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

stevae

TS Booster
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.
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?
LOLOL. Triggered much? No, as MOST of us remember it, YOU were the one being an Intel fanboy, on an AMD article. Lol. And you don't even get it. You and logigaming were the ONLY Intel guys, and everybody else was AMD. So you seem to have a hard time with reality and facts. And for the record, I had nothing to be mad about. The article was about how well AMD was doing, and how Intel was in trouble. AMD has TAKEN huge chunks of the server space, the mainstream space and the console space. They also took the contract for building a Supercomputer right out of Intel's hands. So it seems you are the only one trigger around here. And as I have said, gaming is the least of my uses for my computers. I'm an adult, not a child. Games stopped being sooooo important to me in my latter teens. Some people need games, to escape a horrible reality. You seem like you could be in that niche.
 

stevae

TS Booster
So you are telling me that an Intel CPU can´t do all that stuff aswell? Only AMD cpu can both game and do multi threaded stuff? And why should everyone prioritize multi threaded work instead of gaming like you? Why can´t someone prioritize performance in games to multi threaded productivity? Is not like Intel can´t do well on Renders/enconding aswell, isn´t it? See, that´s your narrow mind, not mine. Because you still don´t get that I was talking about my case scenario. You imply that everyone needs to have the same perspective as you so no one should buy Intel because it is superior on High refresh gaming.

What I was telling you is that if you are so concerned about how much time certain enconding or render takes, because it is really important for you, then you go HEDT, not a mainstream CPU.
Well, what I find extremely interesting is that while a few frames less in gaming and you are willing to give up having one machine to stream and game like it's life and death, YET you know how pathetically behind Intel is at multitasking and you're okay with that? Lol. That's rich. And soooo inconsistent. You see, you have it backwards. It's a huge population around the planet of people who multitask on their computers, and only a small population by comparison, of people who put gaming as their ONLY priority. You're in the minority. So it's not me who is thinking narrowly.
 

Squid Surprise

TS Evangelist
Because I can walk and chew gum at the same time. You see, the problem with all of your arguments is that you're pigeonholed. All of your eggs are in one basket so to speak. But I do a myriad of things. And all of them are important to me. So a gaming machine allows me the most freedom to be powerful in a number of different applications. What I'm working on this month, could be completely different than what I'm working on in four months. So these machines are what I want and need. And it's not all about making money. Running simulators allows me to stay trained and sharp as a pilot, when I don't have the time or extra money to train for real. Things like that are also very important to me.
So you are telling me that an Intel CPU can´t do all that stuff aswell? Only AMD cpu can both game and do multi threaded stuff? And why should everyone prioritize multi threaded work instead of gaming like you? Why can´t someone prioritize performance in games to multi threaded productivity? Is not like Intel can´t do well on Renders/enconding aswell, isn´t it? See, that´s your narrow mind, not mine. Because you still don´t get that I was talking about my case scenario. You imply that everyone needs to have the same perspective as you so no one should buy Intel because it is superior on High refresh gaming.

What I was telling you is that if you are so concerned about how much time certain enconding or render takes, because it is really important for you, then you go HEDT, not a mainstream CPU.
Well, the point is... Intel CAN'T do multi-threaded stuff... at least, not nearly as well as the AMD CPUs can... The ones that can cost more than $2,000 - and they don't game so well...

Most "high end" gamers have chosen Intel because AMD CPUs haven't performed as well in gaming... but these benchmarks seem to show that now they do...

Of course, these are AMD cherry-picked benchmarks.... once real ones come out, we'll see where their gaming really stands... But since the Ryzen will almost certainly destroy Intel in multi-threaded performance (they have since Ryzen debuted), if they're at least close in gaming performance, Ryzen is the clear winner.

The equivalent Ryzen will cost less than Intel, and perform better in everything except some games - and for almost everyone, the limiting factor in gaming performance is the GPU, not the CPU anyways...

As for the GPU side... that's a lot murkier. First off, those saying "now that AMD is going to be in all of the future consoles"... remember, AMD is ALREADY INSIDE the current consoles!! They're still getting whooped by Nvidia. There isn't much profit in those bulk sales, and designing for PC is still different enough than designing for console that most will still design for Nvidia first - and they control a staggering percentage of the high-end GPU market.

If this card really outperforms the 2070 and beats it in price (I'll believe that when I see it), all Nvidia has to do is release a 2070Ti or some such, and cut the price of the 2070... They still have no answer for the 2080, let alone the 2080Ti or *gasp* RTX Titan.
 

treetops

TS Evangelist
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.
A 9900k gets around 151 fps at 1080p with a 2080 ti. Unless you turn down the settings or resolution no CPU currently exists that can give you 240 fps on Battlefield V.

It seems the 2700x is 15% slower on Battlefield 4 when compared to the 9900k. Your example shows a 30% or so decrease in the 3900x compared to the 9700k.... If anything it will outperform the 9700k. You really think the 3900x would struggle to be 15% faster then a 2700x?
 

144hzGamer

TS Addict
A 9900k gets around 151 fps at 1080p with a 2080 ti. Unless you turn down the settings or resolution no CPU currently exists that can give you 240 fps on Battlefield V.

It seems the 2700x is 15% slower on Battlefield 4 when compared to the 9900k. Your example shows a 30% or so decrease in the 3900x compared to the 9700k.... If anything it will outperform the 9700k. You really think the 3900x would struggle to be 15% faster then a 2700x?
Gpu limited test and ofc online competitive players turn down settings to low and lower res scales even, so you get more fps. I said this a lot on here, my 2600 at 4,2 cant even lock bf V at 130fps, my gpu isnt the question, is 50% 60% usage .intel does get 200 to 200fps on the same situation. Shroud, unph4zed, lirik, they have Intel and I check their fps count, always high.
 

stevae

TS Booster
Well, the point is... Intel CAN'T do multi-threaded stuff... at least, not nearly as well as the AMD CPUs can... The ones that can cost more than $2,000 - and they don't game so well...

Most "high end" gamers have chosen Intel because AMD CPUs haven't performed as well in gaming... but these benchmarks seem to show that now they do...

Of course, these are AMD cherry-picked benchmarks.... once real ones come out, we'll see where their gaming really stands... But since the Ryzen will almost certainly destroy Intel in multi-threaded performance (they have since Ryzen debuted), if they're at least close in gaming performance, Ryzen is the clear winner.

The equivalent Ryzen will cost less than Intel, and perform better in everything except some games - and for almost everyone, the limiting factor in gaming performance is the GPU, not the CPU anyways...

As for the GPU side... that's a lot murkier. First off, those saying "now that AMD is going to be in all of the future consoles"... remember, AMD is ALREADY INSIDE the current consoles!! They're still getting whooped by Nvidia. There isn't much profit in those bulk sales, and designing for PC is still different enough than designing for console that most will still design for Nvidia first - and they control a staggering percentage of the high-end GPU market.

If this card really outperforms the 2070 and beats it in price (I'll believe that when I see it), all Nvidia has to do is release a 2070Ti or some such, and cut the price of the 2070... They still have no answer for the 2080, let alone the 2080Ti or *gasp* RTX Titan.
Nice post. And I agree completely. But the thing that is catching my eye is that bit by bit AMD is catching Nvidia. True they are not there yet. But they are clearly gaining on them. And when manufacturers and consumers alike, can get close to the same performance, at a much lower price point, they are going to take the better price point. When there's a significant difference, this is a bit murkier to be sure. But when it's almost even, things will get interesting. And from what I have read, Navi 10 isn't expected to be the nvidia killer, only the calling card to put a shiver into them. Navi 20 is supposed to be where nvidia needs to scramble. They are still in Hybrid mode right now. But when Navi 20 comes out, they will be full-on Rdna.
 

Squid Surprise

TS Evangelist
Nice post. And I agree completely. But the thing that is catching my eye is that bit by bit AMD is catching Nvidia. True they are not there yet. But they are clearly gaining on them. And when manufacturers and consumers alike, can get close to the same performance, at a much lower price point, they are going to take the better price point. When there's a significant difference, this is a bit murkier to be sure. But when it's almost even, things will get interesting. And from what I have read, Navi 10 isn't expected to be the nvidia killer, only the calling card to put a shiver into them. Navi 20 is supposed to be where nvidia needs to scramble. They are still in Hybrid mode right now. But when Navi 20 comes out, they will be full-on Rdna.
Well, Nvidia is also progressing - I suspect the reason their advances seem so slow compared to AMD is simply because they aren't being pushed... Hopefully, Ryzen makes AMD enough money so that they can better compete on the GPU front.

It's ridiculous that Nvidia can get away with selling the 2080Ti for $1300.... and even more insane that they're selling the Titan for $2500... I'm hoping that this is "pride before the fall", and that Nvidia ends up like Intel, caught with their pants down... not totally convinced of it yet though...
 

yRaz

Nigerian Prince
Well, Nvidia is also progressing - I suspect the reason their advances seem so slow compared to AMD is simply because they aren't being pushed... Hopefully, Ryzen makes AMD enough money so that they can better compete on the GPU front.

It's ridiculous that Nvidia can get away with selling the 2080Ti for $1300.... and even more insane that they're selling the Titan for $2500... I'm hoping that this is "pride before the fall", and that Nvidia ends up like Intel, caught with their pants down... not totally convinced of it yet though...
nVidia isn't pushing because they are focusing on making the gaming industry move in the direction of ray tracing and further positioning developers into adopting their property technology
 

krizby

TS Booster
Wow so Pascal finally has some competition, welcome to 2016. Radeon 5700 performs the same at gtx 1080 at the same 180W TDP. Would make more sense if 5700XT sell at 400usd and 5700 at 300usd but I guess AMD is pretty tight on profit margin already.
 

yeeeeman

TS Maniac
AMD needs to scrap all the things Raja did on the graphics side, employ some nvidia/Apple graphics arhitects and push for performance/watt and max absolute performance. Or, if they wanna earn this round they need to put the 5700 at 299$ and 5700XT at 399$ or in that range.
 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
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.
Let's not throw numbers around just yet. BF V numbers can vary widely depending on what map and the zone you test. These kind of tests should be left to Steve after which we can properly see what is going on and which works best and in what scenarios

As far as I remember the 9900K got around 150FPS in the multiplayer testing done by techspot while the 2700X got around 130FPS using an RTX 2080 Ti at 1080p.

I found the article: https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/
 
  • Like
Reactions: RageofThunder3

Vulcanproject

TS Evangelist
The Ryzen processors are fantastic news. The performance difference between them and Coffee Lake looks to be pretty much academic at this point.

Navi on the other hand for me is a disappointment. They have a big process advantage in hand over Nvidia, realistically they should be able to deliver something higher end and faster. I totally get it, mid range is where AMD see the best chance of picking a fight and winning it.

At least it lowers prices (a little) in the segment immediately above the RTX2060. Nvidia already have a response, the super series cards which by the looks of it are just faster memory overclocked versions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Dosahka

TS Addict
Gpu limited test and ofc online competitive players turn down settings to low and lower res scales even, so you get more fps. I said this a lot on here, my 2600 at 4,2 cant even lock bf V at 130fps, my gpu isnt the question, is 50% 60% usage .intel does get 200 to 200fps on the same situation. Shroud, unph4zed, lirik, they have Intel and I check their fps count, always high.
I would like to mention that they are streaming from a 2nd computer, so FPS is not affected at all by streaming. Also rare streamers they do have two different internet connections too for both of their PC (gamer and streamer) to completely separate them.

In this case the argument is about: AMD can't beat Intel, well previously someone (@LogiGaming) mentioned that if you are streaming, FPS is not affected at all by that, which even if it's lower with Intel, but stable af.
I won't argue that Intel i7-i9 is better for pure gaming, that's why Intel pushing it so hard. AMD simply best overall, not to mention with their price/value.
Most of the gamers only see that "ohh I have 3/4 FPS with AMD" and they can't think about anything because most of them are not streaming, but pure gaming.
For gamers/streamers with one PC AMD is better than Intel, simply because FPS is not affected or the difference is so small you won't even notice it.
 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
The Ryzen processors are fantastic news. The performance difference between them and Coffee Lake looks to be pretty much academic at this point.

Navi on the other hand for me is a disappointment. They have a big process advantage in hand over Nvidia, realistically they should be able to deliver something higher end and faster. I totally get it, mid range is where AMD see the best chance of picking a fight and winning it.

At least it lowers prices (a little) in the segment immediately above the RTX2060. Nvidia already have a response, the super series cards which by the looks of it are just faster memory overclocked versions.
They can't win in everything now :D But competition is always good.

They just need to stay competitive on the GPU side while winning in the CPU side. That will allow them to slowly increase their R&D budget.

People forget that Nvidia and Intel have an R&D buget several times that of AMD. Intel's budget alone is 10x of what AMD spent in 2018 (1.4bil AMD vs 13.1 bil Intel - Nvidia spent 1.8bil on R&D). The fact that they can even make something worth buying is a miracle (even if it's with perf/$ and not the ultra high end stuff)
 

Matthew White

TS Rookie
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.
Err didn't AMD win the contracts for PS4 and XBOX as well, can't say that developers optimised for AMD over nVidia in the PC gaming space because of this, or did I miss something?
 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
Err didn't AMD win the contracts for PS4 and XBOX as well, can't say that developers optimised for AMD over nVidia in the PC gaming space because of this, or did I miss something?
At that time most PC engines didn't have AMD optimisations at all and didn't update for many years. Since them things have improved (with maybe a few exceptions) but a new generation should allow for a clean slate for most game engines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Badvok

TS Evangelist
Interesting to see all the fan arguments as usual here. The truth of the matter is that AMD is only aiming for the consumer market at the moment because the only criteria on which AMD wins over Intel is cost (and that is initial outlay not TCO). Intel still beats AMD by a long way in terms of power per watt, you need to remember that you should compare like with like, that means comparing AMD's multi-die offering with Intel's multi-die (I.e. multi-xeon) offering. The only potential threat to Intel in the data centre is ARM, not AMD.
If you want a professional kick-*** workstation you will go with a multiple Intel Xeon rig rather than AMD.
This also holds true for the GPU, professional offerings from nvidia out perform AMD's in everything other than price.
It's the same for high-end gaming rigs, if you want the best performance you'll go Intel + nvidia, if you have a limited budget you'll probably go for AMD.
 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
Interesting to see all the fan arguments as usual here. The truth of the matter is that AMD is only aiming for the consumer market at the moment because the only criteria on which AMD wins over Intel is cost (and that is initial outlay not TCO). Intel still beats AMD by a long way in terms of power per watt, you need to remember that you should compare like with like, that means comparing AMD's multi-die offering with Intel's multi-die (I.e. multi-xeon) offering. The only potential threat to Intel in the data centre is ARM, not AMD.
If you want a professional kick-*** workstation you will go with a multiple Intel Xeon rig rather than AMD.
This also holds true for the GPU, professional offerings from nvidia out perform AMD's in everything other than price.
It's the same for high-end gaming rigs, if you want the best performance you'll go Intel + nvidia, if you have a limited budget you'll probably go for AMD.
power per watt - you may be confusing Intel with Nvidia. Currently Intel is not doing well at all in terms of power per watt, especially with their high end stuff. And Ryzen 3 will probably improve AMD's position in this category by quite a wide margin. Late Q2 2020 or even Q1 2021 might be when Intel will launch desktop parts on 7/10nm (around the time AMD will have Zen3 ready).

But I've never really had concerns about how much high end stuff consumes unless they make problems in terms of cooling and power delivery (kinda like how the 9900k had a lot of problems on some launch boards because the VRMs could not handle the full load - mostly because of how boost times were configured). It mostly just amounts to chump change per year (a coffee cup or two).
 

godrilla

TS Booster
16 core gaming cpu? I would love to see how the 16 core cpu is better for gaming than lets say the 3800x and 3900x currently. It seems like 8 cores is the minimum for some level of future proofing for upcoming next gen console ports. Then goes overclocking capability. The best overclocker from 8 cores and above would probably be the most attractive for high end pc gaming. Finally there is the gpu needed to run all these games making anything current still gpu bound. Unfortunately the only option here is still over $1000. Does anyone know of any monitors with at least 1440p and 240hz in the pipeline? We can force cpu bottlenecks at 1080p 240hz but that technology is been around for a while now as well.
 

VitalyT

Russ-Puss
Introducing a new video card today without HDMI 2.1 is bizarre and a very bad move. I don't know how on earth they claim to support 8K HDR @ 60Hz without it. Double DP? That's lame.
 

CookiesMeLike

TS Rookie
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.
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.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/04/23/radeon-vs-geforce-which-brand-is-truly-the-1-gaming-platform/#5248e9516a95
 

Adi6293

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

I just think its a total waste of cash, there is no way you can feel the difference past 165Hz? And on top of that you most likely play at low settings need to OC your hardware to the max and still play at 1080p in 2019 what joy do you get out of it? I get it everyone is different and we all have our preferences but personally I think 2560x1440 at 144Hz to 165Hz its where I would stop, rest is just marketing and placebo effect :)