Ryzen 9 3900X shortages see chips appear on eBay with inflated prices

midian182

TechSpot Editor
Staff member

We praised the 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X in our review, giving the $499 CPU a score of 90. But its popularity has led to shortages from virtually every retailer— Amazon, Best Buy, Fry’s Electronics, and Newegg are all sold out. It’s even listed as out of stock on AMD’s own website.

As is usually the case with hard-to-find products, consumers willing to pay extra have the option of eBay. The auction site has several Ryzen 9 3900X chips available, which currently range from $600 up to one seller’s optimistic $999 ‘Buy it now’ listing. Based on recently sold CPUs, it seems most people are willing to pay around $650 to $680 for one—nearly $200 more than the MSRP.

Even the next model down in AMD’s new processor lineup—the Ryzen 7 3800X—is proving difficult to find, with many of the same retailers also listing that CPU as out of stock. There are some sites taking pre-orders for both chips, with shipping dates (where given) ranging from 1-2 months. Those living near a Micro Center are in luck, as both the Ryzen 7 3800X and Ryzen 9 3900X are available for in-store pickup.

In a statement to PC World, AMD said: “This is a historic launch for AMD with eight CPU and GPU products for gamers launching simultaneously.”

“We are providing significant product volumes to our retail and e-tail partners. We’re excited to see the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Radeon 5700 Series and Ryzen 3000 series desktop processors. AMD is working quickly to restock e-tail and retail partners globally following significant demand.”

Processor shortages are far from a new phenomenon. Intel had similar issues of its own last year, which contributed to a decline in the PC market. Hopefully, AMD will be able to get its CPUs back in stock quickly.

Permalink to story.

 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
Here's hoping this helps AMD invest in r&d and remain competative
It's not like AMD is the one selling the chips at that price (kinda what happened with the 9900K when it launched), but it does help that they are selling what they make fast. :D

Why would people pay double for it? O_o
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Nobina

TS Evangelist
How come R5 3600 is still available then? It's a great bang for buck CPU, I thought something like this would happen to it before other, more expensive CPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Irata

TS Booster
But... but... the equivalent Intel Processor has 6% more frames at lower resolutions on most games! How could this happen?
Because multi-core does not matter, at least according to UserBenchmarks ?

Note: They just changed their CPU speed index and multi-core > quad core only counts for 2% now.
 

amstech

IT Overlord
Not like these judging a new cpu based only on Gaming performance..
No one is judging this chip based solely on gaming performance, unless your building a PC just to game.
If so, Intel has $350 CPU's that are faster/better for a gaming build.
And zip it with the 'if its a noticeable difference' and that nonsense. Most (if not all) gamers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 3700X and 9700K when gaming, but the 9700K is still 10-20% faster in games.
I am in no way trying to knock AMD or diminish the amazing performance of these 3000 series CPU's, I want to be perfectly clear. They are stellar chips and AMD should be very proud.
 
Last edited:

Maxiking

TS Booster
It is because the yield on 7nms is not that high and 3800x, 3900x are supposed to be made of more quality silicon.

Reviewers didn't get 3800x, seems like they used everything for 3900x and even those samples are substandard and can't reach the promised boost frequencies en masse.

Demand isn't really that high, it is just retailers just got a few pieces of 3900x or none at all when comes to 3800x.

In my country, not a single retailer got 3800x, they haven't even gotten any kind of confirmation when they arrive. 3900x is a similar story, no one has them in stock and only one retailer had a few pieces after the launch.
 
Last edited:

Daniele 00

TS Enthusiast
Not like these judging a new cpu based only on Gaming performance..
No one is judging this chip based solely on gaming performance, unless your building a PC just to game.
If so, Intel has $350 CPU's that are faster/better for a gaming build.
And zip it with the 'if its a noticeable difference' and that nonsense. Most (if not all) gamers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 3700X and 9700K when gaming, but the 9700K is still 10-20% faster in games.
I am in no way trying to knock AMD or diminish the amazing performance of these 3000 series CPU's, I want to be perfectly clear. They are amazing chips and AMD should be very proud.
The concept of "building a pc just for gaming" is wrong. (except maybe if you'r a pc retailer and you wish to get a profit over children playing videogame in front of pc. Similiar fashion to these pro-gamer doing tournaments)
A pc is not just for gaming. It never was ment to be just for gaming, and never will be.
I disagree with the idea to choose a Cpu to get a 10% (for example) gaming performance boost. After all, if you'r gamer, you can still be a pro gamer also without that 10% extra performance. There are plenty of example of pro player not having the top tier Gaming Rig.

Need a new Cpu? Benchmark are out in here. The Ryzen is out of the class in comparison with the others. There is little to think about. Gaming or not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Irata

TS Booster
It seems that the 3900x is selling really well - looking at two large German online Retailers (Alternate and Mindfactory), it is in third place of their best selling list (After 3700x and 3600).

That said, while anything < 3800x is available, it and the 3900x are on back order (but at least the 3900x was available for a while after launch).

Not sure if there isn't enough silicon to go around or if AMD did not expect so much interest in a > €/$ 500 CPU from them.

Either way, I feel it's safest to wait two or three months until AMD have sorted their Agesa beta fest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

amstech

IT Overlord
A pc is not just for gaming. It never was ment to be just for gaming.
This is a pretty silly thing to say, you sound new to computing.
The PC gaming industry is a massive industry, with a large majority of laptops and desktops, including entire line-ups like the Dell XPS, HP Omen, Asus ROG and Alienware made specifically for the large market that is PC gaming.
I would say that, most folks don't give a crap about file zipping and video encoding performance. All of todays processors do those tasks pretty well.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
But... but... the equivalent Intel Processor has 6% more frames at lower resolutions on most games! How could this happen?
Because multi-core does not matter, at least according to UserBenchmarks ?

Note: They just changed their CPU speed index and multi-core > quad core only counts for 2% now.
Yep, as of today userbenchmark reduced the weight of multi-core to 2% from 10%. Pretty hilarious given that even in games alone having more then 4 cores accounts for more then 2% of the performance, let alone other application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Not like these judging a new cpu based only on Gaming performance..
No one is judging this chip based solely on gaming performance, unless your building a PC just to game.
If so, Intel has $350 CPU's that are faster/better for a gaming build.
And zip it with the 'if its a noticeable difference' and that nonsense. Most (if not all) gamers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 3700X and 9700K when gaming, but the 9700K is still 10-20% faster in games.
I am in no way trying to knock AMD or diminish the amazing performance of these 3000 series CPU's, I want to be perfectly clear. They are amazing chips and AMD should be very proud.
The concept of "building a pc just for gaming" is wrong. (except maybe if you'r a pc retailer and you wish to get a profit over children playing videogame in front of pc. Similiar fashion to these pro-gamer doing tournaments)
A pc is not just for gaming. It never was ment to be just for gaming, and never will be.
I disagree with the idea to choose a Cpu to get a 10% (for example) gaming performance boost. After all, if you'r gamer, you can still be a pro gamer also without that 10% extra performance. There are plenty of example of pro player not having the top tier Gaming Rig.

Need a new Cpu? Benchmark are out in here. The Ryzen is out of the class in comparison with the others. There is little to think about. Gaming or not.
Being marketed as the "Fastest Gaming CPU" will a always sell more chips than "Fastest Productivity CPU."

Gaming is something we've been doing for decades on EVERY device we could play games on. Productivity is a much smaller market and required beefier hardware up until now with Ryzen, but that doesn't mean consumers are going to change how they use a computer because of Ryzen. Ryzen has more cores and excell in one category, MT apps, and is just okay everywhere else. That's a smaller market if you missed it.

Low to mid range parts and the performance they offer will always sell more than mid to high end parts and performance they offer.

Ryzens multicore performance in the MT apps optimized for it, is useless to the majority of consumers. Anyone can just install a game and play it, because we've been doing it for so long. You can't do the same with Blender or Adobe Premier.

You have to also trust that a lot of consumers don't game, or use their computer for work, which makes justification for 12+ thread CPU's even less desirable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ludak021

Ludak021

TS Member
But... but... the equivalent Intel Processor has 6% more frames at lower resolutions on most games! How could this happen?
Because multi-core does not matter, at least according to UserBenchmarks ?

Note: They just changed their CPU speed index and multi-core > quad core only counts for 2% now.
Yep, as of today userbenchmark reduced the weight of multi-core to 2% from 10%. Pretty hilarious given that even in games alone having more then 4 cores accounts for more then 2% of the performance, let alone other application.
Is that why disabling cores on 16 core CPUs yields more performance in games? AMD having a game mode in drivers? No? Silly me.

edit: I know it's not CPUs fault but bad coding, still, it is what it is.
 

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
Is that why disabling cores on 16 core CPUs yields more performance in games? AMD having a game mode in drivers? No? Silly me.

edit: I know it's not CPUs fault but bad coding, still, it is what it is.

The 16 core CPU you are referring to is a threadripper CPU, which is designed for professional work. You taking a last generation HEDT AMD CPU that isn't even designed for gaming and implying that because one family of HEDT processors, which aren't even made for gaming, all CPUs with more then 4 cores are not good for gaming. Your statement takes a single fringe example and attempts to apply it to the whole. It's misleading and incorrect.

In addition, your comment does not even address what we were discussing. We we talking about the change in performance metrics on userbenchmark to be more stinted towards single core. Do I need to point out that the 9350KF is now faster then Intel's 9980XE?


Please go ahead and try to justify how Intel's bottom of the barrel i3's are now all of a sudden better then their top of the line HEDT and Consumer CPU lines. I'll wait.

Indeed silly you for not realizing we are past the point where games can utilize more then 8 threads, let alone a single core.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1803-are-quad-cores-dead/

Quad core performance I can understand but single core? What percentage do you suppose of AAA titles released in 2018 / 2019 are / will run only on a single core? You'd be lucky if it isn't 0%. According to userbenchmark, multi-core is anything over 4 cores. In that case, as clearly demonstrated by the linked techspot benchmarks, modern games decisively and without question benefit from having more then four cores. The question shouldn't be "do games use more then four cores?", the answer is yes as proven. The question should be "why would userbenchmark change their metric contrary to the trends we are seeing in not only professional applications but games as well".
 

Ludak021

TS Member
I don't use usersbenchamrk. It was never accurate and it's scores are arbitrary at best. So I remove my self from that discussion (it's as off topic as any here). Disabling SMT on regular Ryzens, and disabling HT on intels can and does up the framerate in several cases. For gaming, 6 cores is plenty. 4 with HT (or 6 with 12 threads in AMD case) is enough for majority of the people. I for one am not going to pay extra 30~40%$ for extra 10% performance. Most people wont.
 

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
I don't use usersbenchamrk. It was never accurate and it's scores are arbitrary at best. So I remove my self from that discussion (it's as off topic as any here). Disabling SMT on regular Ryzens, and disabling HT on intels can and does up the framerate in several cases. For gaming, 6 cores is plenty. 4 with HT (or 6 with 12 threads in AMD case) is enough for majority of the people. I for one am not going to pay extra 30~40%$ for extra 10% performance. Most people wont.
This post is wrong on multiple accounts.

1. Disabling SMT / HT can reduce framerates in many games.
.

2. 6 core 6 thread or 4 core 8 thread is NOT enough already. I've already linked this once but I'll link it again since you didn't read. The minimum you want in games for optimal performance is 6 core 12 thread. Any less then that and you loose FPS and 1% lows.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1803-are-quad-cores-dead/. In this case it's not a matter of getting more FPS, it's a matter of how smooth the gameplay will be, which IMO is a more important metric.
 

Ludak021

TS Member
We might enjoy some reality while we are at it right?


PS. Are we looking at the same video? Hardware Unboxed shows you that SMT off is usually better. Even I didn't expect this much titles to benefit. :/
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
We might enjoy some reality while we are at it right?

"reality"?

:joy:

Let's see here

- Zero system configuration information. If they aren't confident enough to put this information into the video I have to assume they aren't confident in the repeatability of it. This information is basic and should always be provided so that others can emulate the same setup and they should get the same results. This alone disqualifies the results.

- There isn't a single graph or average in that video. In otherwords, completely useless when comparing to any real benchmark. The only thing you get from videos like that are random observations by watching the FPS counter but obviously this is a very flawed method. Preconceived bias will certainly sway people to pay attention to the higher numbers while other's who want the processor to do bad will mostly look for dips. Mere observations by biased subjects are not a reliable measure of performance.

- It's single run. This alone is again completely disqualifying. 3 runs is standard due to normal variance in any 1 run.

It's always amusing when someone thinks videos like these somehow defend their point, yet they break all the basic rules for even being considered valid.
 

Ludak021

TS Member
Yea, there is no pleasing you is there? It's your way or the highway. I choose the latter. Byeeee. :) Enjoy spending thousands on redundant stuff.

PS. They DID put system information. They just didn't please your Holiness with the location of it apparently. Even if it was in your face, you would find an error with the configuration. If they did do 3 runs, then you would demand 5, if they did 6, you would say that at least 10 is needed. You are just that type of person. No offense.

I am out of this convo. I have nothing to add really.
 

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
Yea, there is no pleasing you is there? It's your way or the highway. I choose the latter. Byeeee. :) Enjoy spending thousands on redundant stuff.

PS. They DID put system information. They just didn't please your Holiness with the location of it apparently. Even if it was in your face, you would find an error with the configuration. If they did do 3 runs, then you would demand 5, if they did 6, you would say that at least 10 is needed. You are just that type of person. No offense.

I am out of this convo. I have nothing to add really.
They buried the system information under the "show more" description button under the video. Nice catch though but the information should be in the video itself at the very start. It appears they are testing with a RTX 2080 when they should be using a 2080 Ti. A CPU benchmark that's GPU bound is worthless. Just another point that disqualifies it as any comparison between the processors shown.

The points I listed above have nothing to do with me, they are the basics of bench marking that TechSpot, AnandTech, Techpowerup, and every professional review outlet follows. If you think it's too much to ask for correctness in data, then don't present your links as if they are anywhere near the accuracy of a review. The link you submitted isn't worth used toilet paper when it comes to comparing numbers.
 

DCOCA

TS Rookie
Not like these judging a new cpu based only on Gaming performance..
No one is judging this chip based solely on gaming performance, unless your building a PC just to game.
If so, Intel has $350 CPU's that are faster/better for a gaming build.
And zip it with the 'if its a noticeable difference' and that nonsense. Most (if not all) gamers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 3700X and 9700K when gaming, but the 9700K is still 10-20% faster in games.
I am in no way trying to knock AMD or diminish the amazing performance of these 3000 series CPU's, I want to be perfectly clear. They are amazing chips and AMD should be very proud.
The concept of "building a pc just for gaming" is wrong. (except maybe if you'r a pc retailer and you wish to get a profit over children playing videogame in front of pc. Similiar fashion to these pro-gamer doing tournaments)
A pc is not just for gaming. It never was ment to be just for gaming, and never will be.
I disagree with the idea to choose a Cpu to get a 10% (for example) gaming performance boost. After all, if you'r gamer, you can still be a pro gamer also without that 10% extra performance. There are plenty of example of pro player not having the top tier Gaming Rig.

Need a new Cpu? Benchmark are out in here. The Ryzen is out of the class in comparison with the others. There is little to think about. Gaming or not.
Being marketed as the "Fastest Gaming CPU" will a always sell more chips than "Fastest Productivity CPU."

Gaming is something we've been doing for decades on EVERY device we could play games on. Productivity is a much smaller market and required beefier hardware up until now with Ryzen, but that doesn't mean consumers are going to change how they use a computer because of Ryzen. Ryzen has more cores and excell in one category, MT apps, and is just okay everywhere else. That's a smaller market if you missed it.

Low to mid range parts and the performance they offer will always sell more than mid to high end parts and performance they offer.

Ryzens multicore performance in the MT apps optimized for it, is useless to the majority of consumers. Anyone can just install a game and play it, because we've been doing it for so long. You can't do the same with Blender or Adobe Premier.

You have to also trust that a lot of consumers don't game, or use their computer for work, which makes justification for 12+ thread CPU's even less desirable.

Your wrong, productive is what people do first, then its gaming..