VideoCardz: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X to become world’s first 16-core gaming CPU

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
VideoCardz rumor, but it looks realistic:

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: 16 cores at 105W TDP
According to a slide we received today, AMD will launch Ryzen 9 3950X as world’s first 16-core mainstream processor. The slide basically “confirms” the speculation which began at Ryzen 3000 announcement at Computex.

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X would utilize all available cores from both dies. It would preserve the TDP from Ryzen 9 3900X which features 12 cores but at the cost of a lower base clock. This AM4 processor is supposedly a 105W TDP part.

The 3950X features a boost clock of 4.7 GHz, the highest from all Ryzen 3000 CPUs. The pricing and availability date have not yet been confirmed.

The authenticity of the slide could not be confirmed in such a short time, but we decided to publish it regardless. Take it with a grain of salt :)
Click to expand...

AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X-16-core-CPU-1000x301.jpg
 
What I don't get is why Intel and AMD won't offer CPU models with lower core counts and high clocks. As a gamer, I would very much prefer a cheaper 4-core CPU that reaches 5.5 GHz on at least two cores over a 16-core CPU that only reaches 4.7 GHz. Even a dual-core i3 @ 5.5 GHz would be better for playing single-threaded simulation flight simulators and games like Cities Skylines, Oxygen Not Included, or Factorio.
 
Welp amd just captured the mainstream desktop computer segment.

Unless you want last years CPU with higher clocks.
 
The 105W TDP makes sense in order to retain compatibility with the original design specs of all X470 and previous motherboards. If 105W was deemed the "official AM4 socket high end limit" that all MB manufacturers were told to design for during the original Zen design phase, then even the Zen 2 CPUs cannot exceed this limit or else they lose the promised backward compatibility.
I just don't get the 4.7 GHz boost clock on this, though. Give that to me on 8C, too. I don't need 16C. Make a 3850X using the same high-binned chiplets from this 3950X and I'll upgrade.
 
The most strenuous thing on do on my personal PCs is play games. I'm sick of "MOAR CORZ!". The 3700 and 3800 are so close in specs I wish they would have given us 8 cores \ 8 threads at 5ghz boost in the 3700x instead of just a slightly lower clocked 3800x
 
^ same here .

While certainly exciting if true I too was hoping for a highly clocked 6/12 cpu as a gaming sweet spot. I really don't need more cores for what I mess with at home and the 2600 I run now is doing fine. 700 or so more Mhz is tempting but not for $300 more and additional cores I don't really need right now. --Future proofing yeah, yeah but again I want more speed uplift to part with my hard earned. Plenty of people have x79 rigs OCd around here that still hang in games. I have one as a side PC and its really plucky even today.

Once reviews actually hit and we see what real world IPC lifts they have on these the speculation can end.

If someone is building new then Ryzen 3000 is likely a no brainer though.
 
wyqtor said:
What I don't get is why Intel and AMD won't offer CPU models with lower core counts and high clocks. As a gamer, I would very much prefer a cheaper 4-core CPU that reaches 5.5 GHz on at least two cores over a 16-core CPU that only reaches 4.7 GHz. Even a dual-core i3 @ 5.5 GHz would be better for playing single-threaded simulation flight simulators and games like Cities Skylines, Oxygen Not Included, or Factorio.
Click to expand...

Cheaper CPU models also lesser quality chips than higher end models so just reducing core count does not always mean higher clocks. Also, dual-cores need to die.
 
wyqtor said:
What I don't get is why Intel and AMD won't offer CPU models with lower core counts and high clocks. As a gamer, I would very much prefer a cheaper 4-core CPU that reaches 5.5 GHz on at least two cores over a 16-core CPU that only reaches 4.7 GHz. Even a dual-core i3 @ 5.5 GHz would be better for playing single-threaded simulation flight simulators and games like Cities Skylines, Oxygen Not Included, or Factorio.
Click to expand...

Two reasons:

1) Building fewer cores doesn't change the clock speed a few of them will reach. There is a limit that specific design can reach on a specific process. So core count has no real impact on the boost clock.
2) Boost clock is a choice, to be higher on higher core count parts, so when someone shells out the big bucks, they get a processor that is better at everything. A higher clock lower count part would undermine that.
 
wyqtor said:
What I don't get is why Intel and AMD won't offer CPU models with lower core counts and high clocks. As a gamer, I would very much prefer a cheaper 4-core CPU that reaches 5.5 GHz on at least two cores over a 16-core CPU that only reaches 4.7 GHz. Even a dual-core i3 @ 5.5 GHz would be better for playing single-threaded simulation flight simulators and games like Cities Skylines, Oxygen Not Included, or Factorio.
Click to expand...

1. It's a limitation of the process / design / silicon
2. It would cost more (better binning) than a higher core count cpu with a lower frequency
3. These days most users purchase mobile devices so making such a chip may not be profitable.
4. They likely would use the same die for the high frequency lower core count CPU
 
No gaming in title = 0 clickies.

If they left it at mainstream it would have been fine. Are there any games that utilize 16 / 32 ?
in my opinion this is designed for workstations , that is also able to run games very well.
man I´m getting old :oldman:, just bugs me that everything is labeled gaming. end rant.

Things have come along fast , seems not that long ago on a 100w tdp you would be lucky to get half a dozen cores
 
Soulstorm brew said:
No gaming in title = 0 clickies.

If they left it at mainstream it would have been fine. Are there any games that utilize 16 / 32 ?
in my opinion this is designed for workstations , that is also able to run games very well.
man I´m getting old :oldman:, just bugs me that everything is labeled gaming. end rant.

Things have come along fast , seems not that long ago on a 100w tdp you would be lucky to get half a dozen cores
Click to expand...

Capcom's RE Engine might scale up that far, but I'm not actually sure. I don't think Frostbite or UE4 go that high.
 
auntjemima said:
The mainstream desktop market isn't looking for cores, they are looking for speed. Are we all forgetting the previous Ryzen chips all outweigh Intel in cores? How is this any different?
Click to expand...

The mainstream is looking for acceptable performance for as low a price, as they can get away with paying.

Despite the marketing, this part far, FAR from mainstream.
 
This is wild.

Intel gave only 4 core chips for years. Now AMD gives MOAR COREZ and people are sick of it after barely two years. They want MOAR MEGAHURTZ which is something not even Intel can provide. Is this 1996 where only clockspeed matters?

Oh well, better save up for that 9900KS.
 
wyqtor said:
What I don't get is why Intel and AMD won't offer CPU models with lower core counts and high clocks. As a gamer, I would very much prefer a cheaper 4-core CPU that reaches 5.5 GHz on at least two cores over a 16-core CPU that only reaches 4.7 GHz. Even a dual-core i3 @ 5.5 GHz would be better for playing single-threaded simulation flight simulators and games like Cities Skylines, Oxygen Not Included, or Factorio.
Click to expand...

Because the silicon has a limit on how much it can clock. Adding more cores doesn't necessarily mean it's sacrificing clock speed. Additionally, having a lower core count doesn't mean it'll clock higher. 5Ghz is about the ceiling on air cooling with silicon. So having a 16 core chip reaching 4.7Ghz on all 16 cores is pretty impressive.
 
What is this bullshit about first 16 core gaming CPU?

I have a Threadripper and hav been gaming on it non stop. What happened to CPUs just being CPUs andnrunning software. Are suddenly games some new form of shit that requires a special.gaming CPU to operate?

This has gone beyond fucking full retardation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
Derangel said:
Capcom's RE Engine might scale up that far, but I'm not actually sure. I don't think Frostbite or UE4 go that high.
Click to expand...
Near as I can tell with a grain of sand is very diminished past 8 threads. (DX11)

RE2-Ryzen-7-Core-Scaling.png


https://wccftech.com/resident-evil-2-remake-pc-performance-explored/ Make of it what you will.

For what’s its worth DSOgamings 4930K (4.2GHz) core scaling. Which has 4/8 being lower than 6/6 and 6/12 showing no improvement.

RE2Remake-CPU-1469x1080.png


https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/resident-evil-2-remake-pc-performance-analysis/

May just want to test the engine ourselves. Now I’m going to go look up DMC5 scaling.
 
auntjemima said:
The mainstream desktop market isn't looking for cores, they are looking for speed. Are we all forgetting the previous Ryzen chips all outweigh Intel in cores? How is this any different?
Click to expand...
4.7 ghz boost is speed though 400mhz more than a 2700x boost clock.
 
tangoseal said:
Im asking humanity at large to stop the damn rumor train of 16 cores at 4.7

It's one core at 4.7

God this is getting more and more mentally deranged as the internet undevelopes brain tissue further.
Click to expand...

Exactly who are you correcting? I think most of know how the boost clock works.

Also in the original post, is specific mention of lower base clock on the 16 core part to maintain TDP. It's down to 3.5 GHz.
 
Snowdog said:
Exactly who are you correcting? I think most of know how the boost clock works.

Also in the original post, is specific mention of lower base clock on the 16 core part to maintain TDP. It's down to 3.5 GHz.
Click to expand...

I'm not correcting you guys. It's the internet at large that was my point.

So many misled people think that this is a "gaming" chip as well as some all core 4.7ghz at 105watts. I'm just making a general statement. The internet is MUCH larger than hard forums.

It's as if the clickbait titles are getting easier to suck in drool brained masses now.

Just add "gaming" ... ooh better yet add "Tactical Gaming" for more clicks.
 
Snowdog said:
I though most of understood how boost clock works, but I guess there are always exceptions. It will be something like this:
Threadripper%20Tech%20Day_Joe%20Macri_Architecture-page-008.jpg
Click to expand...

See snowdog, I wasn't even targeting hard members with my comments. Nor am I now. But these clickbait websites are misleading the masses.
 
tangoseal said:
See snowdog, I wasn't even targeting hard members with my comments. Nor am I now. But these clickbait websites are misleading the masses.
Click to expand...

But even the original story never indicated it was All core. They went out of their way to highlight that 16 core led to a lower 3.5GHz clock speed. That should be a large clue to anyone who has even passing understanding of base and boost clocks on AMD parts.
 
I have a 6700K (4c/8t) running at 4.04GHz. Most of the games I play are single threaded. I won't upgrade until I can get at least 25% faster single threaded performance and I have 0 use for anything more that 8 cores. I have a 1060 6GB and game at 1440P 165Hz so I am usually GPU bound anyway. I will upgrade my GPU way before my CPU to get that higher FPS.

Also there are no gaming CPUs. There are specialized CPUs (non-x86 and custom built x86) and then there are normal CPUs (normal x86 that 99.99% of us use). Even server CPUs made by Intel and AMD can be used for gaming. Pure marketing fluff.
 
16 cores 4.7ghz @105w. im impressed. maybe because the large chips I have pull nearly 250w :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
Soulstorm brew said:
No gaming in title = 0 clickies.

If they left it at mainstream it would have been fine. Are there any games that utilize 16 / 32 ?
in my opinion this is designed for workstations , that is also able to run games very well.
man I´m getting old :oldman:, just bugs me that everything is labeled gaming. end rant.

Things have come along fast , seems not that long ago on a 100w tdp you would be lucky to get half a dozen cores
Click to expand...

I heard that Threadripper may/may not happen for "now" for 7nm and likely wait for the 7nm+ or even 5nm next years (TSMC/Samsung)

that top part looks very threadripper like almost shoving the "need" to have TR (beyond total memory and channel count mainly)

not sure....would have been "nifty" if AMD did do like that, first and 2nd gen TR were their "own" dedicated market point, maybe now they could just do higher end x570 boards and label like ASUS did for a time with WS added to it, they can ditch certain things to give the added pci-e or quad channel etc likely still keep in ATX format.....

interesting year(s) that much is very [H]ard smacking it's way around while doing it's spring cleaning sort of speak (about damn time .. shame money still not grow on my trees however.
 
4.7GHz All-Core 16-cores on a modern architecture has got to be a big boost over my Haswell-EP 18-core that boosts to 3.8 GHz Max on just 1 or 2 cores
 
Snowdog said:
Given the posts above yours, are you just trolling now?

It's going to be 4.7GHz on 1 core, maybe 2.
Click to expand...


:'(

i wasn't trolling, man that blows ... 4.7GHz on 1 or 2 cores ... that blows


i'm hoping to upgrade from my Haswell-EP 18-core which boosts to 3.8GHz on 1 to 2 cores
 
erek said:
:'(

i wasn't trolling, man that blows ... 4.7GHz on 1 or 2 cores ... that blows


i'm hoping to upgrade from my Haswell-EP 18-core which boosts to 3.8GHz on 1 to 2 cores
Click to expand...
He is right it will probably 1-2 cores. The question is can it hit 4.7ghz on all cores. Now that wouldn’t be 105w tdp. Too many questions still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
Brackle said:
He is right it will probably 1-2 cores. The question is can it hit 4.7ghz on all cores. Now that wouldn’t be 105w tdp. Too many questions still.
Click to expand...

OC to 4.5GHz all cores, will likely be doable, with epic cooling and good MB. Steve From GN was saying OC the 16 core, was 300 watts+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
tangoseal said:
Im asking humanity at large to stop the damn rumor train of 16 cores at 4.7

It's one core at 4.7

God this is getting more and more mentally deranged as the internet undevelopes brain tissue further.
Click to expand...


:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
 
Don't really understand why you would need 16 cores for gaming but ok. Would be better if they cut the cores to 8 with higher clockspeeds & more cache.
 
Y’all need to watch this. 1600 competes with an 4 core i5 7600k. It whipes the floor with some games, those minimum frames on the i5, yikes. Fuck 4 cores.

If Microsoft is about to announce the next console, all those next gen games are coming to PC. They are made for 8 core Ryzen. Ryzen processors (and the Vega 56) get better with time and are getting better with time.

 
Krenum said:
Don't really understand why you would need 16 cores for gaming but ok. Would be better if they cut the cores to 8 with higher clockspeeds.
Click to expand...

They probably just mean the first 16 core on a mainstream socket, thus more aimed at the gaming community than Threadripper, and of course, this is just marketing. Convincing gamers to buy its $600+ CPUs is a huge win for AMD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top