The Ryzen 9 3950X looks to bridge the gap between mainstream and high-end desktop platforms and is the most expensive mainstream platform CPU we've seen in a long time. This puts AMD in the position to command a price premium for desktop computing. But is their new 16-core/32-thread monster worth the asking price?
For what purpose? If it's for low-rez high-refresh gaming, I don't think AMD will catch Intel even at 5GHz as inter-CCX latency is simply too high. Buy Intel for that use case. For all other uses, AMD at 4.5 to 4.6 GHz matches Intel core-for-core thanks to higher IPC and offers up to twice the cores on a consumer platform. It's a win if you can use more cores. If you need fewer, then save a bunch of money with a 3600 though that silicon only gets you 4.3 to 4.4GHz.
The only review I've seen so far with the 9960x is the Linus Tech Tips one, and they apparently had to get one sourced from Pugent Systems as Intel wouldn't send them one for the direct comparison.
Hi, don’t expect these benchmarks here. The software you are referring to is very specialized for a person to know how and what to benchmark. But as you can guess maya will render faster with all that threads , but I think avid is not so well threaded software.
So you're saying after 4.3Ghz,, it's just a synthetic benchmark race and everything's equal? I've heard that at that point, it's all on the video card. My point is that with each additional set of cores, thermals won't allow faster clocks and not all cores will even hit the max rated speed (limited to one or a few pairs and that includes Intel). So by limiting the amount of cores, then thermals should allow for higher clocks. It's already been shown that gaming software prefers higher clocks to multiple cores.
Actually my point about gaming (high refresh rate mostly) was that even at 5GHz I'll bet AMD will not match Intel. The ring bus beats Infinity Fabric for latency and games also want low latency. AMD may need 5.5 GHz (good luck with that) as 5.1 to 5.2 is pretty common for 9700K and 9900K.
Even for gaming, I'd still get the AMD chip since it's at the start of its lifespan, where the Intel chips are at the very end of theirs. MOST of the games showed small differences of only a few frames, although a couple of them were 10-20 more because Intel has been tweaking and tweaking and tweaking this SAME processor for what seems to be forever and a day. Where the AMD chip is brand new, and hasn't been optimized at all yet. Also, several of those games are written and optimized specifically for the Intel chips. But these AMD chips blow the Intel chips away in almost every other aspect of computing. So why would anyone think it's a good idea to buy an old, almost antiquated chip, when it's ONLY feat is a few frames better in a few games????? And once you get over 100-125fps, you can NOT actually see any difference in the actual game with a difference between 10-20fps. So people still buying the Intel chips are basically paying for a few benchmark numbers...
It is called devotion. And I could have asked the same of all AMD's followers for ten years. I've been waiting for Intel 10nm since Sandy Bridge. I'm even willing to wait through a couple bad years for Intel to get it. All the sh!t talk about Intel during AMD's not so great years has built even greater devotion for Intel. Now that AMD has bragging rights, that bridge has been burned from all the years AMD followers had no ground to stand on. I will not be supporting AMD.
Your mostly correct, but however I would like to mention a few things:
That price will be more like 500-600$ from this month.
Here we go again. It was not illegal until after the judge ruled it to be illegal. Unless you can provide proof Intel disregarded the judges ruling. What Intel did was not illegal at the time of the offense.
