Willkommen im Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Bavor
 - May 14, 2020, 18:30:32
Quote from: william blake on May 12, 2020, 14:56:53
who are those potential buyers?
-gaming+working is also better on ryzens, there is no such thing as geforce 2080ti@720p in the real world

Actually, if you take the blinders off and look at 1440p and 4K benchmarks form reputable sources, you will see that the current 9900K still outperforms the 3800X, 3900X, and 3950X in many games.  The 9900K has shown improvements of 5% to 15% higher FPS at 1440p and 4K resolution in many games with higher end GPUs.  For those that have 144Hz or 165Hz 1440p monitors, the difference is enough that its noticeable to some gamers.  You can tell when the the frame rate drops if you are use to using a high refresh rate monitor.

The 9900K still outperforms the 3950X and 3900X in Adobe Photoshop according to multiple benchmarks.  The 9900K also outperforms the 3950X, 3900X, and 3800X in H.264 and H.265 encoding in Adobe Premiere. 

Intel CPUs have such a large lead in H.264 and H.265 encoding in premiere that my old 6700K system with 32 GB of RAM is less than 30 seconds behind my 3950X system with 64 GB of RAM in encoding time when encoding the same 10+ minute 4K H.265 video.  Its less than a 5% difference in encoding time.

Supposedly Adobe will allow H.264 and H.265 encoding to be offloaded to a Nvidia GPU in the future, but we will see if that really happens and if it works reliably.
Posted by Bavor
 - May 14, 2020, 18:17:59
As the owner of a 3950X system, I have to say this statement in the article is complete BS and whoever wrote it never even sued a 3950X system.
"Comparable processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X (which has 6 more physical cores and 12 more threads) don't break a sweat under similar cooling, delivering sub-80 degree temps, even when overclocked."

Even with one of the better 360mm AIO's on the market, the 3950X still hits 82C under load.  For example, here are the temperatures when running the Firestrike Extreme benchmark several times in a row, which isn't particularly CPU intensive. 

EDIT: I'm now getting a message about not allowing links to photos so I also attached the photos.

You can see the CPU hit 79C under load in FireStrike.  That's with a 360mm AIO with push pull fans, and an additional four 140mm fans in the case to improve cooling.

Attached is a 3950X running AIDA64 FPU workload and Furmark.

EDIT: I'm now getting a message about not allowing links to photos so I also attached the photos.

What's the CPU cooling in that screenshot?  A custom open loop with a 360mm radiator and push pull fans, 280mm radiator with push fans, D5 pump, and Corsair CPU block.  Yet the 3950X still hits 81C. 

The 3950X is difficult to cool because of the CPU die layout.  The hottest part of the CPU heat spreader is not at the center.  So you either need a $130 Optimus CPU block, a $210+ EK Magnitude CPU block, or one of Der8auer's kits that allows you to mount your cooling solution 11mm off center. 

If anyone thinks a 240mm AIO will properly cool a 3950X under demanding workloads, they think that a 3950X thermally throttling at 85C is acceptable or have absolutely no experience with the CPU.  Hardware Monitor has reported a power draw of 208 watts in my system from the 3950X when its overclocked.  That's well beyond the cooling capabilities of a 240mm AIO.  In addition to that, I previously tried a Noctua NH-D14 to cool the CPU and it his 85C under load then the CPU throttled due to temperature.
Posted by Grinnie Jax
 - May 14, 2020, 09:32:51
AMD GPU's have better texture detail and color, that's why it's not completely honest to compare them to NVIDIA cheaters, who use tricks to make lower textures, reduced colors for higher fps. But kids don't care, they care only about higher fake fps.
Posted by Ablab12
 - May 14, 2020, 08:42:05
Here's where your dumb analogy fails, the Lambo is almost 3x as fast as the Prius whereas with Intel you get even slower performance in some workloads. You're basically using a s*** excuse because you can't think like a smart human being. For NVIDIA the same applies, 25-30% faster for 3x the price? Lol. The fact you think buying a cheap a** 1000USD card puts you on the same level as people who can afford expensive luxury cars already tells me you're an idiot and you're the one who is actually salty his life is s*** and gets all offended when people point out the stupidity of using credit to buy overpriced toys. Grow up you twat.
Posted by Sam wise
 - May 14, 2020, 08:41:17
Absolute falsehoods. Embargo lifts on the 20th.  Wait until we can post our reviews.  I can speak no further on it until then.
Posted by Olivia
 - May 14, 2020, 07:19:32
Interesting Article
Posted by Grinnie Jax
 - May 14, 2020, 05:29:43
Quote from: Sjm on May 13, 2020, 08:47:33
3600 is like holding onto an uncooked potato, I'm sure it doesnt even get hott, how about post something when you get a 3900x or 3950x.. otherwise leave comments to the big boys who spend more money on their pcs for max performance

How often Intel-boys change their mantra LOL :) Now a 12-thread CPU is a joke for them, while just recently they praised 4-core CPUs as a gift from Heavens. And, answering your claim, no - 3900X won't get as hot as 10900K, even though it has more cores and threads. So another lie from another Intel-boy.

Links not allowed, you are welcome to check reviews comparing 3900X and 9900K in the same test.
Posted by MWN
 - May 14, 2020, 04:40:50
I am not a AMD fanboy, but AMD is doing well for the moment and should be happy about what they are giving to the consumer. I think their CPUs are pretty great right now AND for Intel using old node processes with limited core counts they too are doing good, not great, relative to their limitations. As for anyone bringing up Nvidia in this forum, dont complain about what you can't afford. If you need something and it costs you, oh well, buy it, but don't tell others not too if they can and will need it and enjoy it. It's comparative to knowing you want a powerful car but can't afford it so you bash the guy with a Lambo and tell him much his car sucks compared to your Prius because you can't afford it. If it is more powerful, power/price ratios dont matter, it is still a beast no matter what if it was to begin with. That is how I buy my pc parts, cost becomes illusive to me if I really need something and want it, because I know I'll be happy with it once I buy it.
Posted by Josiah South
 - May 13, 2020, 20:22:20
FPU load will do this to any processor on the market. Even a 2700X on a 240mm AIO will hit 90 under FPU stress.
Posted by Chriskaos669
 - May 13, 2020, 18:27:38
So in other words yes it's fast but hot af and useless unless you want to dump heaps of money just to keep it cool let alone the cost of the cpu being over the top I guess it's a good time to be with ryzen I'm no fan boy but come on Intel was king for so long and they release this and expect people to want it VS the ryzen chip that might be a bit behind but not by much but we can at least use a air cooler on and not have thermal throttling issues
Posted by WhiteTree
 - May 13, 2020, 17:04:17
Will never buy Intel again
Posted by Levi
 - May 13, 2020, 16:26:49
Quote from: AnonUser on May 13, 2020, 01:29:52
Yes, AMD chips run cooler...because they are ful 1Ghz slower. Frequency has ALWAYS had a bigger impact on thermals than core count. Go run that AMD CPU at 5.3Ghz. IF you can get it there it will require liquid nitrogen .

What a pity that even +1GHz faster doesn't translate to "actually faster". Yet it heats up more. :)
Posted by Jeff Hunter
 - May 13, 2020, 15:34:15
Crazy tdp to deal with because Intel couldn't keep up with IPC improvements so they just hit the wall in terms of voltage. AMD got lucky Intel fucked up their new node shrinks and we are all better for it. Can you imagine having to buy another 4 core mainstream processor cause Intel had no competition. Around the FX  series 6 and 8 core chips should have been coming around. As for who needs this single thread king(barely) winner? I would for ArmA, DCS World and Xplane. All three basically require the single fastest core. Too bad the heat price and anti consumerism will drive me to a 4000 series chip later this year. Then I just need to see how outrageous Nvidia prices new 3k series versus what apparently might be something competitive from  AMD. I've gone from a 2500k with 1080ti to a Ryzen7 and likely an upgraded one if ipc and overclock can be 15 to 20% and then even a red GPU. It's been a while since I've been all red with an athlon and a radeon. Competition is grand. Get your s*** together Nvidia and hope someone doesn't  come flying out with reasonably priced cards in the future.
Posted by Andrew H
 - May 13, 2020, 14:01:26
I think when it comes to single core performance, benchmarking it against a Ryzen 9 3900X would be closer because it's got 100mhz over the 3950X.
And there's Precision Boost Overdrive, which is disabled by default. I'm pretty sure the gap can narrow.
I just don't find CPU temperatures over 75°C to be "safe" even if modern silicon can handle it, but I'm just old fashioned. I got my 2700X under a 360mm clc.
Posted by Sjm
 - May 13, 2020, 08:47:33
3600 is like holding onto an uncooked potato, I'm sure it doesnt even get hott, how about post something when you get a 3900x or 3950x.. otherwise leave comments to the big boys who spend more money on their pcs for max performance