AMD introduces 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X CPU, two Navi Radeon RX 5700 GPUs at E3 2019

[Evernessince]

I think AMD is doing very well right now. But let's forget about prices for a second.

So...on one side, we got one with more cores and manufactured at 7nm.

And on the other side....we got one with less cores and manufactured at 14+++nm.

Not trying to create an argument, but is this a fair comparison?

No because the games cannot utilize the additional threads. The 9900K already has 16 threads which maxes out almost every game thread count wise. Manufacturing node is a variable that needs to be controlled when cross comparing competing products.

Mind you both of these products are the same price. Unless there is something that would give the reader an unfair view of a certain performance metric, any node or core advantage is completely fair game.

 

[LogiGaming]

Lol, damage control? From what I saw the 3900x had no problems keeping up with the 9900k in high FPS gaming and in 1440p gaming. They match single core performance and destroy in multicore performance and destroy in price/performance. The ryzen CPUs are excellent performers

As for the Video cards, yes they are not blowing away the Nivida cards but they are going to push the prices down and worse for Nvidia, they are going into both new consoles and Google Stadia. That is a very very big deal. Nvidia has owned the gaming world for so long that they get a baseline performance boost simply from developers tweaking to see the best performance for most of their users (who just happen to be nvidia users). But with the next gen consoles all going AMD this will be changing and the baseline for developers to be working on will all be AMD hardware. That will be paying dividends in 2021 and 2022.

It was behind on Overwatch and GTA V, by a considerable margin, while keeping up on other games. So it didn´t rekt Intel like I was expecting (I should say, how I wished, not truly expect).

Also they shown really old engines and I wanted to see Frostbite in action, Saber engine from QC, Tarkov and Blackout, 4 really heavy engines that stress every CPU. This was my disapointement.

Simply saying "AMD had no problems keeping up with 9900k in high FPS gaming" is not entirely truth, becuase it still lagged on some titles shown, and we now need to know what will happen once independent reviewers test other games.

3 months ago if you asked me, I was expecting AMD 7nm to completly make Intel irrelevant. Thus the disapointment.

 

[Joray K Joseph]

Free market has already spoken.

That's why Nvidia is at the top.

nVidia is at the top because they made backdoor deals to have games optimized for their hardware. The consumer buys nVidia products because of this. With the new waves of consoles all using AMD, developers will have no choice but to optimize for AMD. This will transfer over to the desktop market.

AMD is probably two years away from dethroning nVidia and they did it honestly. There is no better business model than simply doing good business and it's paying off for AMD.

I dont think most people understand what Nvidia did to get to that top spot, along with intel. They cheated amd out of the market with backdoor dealings and such

 

[144hzGamer]

The majority of gamers are console gamers. It's not even by a small amount. Developers are going to have to optimize for AMD hardware on the new consoles, that will transfer over to the PC segment. AMD also has the raw compute performance numbers at their price point, it's only because nVidia has shady business practices in gaming that AMD can't wear the crown.

As you are a capitalist then you understand that the market is driven buy people looking to get the most for their money

Consoles are fully AMD since 2013.

 

[LogiGaming]

I dont think most people understand what Nvidia did to get to that top spot, along with intel. They cheated amd out of the market with backdoor dealings and such

True. Intel and Nvidia cheat.

Their first cheat was when AMD didn´t have a relevant CPU to buy for almost a decade and way behind Intel on performance, power, everything. That cheat made me buy Intel all this time.

Nvidia cheat was releasing GPUs that have no competition on the market both performance and power consumption wise. I wanted the performance. So that cheat made me buy Nvidia all this time too.

But wait, AMD/Ati cheats too. When they released the first DX11 cards like the HD5870 in 2010 with amazing power consumption and price, and being the best GPU in that time. That cheat made me buy AMD.

And when AMD launched their first dual core CPU back in the 2000s, that cheat made me buy AMD aswell.


Keep believing in conspiracy theories if you want. Not my cup of tea.

 

[stevae]

I was heavily interested on the 3900x 12c/24t to use only 1 PC for streaming instead of 2. But I´m not willing to give up on performance on my 240hz monitor/multiplayer shooters. Plus AMD is so superior to Intel right now node/litology wise, that I was expecting them to completly Obliterate Intel performance, or at least be exactly as good.

Don't believe one word of this. Your previous comments tell a very different story.

 

[stevae]

Well you can go ahead and be disappointed because you are in a fraction of a fraction of a percent of gamers. For the rest of us, this means it's likely Intel will have to respond with price cuts that benefit us all. Further, if you had been following this at all you'd already have an idea of performance numbers and know that the expected performance is actually HIGHER than previously predicted.

Also, they do beat Intel significantly in workloads other than gaming and this now makes it look they are going to be competitive with Intel in the server segment.

AMD is going to have a large impact on the industry with these products and the fact you are disappointed is completely irrelevant

I've learned a while back, NOT to use logic and facts with him, logigamer, as it just irritates and confuses him. He just doesn't get it at all. these games are alllllllll written to be optimized for Intel chips, because AMD's resurgence is still new. So with titles optimized for Intel's chips, AMD is still beating them on several of them, and within a frame or two on the rest. Imagine with AMD's cpu's and gpu's now showing the devs that they can not only compete, but win, how many devs will start coding for them. Lastly, he is missing the biggest point of all. It's sad to base such an important buying decision on JUST games. There are thousands of things a computer can do, which are ten times more beneficial than just games. I get how popular gaming is, but for anyone who actually uses their computers, and don't JUST game on them, the AMD chips absolutely DESTROY the Intel chips.
I liked your post. Good points all the way around.

 

[144hzGamer]

Very very disapointed.

1- It´s 2019, AMD is on 7nm and all they can do is a GPU with 225w TDP competing with a RTX 2070, and launching for 500€ on Europe, same price as 2070.

2- 3800x can´t even beat i7 9700k on a light engine like Overwatch and they shown comparasions on Black ops 3 (really? a game from 2015 that no one plays) and Rocket League. I wasn´t expecting AMD to be any slow on those light engines at all. I wanted to see Frostbite Battlefield benchmarks, Black Ops 4 Blackout, Quake Champions or Escape from Tarkov. Games that actually stress the CPU a lot.

3- I can see that it still won´t beat an intel cpu on high refresh gaming.

Guess I will keep my 9700k 5ghz because I won´t be "upgrading" for something with more threads but have less performance on what matters to me.

Was expecting way more from the 7nm. Now will wait for independent reviews but as Steve Burke froM GN said, AMD and Intel always pick the benchmarks that favour them, so don´t expect miracles when we see the whole picture on many different games.

Also curious to see wether dual channel memory can bottleneck the 16 core CPU or not. Steve said it will for sure in certain scenarios. Let´s wait and see.

Same old same old. Blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,,,,blah... Lol. No matter what the results were, you were going to say the same old crap you've been saying. You're certifiable. This hardware could have cured cancer, and you'd still find a reason to complain, and try to belittle it. Pathetic. Have fun with your antiquated hardware. Most people will be smart enough to enjoy a much better gaming environment on cutting edge tech. Didn't expect you to get it.

Same for you, glorifying AMD products on every thread lately. I remember you very well from the old zen2 thread. Only fanboying left and right. Mad because your beloved amd still couldnt do it in gaming aye?

 

[Adi6293]

Really, you'll probably just need to wait for all the real benchmarks next month... but aside from that, if you have a current gen Intel processor, why would you think you'd need to switch and act disappointed about this? The performance isn't going to be that drastically different anyway. Just like every generation of Intel processor since Sandy Bridge, only tiny incremental gains. I guess the main difference between AMD and Intel would be price, but that probably doesn't matter as much to you.

I was heavily interested on the 3900x 12c/24t to use only 1 PC for streaming instead of 2. But I´m not willing to give up on performance on my 240hz monitor/multiplayer shooters. Plus AMD is so superior to Intel right now node/litology wise, that I was expecting them to completly Obliterate Intel performance, or at least be exactly as good.

Why do you even game at 240Hz that so stupid....

 

[LogiGaming]

I've learned a while back, NOT to use logic and facts with him, logigamer, as it just irritates and confuses him. He just doesn't get it at all. these games are alllllllll written to be optimized for Intel chips, because AMD's resurgence is still new. So with titles optimized for Intel's chips, AMD is still beating them on several of them, and within a frame or two on the rest. Imagine with AMD's cpu's and gpu's now showing the devs that they can not only compete, but win, how many devs will start coding for them. Lastly, he is missing the biggest point of all. It's sad to base such an important buying decision on JUST games. There are thousands of things a computer can do, which are ten times more beneficial than just games. I get how popular gaming is, but for anyone who actually uses their computers, and don't JUST game on them, the AMD chips absolutely DESTROY the Intel chips.
I liked your post. Good points all the way around.

Already told you, if you depend on multi threaded tasks as your income, if you make a living from it, don´t bother with mainstream stuff, go after HEDT. If you are on a budget and want good multi threaded performance, go grab a 1700x for 90€ instead of a 400€ Ryzen 3800x. That argument to me is silly. Mainstream CPUs are mostly used for entertainment. Otherwise they wouldn´t market them as "the best gaming CPU" , "elite 1080p gaming CPU", etc etc.

 

[LogiGaming]

Why do you even game at 240Hz that so stupid....

What?... No comments. Because I really don´t know what to say. Can I just ask, why do we even game? it´s a similar question

 

[stevae]

I totally agree with you.

AMD has fallen behind and I don't see them catching up. Nvidia's product is more expensive, but at least they are putting up the performance to match the cost.

A cost BTW that very few really need to incur unless they want bleeding edge performance.

In the real world, cost is almost everything to all but a tiny percentage of people.
AMD has pulled ahead, not fallen behind. AMD has cpu's AND gpu's. Who else has that? And both are now extremely competitive, at a fraction of the cost. Where do you get your logic??? And you shot down your own statement in the end.

 

[144hzGamer]

Why do you even game at 240Hz that so stupid....

Why do you even game at 4k?

Why do you even game at 120hz?

Why do you even game on a console?

Why do you even game with a gaming mouse?

Why do you even game with mechanical keyboards?

Why do you even game on a laptop?

Is cool to have options and experiences. Not understanding that "is so stupid"

This website is full of mad fanboys, all mad because amd still couldnt beat intel in games, so this is all dodging, aaaalllll of it. They try the biggest possible excuses, so funny ahahah

 

[stevae]

No one cares about mainstream CPUs performance on workstations and multithreaded workloads, if you make a living from It. If you do, you should look at HEDT, not mainstream, because with HEDT you can make money faster. So that argument is irrelevant.

Most of the mainstream CPUs are sold for Gaming/Entertainment. Not for professionals where each minute equals money.

You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying! Most people don't even know what HEDT is. They buy mainstream machines, and use them to do plenty of things, OTHER than gaming. You just live in a bubble, and have no clue what's happening with the "real" world. You probably think that the gaming world IS the real world. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[grumblguts]

Looks like I will be getting some cool new features that actually matters.
im so glad AMD kept their distance from nvidia top end,
they didnt need to they could of easily built a bigger gpu with much more stream processors but there is no money in it for them.
Even if AMD was twice as fast and half the price people who buy nvidia hardware will just wait it out until nvidia bring out a new GPU.
It isnt AMD thats holding back development its the nvidia user.
What can AMD do, Nothing,,, nothing they do is good enough for some people.
Happy ray tracing is DOA its truly a pointless process when traditional methods are good enough.
I was hoping AMD quit the gaming market so the nvidia prices would sky rocket.

 

[LogiGaming]

You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying! Most people don't even know what HEDT is. They buy mainstream machines, and use them to do plenty of things, OTHER than gaming. You just live in a bubble, and have no clue what's happening with the "real" world. You probably think that the gaming world IS the real world. It wouldn't surprise me.

Yes I am sure people that make money from editing videos and rendering 3d, do not look for hardware that can save them time and bring a higher income every month. Absolutely right. Just like miners didn´t look out of the best GPUs for the best income. /s

 

[stevae]

True. Intel and Nvidia cheat.

Smartest thing I've EVER seen you write.

 

[stevae]

I literally explained every single detail on why I got disapointed. If those facts I mentioned weren´t a reality (egg: AMD crushing Intel on every possible scenario including gaming), I wouldn´t say that. And if you see me posting a lot on this website by this time you would know I was excited about the 3900x because I want to use 1 PC only for streaming + gaming instead of gaming pc + streaming PC. I ketp repeating this a lot around here.

You prefered the "pathetic" route, once again. It starts to be difficult to participate on these forums/website. People gets angry for no reason, I wasn´t offensive, I wrote an opinion and point of view. If you are angry because AMD still can´t deliver a product that surprasses Intel on a certain scenario, that´s not my fault. And you should never call someone pathetic because he doesn´t find certain brand offer to be the right one for him.

There's NO anger in my responses. None. Actually I was laughing as I wrote it, because I knew from the other article that you'd say something just like that. If you truly wanted "one" machine to game and stream on, then 3900x is it. There wasn't a single game where the 9900k beat it, really. On the close games, they were neck and neck, with NO discernible difference. On 0ther games the 3900x beat the 9900k badly. So IF you truly did want one machine to do it all, you would be happy about this. That's why I called bs on you. Because it appears you just wanted to invent a reason to complain about AMD, and belittle what is a great accomplishment to the other 99%.

 

[LogiGaming]

There's NO anger in my responses. None. Actually I was laughing as I wrote it, because I knew from the other article that you'd say something just like that. If you truly wanted "one" machine to game and stream on, then 3900x is it. There wasn't a single game where the 9900k beat it, really. On the close games, they were neck and neck, with NO discernible difference. On 0ther games the 3900x beat the 9900k badly. So IF you truly did want one machine to do it all, you would be happy about this. That's why I called bs on you. Because it appears you just wanted to invent a reason to complain about AMD, and belittle what is a great accomplishment to the other 99%.

That´s while streaming at the same time. Did you read what I said? I wanted a 1 PC only BUT at purely gaming 3900x still doesn´t beat Intel. It beats Intel at gaming + streaming. But that´s with already less performance than using Intel only for games.

For example:

Battlefield V with 9700k = 220fps
Battlefield V with 9700k + streaming x264 = 120fps (8c/8t completly wrecked by game + Obs)

Battlefield V with 3900x = 160fps
Battlefield V with 3900x + streaming x264 = 160fps (12 cores 24 threads, streaming do not even affect the game performance)

See what I mean? Altho 3900x completly wrecks Intel chip while streaming, it still is not as good as using the Intel chip for gaming only, thus the 1 Gaming PC + 1 Streaming PC approach still delivers more performance. And this is what I use and I would only switch to 3900x IF it could have as much fps as Intel. Becuase on that case I would still have the same performance I do right now, plus I wouldn´t need a secondary system to handle the streaming. This is what I kept saying on every AMD article on this website, not my fault you didn´t see it.

 

[yRaz]

Irrelevant. I wanted only a 1 PC setup for streaming + playing at the same time. 3900x would be it, if it was as good as Intel in gaming (without streaming). Yes it is better than 9900k while gaming + streaming, but it isn´t better than Intel while gaming only, it seems. I have dual PC setup and I´m not willing to lose frames.

But fair enough, let´s wait for 7th July, but considering 3800x lost heavily on GTA V to 9700, for example, I can´t see AMd beating Intel in high refresh gaming scenarios. That was my disapointment.

So having one PC for streaming is not important to you?

 

[stevae]

Yes I am sure people that make money from editing videos and rendering 3d, do not look for hardware that can save them time and bring a higher income every month. Absolutely right. Just like miners didn't look out of the best GPUs for the best income. /s

Constipated thinking, with such a shallow mindset. People use their computers to run CAD software, do scientific calculations, run simulators and all sorts of other interesting things, that need power and multitasking. You must be very young, as your scope seems extremely limited.

 

[yRaz]

Constipated thinking, with such a shallow mindset. People use their computers to run CAD software, do scientific calculations, run simulators and all sorts of other interesting things, that need power and multitasking. You must be very young, as your scope seems extremely limited.

AMD gpus were the best for mining and their CPUs are the best for CAD software. Futile to explain that to him....

 

[stevae]

That´s while streaming at the same time. Did you read what I said? I wanted a 1 PC only BUT at purely gaming 3900x still doesn´t beat Intel. It beats Intel at gaming + streaming. But that´s with already less performance than using Intel only for games.

For example:

Battlefield V with 9700k = 220fps
Battlefield V with 9700k + streaming x264 = 120fps (8c/8t completly wrecked by game + Obs)

Battlefield V with 3900x = 160fps
Battlefield V with 3900x + streaming x264 = 160fps (12 cores 24 threads, streaming do not even affect the game performance)

See what I mean? Altho 3900x completly wrecks Intel chip while streaming, it still is not as good as using the Intel chip for gaming only, thus the 1 Gaming PC + 1 Streaming PC approach still delivers more performance. And this is what I use and I would only switch to 3900x IF it could have as much fps as Intel. Becuase on that case I would still have the same performance I do right now, plus I wouldn´t need a secondary system to handle the streaming. This is what I kept saying on every AMD article on this website, not my fault you didn´t see it.

No, I don't see what you mean, because I just went back through all of this, and I don't see anywhere that 9900k beat the 3900x by 60fps in any game. NOWHERE! So please point it out, specifically. Because looking at it, what I saw was that they were neck and neck in most games, and each slightly ahead of the other in a few other games. But nowhere do I see a blowout like you're reporting.

 

[LogiGaming]

Constipated thinking, with such a shallow mindset. People use their computers to run CAD software, do scientific calculations, run simulators and all sorts of other interesting things, that need power and multitasking. You must be very young, as your scope seems extremely limited.

Ok, so we go back to the beggining. If you depend so much on that why not get a ThreadRipper? or Epyc? Why stick to a mainstream offer that will make you lose way more time and I suppose money?

 

[LogiGaming]

No, I don't see what you mean, because I just went back through all of this, and I don't see anywhere that 9900k beat the 3900x by 60fps in any game. NOWHERE! So please point it out, specifically. Because looking at it, what I saw was that they were neck and neck in most games, and each slightly ahead of the other in a few other games. But nowhere do I see a blowout like you're reporting.

What´s the part of "example" that you didn´t understand? You seen the same graphs as me right? So you seen AMD lagging behind Intel on Overwatch and GTA V right? Wich are 2 outdated engines, specially Overwatch one is very light. If AMD can´t even equal Intel on Overwatch engine can it on Frostbite or Blackout? Why didn´t AMD also shown Frostbite benches, Tarkov, Blackout or other more demanding engines? Why did they stick to Rocket League, Black ops 3 (lol, from 2015, wich had 200fps even on a 3770k), etc?

The fact that I seen it getting worse results on Overwatch and GTA V made me dissapointed, because from that point I knew AMD still can´t keep up with Intel at high frames on some games. Even if it can do it on other games. Plus I said "let´s still wait for 7th July" for independent reviewers. Steve Burke from GN also said that AMD cherry picked benchs and that 9700k/9900k most likely will stay at top for High Refresh. This is why I am disapointed and I don´t know how to explain it better.

There is no indication that AMD finally can equal Intel across every game or even beat them on most of them. The current indicator is that it can´t. Wich doesn´t make AMD 3000 bad products, but for my use case I am disapointed. They fit your use case? Nice! Go for it.