AMD's 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X Processor Leaks
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
g0ggles1994
Active member
Don't tease me
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
72MB total cache? That's insane for a normal mainstream CPU 
WillSK
Active member
Guys if you were buying a CPU for strictly gaming but were happy to splash out a little more would this CPU at the same clocks perform any better than the 12 core that is coming out?
I mean for streaming etc. this'll be great but regardless of that would you see minimal gains over a similar CPU with less cores?
I mean for streaming etc. this'll be great but regardless of that would you see minimal gains over a similar CPU with less cores?
looz
Active member
In gaming? Yeah most likely. But people rather have a poorer performing AMD than Intel to "stick it to the man" it seems, even when only demanding task is gaming.
For creative use, Ryzen is a no-brainer choice though.
looz
Active member
They already have your money though. :lol:Exactly the reason I'm going down the AMD path... Over 10 years I've been with Intel, it feels good that I'm gonna be finally giving them a big middle finger !!!����
tolagarf
Member
I think you'd be better off with the 12 core considering it has a higher base block. Keep in mind that AMD X CPU's don't automatically turbo boost to the listed speeds when stressing all the cores (4.7 GHz in this case), you'd have to make some adjustments to your BIOS and do overclocking. And believe me, it WILL get hot! It will need some high performance cooling.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You could always just overclock certain cores right? they would have the same base speed but boost up the cores that need it?
KingNosser
Well-known member
I like my Ryzen a lot if you go AMD from Intel you won't miss Intel it's that simple.
demonking
New member
This is what needs to be clearer.
I went from a Phenom 2 to ivy i5 and the jump in performance was outstanding, Not just in gaming but overall general usage felt so much better, enough that I moved up to an i7.
Now still on that i7 Ivy, I can't afford a new i7 and don't want to lose the head room that I already have.
Yes we all know that intel will still get you 3-10 fps more, but and i9 is £500+ when a 2700X is almost half the price (ish) in places.
You can keep those fps for that price. in my circumstance (1070 @ 1440p) its more likely going to 4 or 5 fps and totally not worth an extra £250, That's more ram, a better GPU, bigger ssd, new keyboard and mouse or a good monitor.
Dawelio
Active member
KingNosser
Well-known member
Yea I agree that they are faster at 1080p but when you start to go into higher resolutions that gap shrinks significantly and at 4k it's on par. If your a streamer or need the cores for other things Ryzen is such good value you really are getting a good deal.
It's not long since I upgraded from i5 2500k at 5ghz there wasnt really a big enough upgrade for me, but ryzen is so much better and I'm on the first gen and it's so cheap at the huge discounts.
I'm not saying the newer Intel's aren't better but price wise they can not compete and they are in full panic mode I feel even thou they would like people to think otherwise.
If I had more funds and wasn't thinking about GPU's I'd be tempted to upgrade to the 3k series hell 16/32 if I had the money but I honestly feel the tide has turned your getting a better deal and there is no need to be loyal to Intel they could have done so much more but decided to stagnate the market for so long with low core counts and high prices.
It's not long since I upgraded from i5 2500k at 5ghz there wasnt really a big enough upgrade for me, but ryzen is so much better and I'm on the first gen and it's so cheap at the huge discounts.
I'm not saying the newer Intel's aren't better but price wise they can not compete and they are in full panic mode I feel even thou they would like people to think otherwise.
If I had more funds and wasn't thinking about GPU's I'd be tempted to upgrade to the 3k series hell 16/32 if I had the money but I honestly feel the tide has turned your getting a better deal and there is no need to be loyal to Intel they could have done so much more but decided to stagnate the market for so long with low core counts and high prices.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Ahh so the penny drops.
Me - "Why have they not announced the 16 core? maybe it's coming later?"
Then they release the pricing for the CPUs up to 12 core. Then the penny dropped.
They obviously want more than the "top CPU" price in the range this time. So they have paper launched the others, gone up to the "top price" for the 12 core and no doubt the 16 core is going to cost more than that price.
Otherwise if it were a part of the range the price would have been $499 or whatever the 12 core is (which was the price of the 1800x and 2700x, IIRC, at launch)
It's a bit of a trick, but then even I (hard to make happy) can't complain too much. I don't see Intel selling 16 cores for 500 dollars either. Only thing remaining now.. How much will this actually cost? because for me to make the jump it really does need to be more cores than I have now. Whilst I am aware that overclocked etc the 12 core R2 will destroy what I have (14 core BE @ 3.1ghz) the fact remains I ain't spending 700 notes until it's an upgrade in every possible sense.
Guesses? I reckon 700? maybe 600?
Me - "Why have they not announced the 16 core? maybe it's coming later?"
Then they release the pricing for the CPUs up to 12 core. Then the penny dropped.
They obviously want more than the "top CPU" price in the range this time. So they have paper launched the others, gone up to the "top price" for the 12 core and no doubt the 16 core is going to cost more than that price.
Otherwise if it were a part of the range the price would have been $499 or whatever the 12 core is (which was the price of the 1800x and 2700x, IIRC, at launch)
It's a bit of a trick, but then even I (hard to make happy) can't complain too much. I don't see Intel selling 16 cores for 500 dollars either. Only thing remaining now.. How much will this actually cost? because for me to make the jump it really does need to be more cores than I have now. Whilst I am aware that overclocked etc the 12 core R2 will destroy what I have (14 core BE @ 3.1ghz) the fact remains I ain't spending 700 notes until it's an upgrade in every possible sense.
Guesses? I reckon 700? maybe 600?
KingNosser
Well-known member
I'd say it's anyone's guess atm but I know they don't want to be just a value brand so I'm feeling at least 750 more than that I think it's asking too much and generally the 12 core will be good enough for most people tbh it's overkill but if you have the funds why wouldn't you.
Still they have event today and so we'll find out soon enough the leak on navi has me feeling I should stick with my 970's until navi 20 but they could surprise me more than expected and me upgrade sooner but my feeling atm is the 5700 isn't the card I'm waiting for.
Still they have event today and so we'll find out soon enough the leak on navi has me feeling I should stick with my 970's until navi 20 but they could surprise me more than expected and me upgrade sooner but my feeling atm is the 5700 isn't the card I'm waiting for.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Yep, Gonna be mine ! ^_^
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I'd wager it's going to be around $700.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
I'm wondering if I can do folding on 8 cores and gaming on the other 8 without much system slowdown ^_^
