TDP is, unfortunately, a load of baloney. Intel's seem more honest but considerably more useless; their TDPs are basically what the cooling solution needs to dissipate for the chip to only hit the base clock. AMD's TDPs are supposedly what the cooling solution needs to dissipate for the processor to work "as designed," but the derivation is totally opaque.Well, they are more efficient than Intel. Their TDP ratings are also more honest.
Cost is not much consideration since I keep computers for many years. I just want more PCIe lanes without all those slow cores.Well, first and second gen Threadrippers and x399 boards should get real cheap soon....
It seems something like a 14C/28T Intel Core i9-9990XE (pulling 300W+) that trades blows in benchmark with AMD's 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3900X (pulling 142W) is more what they're after.I agree with SD in regards to AMD's more-honest TDP values when compared to Intel's HEDT parts. I am still interested in the 3950X assuming one can even get one and at MSRP after launch.
Not at all directed at you. It's directed at the people who seem to be in an Intel induced reality distortion field. I was just piggybacking off your post.I'm not sure if you meant your response towards me, but I'm in favor of AMD's CPU lineup and do not think they are bad.
I plan to do some heavy Sony testing right before Xmas and then I'll decide what to do on December 30. Most likely I would be building a system in January. At this point I'm not at all sure what it will be.@LM, you'll need to wait until parts are released before you see any figures...
That's not what it means. It means you're guaranteed at least 3.5gHz with all cores loaded. That doesn't mean it won't run faster than 3.5gHz with all cores loaded.But we don't know the frequency that the CPU will run other than one core reaches 4.7GHz and 16 cores operate at 3.5GHz.
Except it's dependent on the silicon itself, cooling, and other factors. I guess you'd be happier if they got rid of the "turbo"/boost frequencies and it ran slower, but at a defined speed.I think the CPU makers are playing games by not releasing detailed specs. There should be a graph of the speed vs. number of cores and load.
I would expect we'd see reviews by the 25th. I don't anticipate going to that level, but I will take a look at the benchmarks.I'm guessing we should see reviews of that soon also, no? Estimated release date is Nov 25th? That's quite a jump in price for the TR...not sure I'm interested in going to that level.
It seems the idle power is a bit high, but the max power would only be during a working session.As expected AMD clobbers Intel on the power consumption under load.
View attachment 1403
The Ryzen 9 3950X uses less power under load than an Intel Intel Core i9-9900KS or Intel Core i9-9900K while pretty much doubling their performance in most multi-threaded applications.
Some websites got 3950X CPUs that use less power under full load than the 3900X CPUs they reviewed. Legit Reviews is one where that's the case. Anandtech's 3950X uses a couple of watts more than their 3900X.
I'm guessing video encoding. There's usually a sweet spot in terms of performance per dollar. Big bucks for a few percent more at the top.If the CPU is at 100% all day, then shouldn't you use a faster CPU?
I expect a CPU to be at 100% for a short period and then idle most of the time.
Looks like they used Corsair Hydro H115i coolers on both the AMD and Intel CPUs for the purposes of the review? The retail CPUs don't use liquid cooling if that was your concern.