Ryzen

Stereodude said:
Well, they are more efficient than Intel. Their TDP ratings are also more honest.
Click to expand...
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.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...lained-deep-dive-cooler-manufacturer-opinions
 
sechs said:
Well, first and second gen Threadrippers and x399 boards should get real cheap soon....
Click to expand...

Cost is not much consideration since I keep computers for many years. I just want more PCIe lanes without all those slow cores.

The Ryzen 9 3950X will be compatible in the majority of AM4 motherboards, although in order to take advantage of the 24 PCIe 4.0 lanes on the CPU, an X570 motherboard is recommended. The 16 cores offer a 3.5 GHz base frequency and a 4.7 GHz single core boost frequency; the overall all-core turbo frequency will be dependent on the motherboard used, the quality of the silicon, and the turbo in play.

WTF does this mean? If a program mostly uses 4 cores will they run at 4.7Hz or 4.0?
 
And again, they're more power efficient than Intel. They still use less power than the comparable Intel part and they get more done.

111362.png

But keep worrying about the "scary" TDP numbers while Intel sells you an inferior performing part that actually uses even more power.
 
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.
 
Handruin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

But sure, complain about the 280W TDP of the 3960X & 3970X which will very likely lay waste to Intel CPUs like the Core i9-9990XE in pretty much anything multithreaded and still use less power.

AMD bad, Intel good!!!
 
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.
 
Handruin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
According to all the peoples on the interwebs AMD is great and Intel isn't. However, I'm not convinced that AMD is much faster per core. We'll see soon enough.
 
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.
I'd like to see what 6 cores or 8 cores will do. Does anyone test for this?
 
Chewy509 said:
@LM, you'll need to wait until parts are released before you see any figures...
Click to expand...

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.
 
LunarMist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
LunarMist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Well of course some variables need to be held constant, but it's not acceptable for products costing hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
Somebody knows.
 
So now it's roughly linear vs. being worse than that in older chips.
Maybe we'll see 4.1 or 4.2Gbz on 8cores
 
It does look promising. I am wondering now if I would be better served for my needs with a 3800X over the 3950X. I had mentioned earlier that I would wait for the release and reviews before deciding. Now I just need to figure out what I want to get.
 
I will probably wait to see how the 24 core Zen2 Threadripper (3960X) performs in comparison before making up my mind.
 
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.
 
Handruin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
As expected AMD clobbers Intel on the power consumption under load.

From: https://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-processor-review_215425/8
power-3950x-645x659.png

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 picked up a 3600 non-X. I'm running it stock on a B450 board with the stock cooler. It runs 100% load all day at 3.8GHz and pretty quiet.

Intel has work to do.
 
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.
 
Stereodude said:
As expected AMD clobbers Intel on the power consumption under load.

From: https://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-processor-review_215425/8
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.
Click to expand...

It seems the idle power is a bit high, but the max power would only be during a working session.
Why does AMD require liquid cooling instead of a normal HSF or are they just being conservative? I don't want to buy one of those liquid coolers that might leak and cause a disaster. :(
 
LunarMist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LunarMist said:
It seems the idle power is a bit high, but the max power would only be during a working session.
Why does AMD require liquid cooling instead of a normal HSF or are they just being conservative? I don't want to buy one of those liquid coolers that might leak and cause a disaster. :(
Click to expand...
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.
 
I really prefer that the heat exit the rear of the case and not the top where it is will be noisier and hotter for by organs.
 
The 3950X barely generates any more heat than the 3900X and both are well under Intel's offerings. You can air cool them if you want if you're using a top tier air cooler. If I go 3950X I will be air cooling it. The best air coolers outperform the AIO water coolers anyhow.
 
I'll follow your advice. Are you building in 2019?
I'm still using a Nocturnal dual-fan cooler for 5 years and it has been nice and quiet. I like that it blows right towards the case exhaust fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top