AMD Announces Ryzen 9 3950X, Details 3rd Gen Ryzen Threadripper, unlocked Athlon 3000G

[bug]

Right, because the only use for a PC is gaming.

The guy was specifically talking about building a gaming PC.
I've arguing against the need for many cores for years, but when $200 buys you 6 cores/12 threads, how much are you saving by sticking with a quad core? My new 3600 is now sitting on my desk, hoping it'll get a nice B550 mobo in time for Christmas

 

[Deleted member 185158]

The guy was specifically talking about building a gaming PC.
I've arguing against the need for many cores for years, but when $200 buys you 6 cores/12 threads, how much are you saving by sticking with a quad core? My new 3600 is now sitting on my desk, hoping it'll get a nice B550 mobo in time for Christmas

My kids "game" with a Ryzen 1400 on A320 chipset just fine. It's a quad core..... but has SMT for 8 threads.

What's wrong with gaming on a quad? You should be more specific and include that you mean only the badest newest titled games. I have well over 100 games (not to mention emulation) that can easily game on as little as a dual core.....

 

[bug]

My kids "game" with a Ryzen 1400 on A320 chipset just fine. It's a quad core..... but has SMT for 8 threads.

What's wrong with gaming on a quad? You should be more specific and include that you mean only the badest newest titled games. I have well over 100 games (not to mention emulation) that can easily game on as little as a dual core.....

In my head, when a guy says "building a gaming PC today", they mean for today's games. Even then, you don't loose much by sticking to 4 cores, but yes, newer titles will push a little more frames with the help of a few more cores and when cores are so cheap... And then there are those that must game and record/stream doing so... because epeen.

 

[Arct1c0n]

My 6 month only 9700k build suddenly feels very worthless now. But all I do is game so I guess I'm ok....

 

[bug]

My 6 month only 9700k build suddenly feels very worthless now. But all I do is game so I guess I'm ok....

Yeah, well, when faster CPU come out, that doesn't make existing CPUs slower. Your CPU was fine 6 months ago, it will be fine two years for now. Would you make the same purchase if you were buying today? Most likely not, but you still a very capable part on your hands. Enjoy it and stop worrying

 

[GoldenX]

The guy was specifically talking about building a gaming PC.
I've arguing against the need for many cores for years, but when $200 buys you 6 cores/12 threads, how much are you saving by sticking with a quad core? My new 3600 is now sitting on my desk, hoping it'll get a nice B550 mobo in time for Christmas

That's USA price.

 

[bug]

That's USA price.

It's also irrelevant. If CPUs are more expensive where you live (they are where I do), they tend to be proportionally so.

 

[phanbuey]

No no no. this is all incorrect my friend. K10 was being clobbered by Core 2 duo/quad.

you must be thinking back as far as socket 754 and s939 Athlons (K8) and Opterons. Am2 was washed by Intel. (k10)

AM2+ Phenom quad core Agena suffered horribly by TLB errata. smashed by core 2 quads.

By the AM2 platform, Intel had already passed AMD with core 2 duo which was released at the end (if memory serves) of the Socket 939 era of chips like FX-55 and FX-57 ect. Opteron was the way to go on this platform though.

So I think AMD was beating out the Netburst processors. AMD had nothing with K10 on Intel ever.

You're right i was thinking K8, not K10.

God, I'm old.

 

[Flyordie]

I am more along the lines of agitated at AMD for not making them X399 compatible. At least the 32-core models and below. (or severely cut the pricing on the 2950X)

I am still running my 1900X and it does everything I need it to but.. I'd like to move to the 2nd or 3rd Gen for better memory support.

 

[GoldenX]

It's also irrelevant. If CPUs are more expensive where you live (they are where I do), they tend to be proportionally so.

Heh, no. Hell no.

 

[candle_86]

With no competition from Intel they can set their prices where they want...

Over the last two years as the main competitors push their prices up AMD has been going with the flow to capitalizes on this (examples: Vega 64, RX 590, RX 5700 XT and most likely RX 5500). All those products should have launched $50-$100 less but because of lack of competition Nvidia and Intel got to determine the goal posts.

Now that AMD is on top with Threadripper, it gets to act as it's other competitors. Personally this is bad in my opinion and I forsee the enthusiast PC space getting smaller in the next few years as regular folks get priced out of the market, shrinking the high end gaming PC market, and causing developers to once again prioritize consoles and have bad PC ports.

Your joking right, let's rewind to 2004 the Golden age of PC gaming.

Athalon 64 started at 199 for the 2800, up to 1000 for the fx-55, gpu to get was the 299 x800 pro or 6800gt, 1gb of ram was 200, motherboard expect to pay 100 for basic and 200 for any features.

I saw plenty of folks rocking athlon 64 3200/3400/3500/3800 and 4000, matter of fact that a64 3200 was the most common at 500 bucks. Pentium 4 same deal,people saved and bought it. It wasn't I got paid let's build a compter. It was save up for 6 months then build.

No no no. this is all incorrect my friend. K10 was being clobbered by Core 2 duo/quad.

you must be thinking back as far as socket 754 and s939 Athlons (K8) and Opterons. Am2 was washed by Intel. (k10)

AM2+ Phenom quad core Agena suffered horribly by TLB errata. smashed by core 2 quads.

By the AM2 platform, Intel had already passed AMD with core 2 duo which was released at the end (if memory serves) of the Socket 939 era of chips like FX-55 and FX-57 ect. Opteron was the way to go on this platform though.

So I think AMD was beating out the Netburst processors. AMD had nothing with K10 on Intel ever.

Not quite am2 beat Intel by a few months, when the fx-62 came out it was declared the fastest processor. And phenom wasn't a total failure, just at the top end, but remember for the price of an e7300 you could get a phenom x3 8750, guess which one stayed useable longer.

Am2 had another advantage, my m2n-e will run a phenom II x4 980 just fine, launch Conroe boards had issues with 45nm chips. You needed a p35 to properly support them.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Your joking right, let's rewind to 2004 the Golden age of PC gaming.

Athalon 64 started at 199 for the 2800, up to 1000 for the fx-55, gpu to get was the 299 x800 pro or 6800gt, 1gb of ram was 200, motherboard expect to pay 100 for basic and 200 for any features.

I saw plenty of folks rocking athlon 64 3200/3400/3500/3800 and 4000, matter of fact that a64 3200 was the most common at 500 bucks. Pentium 4 same deal,people saved and bought it. It wasn't I got paid let's build a compter. It was save up for 6 months then build.



Not quite am2 beat Intel by a few months, when the fx-62 came out it was declared the fastest processor. And phenom wasn't a total failure, just at the top end, but remember for the price of an e7300 you could get a phenom x3 8750, guess which one stayed useable longer.

Am2 had another advantage, my m2n-e will run a phenom II x4 980 just fine, launch Conroe boards had issues with 45nm chips. You needed a p35 to properly support them.

The Phenom II was AM3/+ with backwards ddr2 compatability.

AM2 Phenom was AM2/+ and where part numbers 9850BE and 9950BE.

The DDR3 phenom II is a little bit later and youve got some time line mistakes there. No biggie.

FX-62 and FX-60 where just Athlons with a fancy name.
The Athlon 6400+ actually was faster and had THE lowest memory latency and actually for many years.

But even still the FX-62 was short lived as you mentioned.

In my head, when a guy says "building a gaming PC today", they mean for today's games. Even then, you don't loose much by sticking to 4 cores, but yes, newer titles will push a little more frames with the help of a few more cores and when cores are so cheap... And then there are those that must game and record/stream doing so... because epeen.

Most epeen you need now is big Gpu. I think 8 cores would be a good standard for a higher end gaming rig and 6 with SMT at least.

But we just starting nit picking at a certain point.
Think in general processors are plenty epeen nowadays.

 

[candle_86]

The Phenom II was AM3/+ with backwards ddr2 compatability.

AM2 Phenom was AM2/+ and where part numbers 9850BE and 9950BE.

The DDR3 phenom II is a little bit later and youve got some time line mistakes there. No biggie.

FX-62 and FX-60 where just Athlons with a fancy name.
The Athlon 6400+ actually was faster and had THE lowest memory latency and actually for many years.

But even still the FX-62 was short lived as you mentioned.



Most epeen you need now is big Gpu. I think 8 cores would be a good standard for a higher end gaming rig and 6 with SMT at least.

But we just starting nit picking at a certain point.
Think in general processors are plenty epeen nowadays.

Nah I know the timeline would you like to know it?

Early 2006 and launched am2 (fx62, x2 5200)
Mid 2006 Intel launched Conroe
Late 2006 and launched x2 6000
Late 2006 ntel launched core 2 quad and the 6x50 series, amd responded with quad fx
Early 2007 x2 6400 hits market, ties core2 e6700 in most titles
Mid 2007 and launched phenom
Late 2007 Intel launched 45nm
Late 2007 and launched triple core cpu
Mid 2008 amd released fixed phenom
Late 2008 Intel launched core i7
Late 2008 Amd launched phenom ii

There you go.

Now as far as competition

Athlon x2 Kuma vs Pentium e6000
Phenom x3 vs core 2 e7000
Phenom x4 vs core 2 e8000 and q6000
Phenom ii vs q9000

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

@bug I would love to have the Threadripper but, a workstation grade CPUs is a little overkill for my needs. The Ryzen 9 fits the bill just nice IMO. Besides, 16 cores for $750 is a more worthy purchase than a $500+ chip with only 8 cores.

 

[thesmokingman]

@bug I would love to have the Threadripper but, a workstation grade CPUs is a little overkill for my needs. The Ryzen 9 fits the bill just nice IMO. Besides, 12 cores for $750 is a more worthy purchase than a $500+ chip with only 8 cores.

That's 16 cores for 750.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

@thesmokingman lemme correct that. ==

 

[Brusfantomet]

My 6 month only 9700k build suddenly feels very worthless now. But all I do is game so I guess I'm ok....

My 5820k probably is worthless, but I have no problems in the games I play so there is no immediate need for upgrade.

However, if I were to the 3950X is high on my list. When I got the 5820k 6 years ago, the thinking was that 4C/4T was all you would need. Well, the 6C/12T 5820k still works well at higher resolutions today. With the same thinking, a CPU with a high core count should be able to keep your GPU feed for some time to come.

If you look at Epyc prices then Treadripper pricing makes more sense:

Epyc 7504P: 32C/64T 2.5 Ghz base/ 3.25 Ghz Boost $2300
Epyc 7402P: 24C/48T 2.8 Ghz base/3.35 Ghz Boost $1250
(the P versions are for single socket servers)

TR 3970X: 32C/64T 3.7 Ghz base/ 4.5 Ghz Boost $2000
TR 3960X: 24C/48T 3.8 Ghz base/ 4.5 Ghz Boost $1400

Notice that the Treadripper base clocks are higher than the boost clocks on Epyc.

 

[medi01]

until a year later intel came out with

Uh.
I recall that "Extreme Edition" thing, which was slower than Athlon, but cost $1k.
But feel free to live in "Intel, the price dropper" imagination of yours.

 

[AceKingSuited]

Lol@ all these basement posters complaining about the price. If you have to ask; then you aren't the target audience for these chips. AMD is not a charity; it's company like every company on earth in the business of making money and they will have better margins on TRs than their other Ryzen chips. These are their halo chips and will be priced accordingly. I think these are great chips and while it's expensive, they are worth the price premium.

That's why they make a whole line up of chips from the 3600-3950X to the TRs. I'll getting either the 3700X or 3800X and it's perfect for my use case. You can get something that matches your budget and it's still great product. It's like people complaining about the costs of a Ferrari when they can only afford a BMW.

 

[bug]

Uh.
I recall that "Extreme Edition" thing, which was slower than Athlon, but cost $1k.
But feel free to live in "Intel, the price dropper" imagination of yours.

Athlon64 X2 4800+ launched at $1,001. First batch of Core2Duo CPUs launched at prices up to $163. That is no imagination.

 

[candle_86]

Athlon64 X2 4800+ launched at $1,001. First batch of Core2Duo CPUs launched at prices up to $163. That is no imagination.

The e6300 launched at 163, the same price the x2 3800 was at.

The x6800 launched at 1000
So did the Pentium extreme 955 and 965

But facts seldom matter

 

[phanbuey]

The e6300 launched at 163, the same price the x2 3800 was at.

The x6800 launched at 1000
So did the Pentium extreme 955 and 965

But facts seldom matter

the x2 3800 was $358 in 2004 when it launched and the core 2 duo launched at $183 2 years later. Not sure how that fact matters.

Uh.
I recall that "Extreme Edition" thing, which was slower than Athlon, but cost $1k.
But feel free to live in "Intel, the price dropper" imagination of yours.

I guess? that's not what I said nor what I think -- but keep fighting that good fight, you brave and noble AMD warrior.

 

[yotano211]

My 5820k probably is worthless, but I have no problems in the games I play so there is no immediate need for upgrade.

However, if I were to the 3950X is high on my list. When I got the 5820k 6 years ago, the thinking was that 4C/4T was all you would need. Well, the 6C/12T 5820k still works well at higher resolutions today. With the same thinking, a CPU with a high core count should be able to keep your GPU feed for some time to come.

If you look at Epyc prices then Treadripper pricing makes more sense:

Epyc 7504P: 32C/64T 2.5 Ghz base/ 3.25 Ghz Boost $2300
Epyc 7402P: 24C/48T 2.8 Ghz base/3.35 Ghz Boost $1250
(the P versions are for single socket servers)

TR 3970X: 32C/64T 3.7 Ghz base/ 4.5 Ghz Boost $2000
TR 3960X: 24C/48T 3.8 Ghz base/ 4.5 Ghz Boost $1400

Notice that the Treadripper base clocks are higher than the boost clocks on Epyc.

The TR and Epyc are for different markets. You cant compare them both.

Why do all of these people complain about the price on these new processor. Just buy a processor within your needs and budget. If you complain about the price, then it might not be within your target audience.

 

[candle_86]

the x2 3800 was $358 in 2004 when it launched and the core 2 duo launched at $183 2 years later. Not sure how that fact matters.



I guess? that's not what I said nor what I think -- but keep fighting that good fight, you brave and noble AMD warrior.

Yes when launched the x2 3800 was targeted at the Pentium D 820 launch price is correct. Amd did a price drop ahead of core 2. But the e6300 wasn't the go to chip it was the 500 dollar e6600.

It's modern contrivance that CPUs should be under 300, it used to be 500-700 was more normal if building high performance. No one paired a 6800ultra or 7900gtx with an athlon 64 2800, they have spent more on the cpu. A budget system would have been a 6600gt or 7600gt with a mid tier cpu around 200 bucks

 

[Tomgang]

For those that want to study the 24 core threadripper in CPU-z can have a little peak here.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper @ 4100.51 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

[rnsg7f] Validated Dump by Duality92 (2019-11-06 20:45:48) - MB: Gigabyte TRX40 AORUS XTREME - RAM: 32768 MB

valid.x86.fr