Read more.Quote:
New chips, more firepower.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
New chips, more firepower.
I've been waiting to buy a 3700X, and all I can find is a 3600. :juggle: I guess I'll just figure out which X570 board to buy in the meantime.
Page 7, 3rd graph says FHD when it should be UHD ;)
The actual chips do look great. Bang4watt is crazy. Almost makes me excited for the 7nm on the mobile CPUs.
3800X seemed the most interesting chip to me, and just my luck nowhere is reviewing it!
It wasn't supplied as review material by AMD, but we're trying our best to get our hands on one asap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
Oh ya I know mate don't worry, seems everywhere is doing these 2 first and rest are coming later. Not like I'll have the money for a while yet anyway ha. But thanks for the head's up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarinder
At first I was interested in the 3700x, but looking at the prices on scan I've been wondering if a Ryzen 5 would be more wise for me and budget other options along with it. Still have to await further benches, but active cooling on on x570, the boost clocks being a lie, and ~£50 premium for x570 (although I was partially worrying about worse) is convincing me to be more sensible across the board.
Still, more comparable performance in gaming and a massive boost over the 9700k in multicore does make it a better buy. And of course the 3900x and likely 3950x will be an obvious choice for those that want the best of the best.
Fun fact. You cannot install and/or use Ryzen Master while Hyper-V role is installed. It's not supported, nor does the program run (it's also noted in AMD's Ryzen Master Software Installation Guide).
So is the 1:2 divider over 3733Mhz an automatic thing or could you run faster memory on a 1:1 divider if you get a 'golden' chip?
I wonder if we'll see much improvement with the 3800X (afaik AMD have only sampled these two SKUs), if the 3700X is that close to a 9900K would the extra 40W of TDP mean it surpasses it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
Yup looks like a nice 3700X will be heading into my rig in a month or so :) (as long as Asus release a bios for my CH6)
Ahh, now I'm really confused which CPU to go for... The 3800X may have a lot to answer for.
Really debating getting the 3700x honestly
Interesting results - personally for me, as someone who wouldn't ordinarily ever consider going the AMD route..it may be an option if Intel don't pull their finger out and either drop the prices of the 9900k further, or release something new.
For gaming, we're now seeing near enough parity on the top end consumer intel and AMD chips (even in games which have an Intel bias), and the 9900k & 3900X are near enough identical price wise at £475 (intel) £480 (AMD). IF you need lots of threads them AMD continue to take the crown in many cases, but then 90% of us don't :)
I won't be upgrading until August/September now, so will be keeping an eye on the prices. Could be time for my first AMD chip in 20 years...
"Halving the data link write speed between CCD and cIOD saves area, improves power, and has ancillary knock-on benefits, too. The downside is half-write speed because of the slowness of the data fabric in that direction."
Must be what keeps me from liking gaming yet again? I expected gaming wins pretty much across the board. NOPE. At least they won't be selling these for losses or break even this time. As a stock holder that means something, though not as excited as I expected over buying one myself now. Though not happy with gaming perf, I think these will sell well enough for a bit to get to server income (64c and up), which will finally drive the stock above 40 this year or next and if they are as good as they seem (LOL) we could see a massive share price hike. They went from predictions of 5% this year to 20 pretty quick for server share (quite a jump from 1% mind you!). While gaming might not be there, for servers and WORK, they seem to be darn good and many will bite. They'll get me for one or more anyway (hbrake and a few other things I do), but I can wait a bit for price wars or Intel response hardware wise. If gaming went like I thought, I'd buy one today...Oh well.
It's always comic to hear how great product X is at higher resolutions where NOBODY plays...ROFLMAO. Yeah man, you can't tell the difference if you find some way to tap the system out (gpu for instance) so you can hide the cpu still sucking wind on games and claim equality...But, er, uh, less than 5% TOTAL on those "higher resolutions"...According to steam you are wasting your time even benching this crap, and the benchmarks themselves show the same. GPU's will be radically faster by the time 4k even hits 10% share (eh, 1.5% now, last I checked anyway, oops, now 1.6...ROFL). WOW 67% 1080p...Hmm, test more 1080p...LOL. Or keep wasting your readers time with 4k...ROFL. I'm not even PONDERING 4k monitors, never mind a card that can run EVERYTHING on in every game at 4k. I'll need TWO cards for that still. Still a good chip, just saying, reality check guys. Still holding the stock (more actually) :) Just wish for better reviews with actually useful info for the 98.5% of us not using 4k (and most of that has 2 cards...LOL).
If you don't need lots of threads, then the 3700X also has parity with the top end ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
The 8700k also has parity, but costs £90 more than the 3700X (and twice the 3600)
Gamers Nexus has a review video for the 3600 which comes off rather well.
One of his benchmarks is a GCC compile. As a Linux developer that pretty much defines my everyday usage, and the huge cache size means it is just crazy fast at GCC.
Despite the 3600 being available in stock, I have ordered a 3700X. Seems odd to order the 65W model, but I think I'm already rather far down the slippery slope of cost when to be honest an old £125 2600 would do me :D