Third-Gen Threadripper Lands: AMD Threadripper 3970X & 3960X Review

[pit1209]

Gamers play certain games. They don't play every game. Generalizing isn't productive. My main game is Battlefield, so if CPU A is 20fps faster for roughly the same price as CPU B, guess what CPU I'm gonna care about? CPU matters far more at 1080p, so AMD doesn't have the advantage there, other than a cheap price and hoping their higher core count will sway the noobs looking for a new gaming platform.

For ~80% of consumers, Intel is faster for what they do on a computer. If I had to buy a gaming CPU right now to play at 1080p, and I do play at 1080p/144Hz, I'd settle for a 9600K, but I'd want a 9700K. The main roadblocks are my countries' weak dollar, and I'm not completely satisfied with BFV to justify a full platform upgrade yet.

80%? I really doubt any of that and any serious gamer won't be playing at 1080p unless for competitive FPS games where any CPU can give 200+ fps. You say BF but on Techspot it was shown how a 3700x can give 150+ fps @ 1080p ultra, yes less than the 160+ a 9900k can give you but at that level that's objectively irrelevant. It has been proven time and again that Intel only has at best a 5~10% advantage at 1080p and basically none at higher resolution.

You should be ashamed about being such a fanboy that you cannot even see facts thrown in front of your eyes, competition is what we need and what we have at last received thanks to AMD and let's hope Intel can answer with something better than what they have gave us the last 5 years.

 

[hahahanoobs]

That's BS.

Intel has higher 1-2 core and all core boost, higher/equal ST performance, more optimization from the OS to browsers to adobe. Not everything is MT'd. Not even close.

 

[hahahanoobs]

80%? I really doubt any of that and any serious gamer won't be playing at 1080p unless for competitive FPS games where any CPU can give 200+ fps. You say BF but on Techspot it was shown how a 3700x can give 150+ fps @ 1080p ultra, yes less than the 160+ a 9900k can give you but at that level that's objectively irrelevant. It has been proven time and again that Intel only has at best a 5~10% advantage at 1080p and basically none at higher resolution.

You should be ashamed about being such a fanboy that you cannot even see facts thrown in front of your eyes, competition is what we need and what we have at last received thanks to AMD and let's hope Intel can answer with something better than what they have gave us the last 5 years.

-Ryzen is 'good enough' for gaming.
-Overall performance is damn near 80%. I'll bet money on it.
-A 9600K performs as well or better than the entire Ryzen 3000 series.
-There are titles where Ryzen TANKS in performance. Total War for example. GTA V another.
-1080p is most popular resolution by a mile, and what happens after that is left to the GPU.


Look at this chart. Now look where the 9600K is. Now imagine it overclocked. Beyond boost of course. You've seen those numbers right? 9600K at 5GHz in gaming? It's incredible I tell ya. Now imagine where the 3600 would be if it was included (why is it not included TS?). That's a difference a lot of gamers are going to care about. Now look how close all the Ryzen 3000 chips perform. Now look at the spread between Intel 9th gen chips. That's how you segment your chips. With AMD, you're paying more for cores that don't make the chip any better compared to your other chips for gaming. Idle cores. Not doing anything if you buy AMD's "flagship". What a waste.

 

[Boshum]

Intel has higher 1-2 core and all core boost, higher/equal ST performance, more optimization from the OS to browsers to adobe. Not everything is MT'd. Not even close.

Still BS. No one needs a 20% improvement in microsecond reaction time to a menu click in a word processor (or browser, or OS). Never mind that these benchmarks are always done with nothing else running on the computer.

 

[pit1209]

-Ryzen is 'good enough' for gaming.
-Overall performance is damn near 80%. I'll bet money on it.
-A 9600K performs as well or better than the entire Ryzen 3000 series.
-There are titles where Ryzen TANKS in performance. Total War for example. GTA V another.
-1080p is most popular resolution by a mile, and what happens after that is left to the GPU.


Look at this chart. Now look where the 9600K is. Now imagine it overclocked. Beyond boost of course. You've seen those numbers right? 9600K at 5GHz in gaming? It's incredible I tell ya. Now imagine where the 3600 would be if it was included (why is it not included TS?). That's a difference a lot of gamers are going to care about. Now look how close all the Ryzen 3000 chips perform. Now look at the spread between Intel 9th gen chips. That's how you segment your chips. With AMD, you're paying more for cores that don't make the chip any better compared to your other chips for gaming. Idle cores. Not doing anything if you buy AMD's "flagship". What a waste.

View attachment 85929

Looks like your comprehension and math are a little bit lost, let me enlighten you.

This is what Techspot concluded on Ryzen and gaming:
" ...Moreover under realistic gaming conditions there’s almost no chance you’d be able to tell the difference between the 9900K, 3900X or 3700X, as the difference at 1440p with an RTX 2080 Ti was remarkably small. "
" ...The 3900X was 8% slower than the 9900K on average at 1080p, so AMD’s halved the deficit to Intel in gaming. Then as we’ve found before with Ryzen, for almost anything else the 3900X buries the 9900K, while the 3700X delivers comparable performance. "

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review

It's finally time to review AMD's new 3rd-gen Ryzen processors. The Ryzen 9 3900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a massive 64MB L3 cache. It costs...

www.techspot.com

The 3600x has no competition, it demolish any other CPU at it's price point, there is no reason whatsoever to buy any i5 or i7 right now. OCing any i5 is just a waste of money and time, buying an aftermarket cooler and just to get extremely high consumption for what? 5 fps? better get a more powerful GPU and a higher resolution monitor instead, that's a difference a gamer will care about.

This is about IPC on a test comparing against a 9900k all @4Ghz
"Testing single core performance sees a 13% performance uplift for 3rd-gen Ryzen parts over the 2700X. They were also 9% faster than the 9900K, so pretty good stuff from these new processors. "

4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K

Expanding upon all the testing we performed in our day-one 3rd-gen Ryzen coverage, today we'll be running a clock-for-clock comparison benchmark. IPC can be a good indicator...

www.techspot.com

You are criticizing AMD because gaming performance between CPUs is nearly the same? You should get out of the basement sometimes, gaming is not all a PC can do specially not at 1080p.

You know what is a waste? Buying a CPU on a dead platform like the one Intel offers right now, where you buy a motherboard to be replaced in 6 months instead of the 4 years of support you receive with Ryzen and PCIe 4.0. Did you buy a 1600? you can get a 4900x in the same socket next year. Multi-threading is the future there's no discussion on that, probably you were one of the people buying 4 cores till kingdom come shouting how that was "enough" for gaming all these years. ?

 

[hahahanoobs]

Still BS. No one needs a 20% improvement in microsecond reaction time to a menu click in a word processor (or browser, or OS). Never mind that these benchmarks are always done with nothing else running on the computer.

It's obvious Intel would have he best optimization, has the highest clock speeds and ST performance. Prove me wrong.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Looks like your comprehension and math are a little bit lost, let me enlighten you.

This is what Techspot concluded on Ryzen and gaming:
" ...Moreover under realistic gaming conditions there’s almost no chance you’d be able to tell the difference between the 9900K, 3900X or 3700X, as the difference at 1440p with an RTX 2080 Ti was remarkably small. "
" ...The 3900X was 8% slower than the 9900K on average at 1080p, so AMD’s halved the deficit to Intel in gaming. Then as we’ve found before with Ryzen, for almost anything else the 3900X buries the 9900K, while the 3700X delivers comparable performance. "

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review

It's finally time to review AMD's new 3rd-gen Ryzen processors. The Ryzen 9 3900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a massive 64MB L3 cache. It costs...

www.techspot.com

The 3600x has no competition, it demolish any other CPU at it's price point, there is no reason whatsoever to buy any i5 or i7 right now. OCing any i5 is just a waste of money and time, buying an aftermarket cooler and just to get extremely high consumption for what? 5 fps? better get a more powerful GPU and a higher resolution monitor instead, that's a difference a gamer will care about.

This is about IPC on a test comparing against a 9900k all @4Ghz
"Testing single core performance sees a 13% performance uplift for 3rd-gen Ryzen parts over the 2700X. They were also 9% faster than the 9900K, so pretty good stuff from these new processors. "

4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K

Expanding upon all the testing we performed in our day-one 3rd-gen Ryzen coverage, today we'll be running a clock-for-clock comparison benchmark. IPC can be a good indicator...

www.techspot.com

You are criticizing AMD because gaming performance between CPUs is nearly the same? You should get out of the basement sometimes, gaming is not all a PC can do specially not at 1080p.

You know what is a waste? Buying a CPU on a dead platform like the one Intel offers right now, where you buy a motherboard to be replaced in 6 months instead of the 4 years of support you receive with Ryzen and PCIe 4.0. Did you buy a 1600? you can get a 4900x in the same socket next year. Multi-threading is the future there's no discussion on that, probably you were one of the people buying 4 cores till kingdom come shouting how that was "enough" for gaming all these years. ?

Faster OVERALL average across many games. Cool. Gamers don't play every game.

 

[Boshum]

It's obvious Intel would have he best optimization, has the highest clock speeds and ST performance. Prove me wrong.

No one cares about word processor performance that's already perfectly smooth. I don't need to prove that, it's obvious.

 

[mailpup]

Enough personal arguments. Please continue through PM. Thank you.