not Zen2 it’s Zen+.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  6. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,992
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Very nice results. It's amazing to see this kind of performance on a consumer platform, soundly beating the 2950X and even coming close to the 2970WX. I had doubts about this CPU before but now I can't wait to get my hands on one.

    That's what I hate the most about AMD's lineup. I mean, is it really so difficult to release an APU with the current-generation tech? A staggered release makes no sense and is downright confusing.
     
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I'm curious how the results would stand in terms of clock-per-clock performance. Zen2 has lot of optimizations, and the 3950X has higher clock speeds, but the TR models have a lot more memory channels and don't have the I/O die (which I suspect hurts latency at times).
    I don't really have that much of a problem with the staggered release, but I have a REAL big gripe with the way they classify generations. The 3000G should be called the 2000G, because it's Zen+. Same goes for all of the current mobile processors - they're all Zen+ but they're labeled as the 3000 series. It's not like Zen+ is bad and there isn't a newer generation for customers to pick from, so why change the name?
     
    386SX likes this.
  8. southamptonfc

    southamptonfc Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    56
    GPU:
    STRIX 2080 Super
    Beast!

    I wonder why it isn't quite as good in gaming when it beats or matches the 9900k in most synthetic single-threaded tests?
     
  9. Ziggymac

    Ziggymac Member Guru

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    38
    GPU:
    Asus 970 Strix SLi
    I don't really think a CPU costing $750, can be considered 'for the masses'.
     
    fantaskarsef, pharma and Kaleid like this.
  10. nizzen

    nizzen Master Guru

    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    159
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Mostly due to Higher memorylatency...
     

  11. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,414
    Likes Received:
    892
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    @nizzen is right it's latency. Hope Zen3 get this under control, but as it stands it's not like it's far behind the 9900k.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  12. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,377
    Likes Received:
    143
    GPU:
    rx480 8GB
    Nope, but on the other hand it has never been this cheap either.

    Personally I know I have no use for it.
     
  13. kakiharaFRS

    kakiharaFRS Master Guru

    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    38
    GPU:
    MSI Gaming X 1080ti
    despite what you read here and there, a lot of games still care more about clock speed than threads or cores, that's why
    I've made my own benchmarks overclocking and downclocking my 9900k (to see what I should expect switching to AMD) some games don't care much but in some you lose a good 20fps
    hey going to see how Borderlands 3 behaves since it's one of the most demanding recent games for me (with an acceptable quality/performance ratio) brb ^^
     
  14. Solfaur

    Solfaur Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,161
    Likes Received:
    695
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080Ti Ga.X
    From what I gathered it's first and foremost because Intel and the many "sandy bridge" iterations and refinements have been out for so long, and have been the standard for developers, and are therefore used to that architecture and its strong points, that it will take a while before they catch up with AMD's. The gap has shrunk with each Ryzen generation and I'm sure 2 years from now it will be even smaller or go in AMDs favor in many games. That and the fact that raw boost clocks on 9900K are simply higher (but at the same time equally hotter too).

    As a gamer primarily, I would still advice people to go for AMD this time around, even if it's not the king in gaming, it's better bang for your buck, better future-proof, a whole lot cooler and unless you game at 1080p, the difference at higher resolutions as HH pointed out, is even less significant anyway.

    Now talking about the 3950X, even though it's definitely out of my price range, I have to admit I am a bit jelly that it gets a 4.7 max single core boost over my 3900X's 4.6. But at the same time, it's is a (small) perk the top of the line CPU, well, the X570 line at least, definitely deservers. :p
     
  15. MonstroMart

    MonstroMart Master Guru

    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    190
    GPU:
    GB 5700 XT GOC 8G
    Personally if i would care about games only and would spend 500$ on a new CPU it would be the 9900k. But i would definitely avoid the current i5 9600k at all cost. I don't think under 8 threads will cut it 2-3 years from now in the most demanding new titles. The 7600k is aging badly and i think the same will eventually happen to the 9600k.
     

  16. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,414
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    Both Anandtech and GN's processor wouldn't hit 4.7 - maxed out at 4.65 -- likewise my 3900x doesn't hit 4.6, maxes out 50mhz shy as well.

    They should have just said the max for these two processors were 4.5 and 4.6.

    Looks like it performs well and the price/perf, especially in multithreaded workloads is insane.
     
  17. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,461
    Likes Received:
    5,487
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    I asked AMD exactly that again earlier this week. With no plausible answer.

    Initially, I figured, it had to be memory latency related. Then I figured, it has to be inter-core CCX latency related. Then I figured, is that single-core high-frequency really that important for gaming? And then I realized that Intel has been dominating the processor market for like forever, of course, developers have been optimizing their game engines for the processor architecture that sell the best. Then there is yet another factor you need to include, Windows 10, it was not very well optimized for how Ryzen got core priority for the faster cores. It's there now though.

    So yeah, there is no simple single reason that can point out and address as to why AMD is a tiny bit behind Intel, and pretty much in front of the rest of it all. It's a combination of factors, and some games react well or worse to that set of variables. You can tell though that it's definitely getting better. Not quite there yet, but the curve is definitely progressive good for AMD in terms of CPU limited gaming.
     
  18. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,461
    Likes Received:
    5,487
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    temp2.png
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I personally don't see this happening unless Zen chips are produced with a monolithic die, and that's just not going to happen. AMD is knowingly sacrificing some latency for the sake of increasing the overall performance at a lower price. For the most part, I think that sacrifice is very much worth-while.
    The differences in latency are, for the most part, irrelevant, except to those who care about bragging rights. The only potential issue I see is with VR, since the last thing VR needs is worse latency.

    At least the 7600K and 9600K don't have HT - Intel CPUs with HT are the ones that are aging terribly.
     
  20. Clouseau

    Clouseau Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    262
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX GTX 1080
    Ryzen's Achilles' heal is latency for gaming. That is why it bests in synthetic benches and dies sometimes in games. The only way to mitigate that issue is by fine tuning the ram timings. Faster frequency plays a part but not as much as tuned timings. Going for 3600 CL16 B-die and clocking it to 3800 provided the IF can handle 1900 is the safest best bet. 3200 just cannot cut it. Sometimes the cost of those 3200 CL14 Flare-x sticks end up costing more than the 3600 CL16 sticks I am using. The prices are all a matter of timing.
     
    Caesar likes this.

Share This Page